‘Intermittent & unpredictable’: Nuclear reactor fails during heatwave

[kristopher]

‘Intermittent & unpredictable’: Nuclear reactor fails during heatwave

By Paul Gipe on 2 July 2013

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of California’s major electric utilities, shut down its 1,122 MW Unit #1 at its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant last week just as the state prepared for a serious heat wave.

...

Chabot had previously analyzed the nuclear industry’s performance for Renewables International in Nuclear – how big is it?

Based on experience in France during the killer heat wave of 2003, Chabot has described nuclear as “intermittent and unpredictable” for its unscheduled outages when most needed. In contrast, he notes that renewable sources of energy are “variable and predictable”. That is, generation from wind and solar resources do vary, but they vary in a predictable manner. Chabot’s assessment turns on its head the oft-repeated charge that wind and solar energy are intermittent and, hence, unreliable.

During the 2003 heat wave in Europe, several French reactors had to be taken off line because the temperature of their cooling water reached regulatory limits. Similarly, during the brutal European cold spell in early 2012, several French reactors were again out of service when most needed. France, subsequently imported electricity from neighboring countries, including Germany, to make up the difference.

...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/intermittent-unpredictable-nuclear-reactor-fails-during-heatwave-28856


Nuclear – how big is it?
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/nuclear-how-big-is-it/150/537/61497/


.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. I am sure Cal. knows someone it can buy extra energy from in this heat crisis.

Enron may be gone, but there are others ready to take its place.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well now, that’s not completely fair. (Is it?)

Renewables are predictable, because known weather conditions lead to a loss (e.g. no wind means no electricity from wind turbines.) Detailed weather forecasting leads to the ability to predict these outages in advance.

The same is true for nuclear fission plants (e.g. heat waves lead to a loss of power generation.) Reasonably good weather forecasting should allow us to predict these outages as well.

[PamW]

10. Wind is NOT predictable!

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Wind is NOT predictable; it's stochastic.

The AVERAGE wind is predictable; but the wind at any given instant is NOT.

Unfortunately, what the power company needs to know is not an average, but an instantaneous value because that is what has to be matched to the instantaneous load.

Additionally, wind has very short timescale variations, which is UNLIKE the long timescale weather patterns. Anyone knows if you hold an anemometer up in the wind that the wind speed varies second to second. It's those very shot timescale variations that are unique to wind and other renewables; and unlike the long term heat wave variations that affect Rankine plants.

In fact, LLNL has recently modified the widely used load/supply projection program "hpc4energy" to both run on a massively parallel supercomputer like LLNL's Sequoia as well as adding stochastic algorithms for wind energy as detailed in the following article:

https://str.llnl.gov/june-2013/grosh

The wind forecast model was added for ISO New England which operates the electric grid for the New England states.

Experiments on the hpc4energy simulation code with a hypothetical "all wind" or "all renewable" electric grid shows that such an electric grid will NOT be stable. This is what the National Academy of Science concluded in several reports on electric energy supply going back over 2 decades. The NAS recommends that renewables be AT MOST 20% of the supply, so that the other 80% is composed of more reliable "dispatchable" power sources.

PamW

[kristopher]

16. Sure it is. How much advance notice did they have before Diablo shut down...

...for more than a week?

Repeating the falsehood about the NAS isn't going to convince anyone.

[PamW]

25. National Academy of Science and I stand for TRUTH

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:35 PM - Edit history (4)

kris,

I've ACCURATELY portrayed the position of the National Academy of Science. Of course, how would you know what the National Academy says; since every time I quote them; you tell me the report doesn't exist.

It really is an exercise in extreme foolishness for the anti-nukes to contend that nuclear power plants are not reliable enough. After all, the HISTORY is against them. We have been operating nuclear power plants for over 55 years.

It's true that nuclear power plants are not 100.000% reliable; because nothing made by Man is. However, these power plants have been a major part of our power system for over half a century. There are some service areas like the Commonwealth Edison service are of northern Illinois, and the French electric grid; BOTH of which derive greater than 85% of their power from nuclear power plants.

The electric power industry can COPE with the shutdown of a nuclear plant. It's not really any different from having to deal with the shutdown of a very large coal power plant. The electric power industry has ways of dealing with the unexpected outages of even major power plants. Such practices as having sufficient "spinning reserve" and other measures ensure that the grid stays up.

Again lets look at the HISTORY which the anti-nuke propagandists just love to ignore. There have been nuclear power plants that shutdown unexpectedly many, many times in the past half-century. Has that ever led to a failure of the electric grid? Has the nation's electric power grid dropped because a nuclear power plant shut down unexpectedly? NO; it NEVER happened.

Because kris and other anti-nukes lack the requisite knowledge of Physics and Electric Power Engineering; because they are NOT studied in those fields of knowledge; they can't be expected to understand why the procedures used by the electric power industry allow even large plants to shutdown unexpectedly without losing the whole grid. Without the requisite knowledge, it would be like asking a caveman why a Boeing 787 flies.

The problem of a large power plant going off line unexpectedly is a SOLVED PROBLEM. It was solved even before we had nuclear power plants when the electric power industry had, and still has; big coal and gas plants.

Renewables pose an entirely different type of problem. Most engineered systems from the electric grid to airliner flight, ... are possible only because of feedback loops; either intrinsic or engineered. The reason airliners are stable and don't go out of control due to a slight gust of wind is that they are aerodynamically stable. When the wind or some other force perturbs the airliner, the aerodynamics act to oppose the perturbation. Arrows shot from a bow are also aerodynamically stable; there's no electronic control system to make it stable. Like the airliner, it has intrinsic aerodynamic stability. The feedback system can also be engineered. Fighter jets like the US Air Force F-16 are actually aerodynamically unstable. However, these "fly by wire" systems have a computer controlled aerodynamics system to keep the plane stable. If one of these jets should lose all its computer control; it will go unstable and crash. The electric grid also has an "engineered" feedback circuit in each power plant that controls the all important throttle of the power plant in response to the feedback that the generator gets from the power line via Lenz's Law.

Without a stabilizing feedback system; the system will FAIL like the F-16 without its computers.

That brings us to the challenge posed by renewables. Renewables like solar and wind totally LACK a feedback system. Solar panels and the generators on wind turbines are NOT synched to the power line; so they don't get the Lenz's Law feedback. Additionally, solar and wind do NOT have throttles; they can't command Mother Nature to give them more power on demand. Renewables, if anything; add INSTABILITY to power systems.

The only reason we have been able to integrate renewables into our present power systems is that they are a minor part of the system. The needed stability is due to the OTHER power plants on the system; the hydro, the coal, the gas, and the nuclear. Those power systems have the feedback systems and the throttles and can compensate for the small instability that the renewables add because they are a small component of the power grid.

The problem comes when one starts vacuously speculating of having renewables being the majority component of the power grid. With renewables being the major source; the stabilizing "dispatchable" power generators would be the minority player; and hence are not enough of a stabilizing influence to overbalance the un-stabilizing nature of the majority renewables.

That's not just an unsolved problem but an UNSOLVABLE problem for renewables unless we have major energy storage systems; which we don't have. Because wind and solar power plants will NEVER be able to command Mother Nature; the renewable power sources alone are UNSTABLE in a grid.

Without storage technology, the National Academy of Science says that renewables can be AT MOST about 20% of our electric energy production. The other 80% has to come from "dispatchable" power sources or energy storage systems; or we will NOT have a stable power grid.

Because of their manifest ignorance of the Physics and Electric Power Engineering principles involved. the anti-nuke propagandists "think" that the instability problem with renewables is less of a problem than dealing with the unexpected shutdown of a major power plant. That's just WRONG. Their IGNORANCE makes them totally UNQUALIFIED to render such a judgment.

Again, don't we chastise the Republicans for NOT listening to the scientists and ignoring what the scientists say; just so they can pursue what they want? Don't we call them STUPID for doing that? If you want to call the Republicans stupid for not listening to the scientists; then you can't be a DAMN HYPOCRITE and deny what the scientists are saying about your favorite way to generate power.

What renewables need are a way to store energy on a scale that is massive enough. Sure, there are ways to store energy from batteries and flywheels; but we have to have energy storage on a massive enough scale. To give you a "gut feeling" for the magnitude of the problem; think about what it would take to store enough energy to replace a 1 Gw(e) coal or nuclear power plant for one day. ( A solar plant might be clouded over for more than a single day, and the wind might not be blowing for a few days, such as with the recent hot spell near the Altamont Pass wind farm ). Renewables might need enough storage for multiple days; but for the sake of argument; let's postulate a single day.

Suppose we want to supplant a SINGLE 1 Gw(e) coal or nuclear power plant. Not the whole grid; just a single plant. Suppose we need a single day's worth of storage. How much energy is that?

By definition, the 1 Gw(e) power plant operating for 1 day puts out 1 Gw-day of energy. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ) However, how much energy is one gigwatt-day.

We can use Wolfram's Alpha to give us that answer:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Convert+1+gigawatt+day+to+kilotons

and we see that 1 Gw-day is 20.65 kilotons or about the energy of the atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.

To supplant a single large power plant; you need to be able to store atomic bomb scale amounts of energy. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem. Too many of the pro-renewable crowd only do a qualitative solution to the problem by suggesting batteries or flywheels or whatever. The pro-renewable community has NEVER done the engineering or done a quantitative analysis for a storage system of the scale that is required.

Because the pro-renewable community has FAILED to solve the problem quantitatively; the "all renewable" electric grid is, for now; a NON-STARTER."

I'm happy to report that our new Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, who was a Professor of Physics for MIT; is fully cognizant of these limits, and is in full agreement with the National Academy of Science recommendations which kris says are either non-existent or wrong; depending on the day, the phase of the moon, or whatever.

Secretary Moniz has addressed the scientific enterprise he commands; and has stated that natural gas from fracking will be our "bridge" to the future; but that future will be renewables playing a bit part, and the heavy lifting being done by nuclear. The ill-considered folly of an "all renewable" electric power grid will NOT be pursued on his watch!

PamW

[dbackjon]

53. Tell that to the Central Iowa Utility my buddy works for

All of their wind turbines have been generating ZERO electricity this week.

No wind. Too hot.


They are having to use gas back-up at 100% of capacity.

[kristopher]

54. Here is a wind map showing current winds in (nearly) real time

http://hint.fm/wind/

As to them having to use gas back up, so what? The 2 question I have for you are 1) how much of the time are those plants idle instead of being fired up? That is a measure of carbon savings. And 2) what happens as more wind turbines are added around the country (look carefully at the map linked to above before answering)? Do we use increasing more or increasingly fewer fossil fuels?

Do are you aware of the undeveloped resource potential of small scale hydro? What about low temp geothermal? Biomass?

Let me know when you have any real evidence that renewables are not an adequate way to meet our energy needs.

[dbackjon]

55. So you are advocating putting millions of turbines

Killing millions of birds, bats, etc.

In the hope that enough will be turning at any given time to supply how much energy?

And what kind of transmission system are you putting in to shuttle all this electricity around?



I did give you REAL evidence. Turbines not turning. No Electricity.



Add more reliable nuclear plants, cut coal.

[kristopher]

56. You are doing with Uranium mining what coal does with coal mining

There is far less environmental damage with renewables than with coal or nuclear.

The final system for renewables - distributed generation - is far more reliable than any centralized grid can possibly be.

The cost electricity from a renewable grid is forecast to be comparable to what rates are now - according to the NAS, building nuclear (in any amount) does not help lower costs.

Renewables deploy MUCH faster than nuclear so we can transition away from carbon much more rapidly than if we try to rely on nuclear.

And, oh yeah, nuclear sucks because of the threat of proliferation if we try to use it globally, it has long term waste issues that are not economically resolved, and it has a major issue with long term safety if it is deployed on a scale that can be meaningful to climate change efforts.

Cost, safety, waste, proliferation.

[dbackjon]

57. Hmm - so the turbines appear magically?

No mined minerals make up any part of the turbine?

No steel?

[kristopher]

58. Do we mine for wind or sunshine?

Sure they have a footprint, but it is NOTHING compared to uranium mining.

[dbackjon]

59. Prove it

There is a hell of a footprint in both.


You are just too blinded by your irrational hatred of nuclear that you can't see reality.

[kristopher]

60. I don't have an irrational hatred of nuclear.

I have a preference for renewable sources based on years of academic study and analysis.

I do have a great deal of disdain for nuclear cheerleaders who, having no idea what they are talking about, spread false information.

This is a single paragraph abstract that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading.
You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[jpak]

31. Atmospheric physicists laugh at your contention

So do meteorologists.

And all-nuclear grid could not cut the mustard...

yup

[PamW]

38. BALONEY!!!

jpak,

You really "think" that meteorologists would laugh at my claim that wind speed is stochastic?

Meteorologists agree with Physicists that the atmosphere is a "chaotic" system; which means it is highly non-linear, and any small perturbation can have a large consequence. Ever hear of the "Butterfly Effect"? Because of that, we can not predict wind speed at a given instant in time; we can only characterize averages. That's why your meteorologist will give you a range of wind speeds; "Tomorrow winds will be 15 - 25 mph".

Of course, jpak's contention that an all nuclear grid couldn't cut the mustard is at variance with the facts and history. The electric grid of France as well as the electric grid of the Commonwealth Edison service area in northern Illinois are virtually all nuclear; and they run with no problems.

However, I'm glad that jpak has once again demonstrated to this forum that the capacity for deception by the renewables sycophants knows no bounds.

PamW

[jpak]

39. You are uninformed - European utilities use weather forecasts to price wind power output every day

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[PamW]

40. More MISUNDERSTANDING from the anti-nukes

jpak,

Yes - I know that they use those weather forecasts; but those forecasts give averages, or estimates.

jpak; you DO NOT UNDERSTAND what you need to keep an electric grid up. Since the wind turbines are not "synched" to the grid; they can't sense the load via Lenz's Law.

The information that the grid operator needs is "At exactly 2:15 PM; the wind speed for wind turbine #103 is exactly 28.37 mph"

THAT is the level of information that is required to match power / demand on the grid.

Once again, the statement of the problem went totally over your head and you just did NOT UNDERSTAND the problem.

Then in the typical anti-nuke fashion; you arrogantly "laugh"; when the source of the problem is YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING and complete failure to comprehend the technical questions.

However, please do keep it up; it does show the manifest problem that scientists have in providing the remedial education for the renewable sycophants.

PamW

[jpak]

41. What horseshit

[PamW]

42. I figured jpak was incapable of understanding; even if I explained it!!!

Fellow DUers ( excluding jpak );

If one desires to have an electric grid; one has to match energy supply to energy demand; instant by instant.

Suppose the sum total of the power demand on the grid; the rate at which the load is removing energy is 1 watt less than the sum total of the power of all the electrical generators on the grid. If this persisted for 1 second in time; the load on the grid would have received 1 Joule of energy more than the amount of energy that was provided by the sum total of all the generators. Therefore, the grid will have created 1 Joule of energy out of nothing. The Laws of Physics don't allow that.

If the producers produced 1 watt more than the load was demanding for 1 sec; the grid will have destroyed 1 Joule of energy and that is also forbidden by the Laws of Physics.

If the supply and demand are not matched; the Laws of Physics will force the electric grid to FAIL so that it won't violate physical laws.

So any electric grid has a way to match supply and demand exactly.

Coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro power plants have generators that are "synched" to the power line. Because of that; they can "feel" the load via a Law of Physics called Lenz's Law. As the load goes up; it becomes more difficult for the turbine to turn the generator, and the slowdown would cause the generator to go out of sync with the power line. The power plant has a feedback circuit that controls the all important throttle. The throttle is a steam valve in coal, gas and nuclear power plants; and a water valve in a hydro plant.

Wind turbines do not have their generators synced to the power line ( they are often DC generators ); so they can't feel the load via Lenz's Law. Even if they could; wind turbines have no throttles. You can't tell Mother Nature to make the wind blow faster.

To have ANY chance of running a totally wind power system; you would have to know the power Mother Nature is providing instant to instant.

You also need to know that ahead of time. However, as I point out above; you can't know that. Yes - there are wind forecasts; but they only give you averages. Those forecasts can't tell you exactly how much power Mother Nature is providing; and that power varies from instant to instant because the wind speed varies from instant to instant.

That's why no less than the National Academy of Science has said there are limits on what we can do with wind energy. Of course, both jpak and kristopher appear to be incapable of understanding the reports from the National Academy of Science, and the latter claims they don't exist.

Because the wind power sycophants like jpak and kristopher have ZERO technical acumen in electric power engineering; they dismiss and "laugh off" the science that limits them.

Of course, when you really go to build the systems they propose; they have to deal with Mother Nature, and you can't "laugh off" Mother Nature. She just won't let you do what you want to do.

For scientists, it appears amazing that there really are people that are incapable of understanding very basic science.

PamW

[jpak]

43. Wow - Germany regularly produces 40-50% of their power demand with wind and solar

Thankfully, they don't listen to pseudoscience kookery and pseudo-intellectual LaRouchian horseshit.

[PamW]

44. Still don't understand I see!!!

jpak,

The ONLY reason that they can do that is that they are linked in to a LARGER grid that has dispatchable power.

In effect; it's the nuclear power plants in France; which are interconnected with Germany; that provide the needed stability.

Why do you continue to demonstrate your TOTAL LACK of scientific acumen here?

One would "think" that you would do some research; go read the National Academy of Science reports.

But NO-O-O-O-O; the typical anti-nuke is so self-righteous that they "think" ( term used loosely ) that they have expertise in electric power engineering, when they have NEVER studied it at all.

Or have you studied electric power engineering at a University that you have failed to mention...

I thought NOT!!!

PamW

[jpak]

45. But I have invented a molten salt breeder reactor that will make me fabulously rich

and limited my ingestion of 125-I with iodized table salt.

yup

[PamW]

48. HA HA HA HA HA... now THAT is FUNNY!!!!

jpak,

You couldn't do that in your wildest dreams.

I could teach quantum mechanics and general relativity to my cat; before you'd ever learn reactor physics.

PamW

[jpak]

49. Yeah Dead Cat/Live Cat inabox and throw the cat in the air to see if it lands feet first

*yawn*

[dumbcat]

50. You really don't want to reduce yourself to ....

... conversing with some of the folks here (hint, hint). Stick with Kristopher, as at least he is worth refuting (kinda).

[PamW]

11. NOT really a loss of power generation

OKIsItJustMe,

Heat waves don't lead to a loss of power generation capability. We VOLUNTARILY scale back the output of Rankine steam cycle plants in order to lessen the environmental effects.

When the temperature of the heat sink goes up; the efficiency of the Rankine cycle goes down. The plants CAN maintain their output by INCREASING the heat output of the heat source, be it reactor, coal- or gas-boiler. However, the combination of the increased heat output and lower efficiency of the Rankine steam cycle means warmer discharge water to the environment.

If we didn't care about the environment, we could just keep running these Rankine plants at constant power and let the environment be damned. The heat wave doesn't force lower power generation capability. The heat wave forces greater environmental impact; to which we respond with lower power generation in order to minimize stress to the environment.

PamW

[quadrature]

3. wind is very predictable

wind.
When you need it the most.
in the summer and winter.
count on wind for Zero electricity.

[madokie]

5. Our wind here in northeast ok has been blowing in the 20s mph

pretty much all year this year.. Very few days do we only have a light breeze.

If I remember correct we get about 11 percent of our electricity from wind too.

[jpak]

47. Winter is the season of highest average wind speeds in the northern temperate zone

In summer, wind farms produce LOTS of electricity as well.

Summer sea breezes will allow Cape Wind to produce LOTS of electricity during hot summer days when AC demand is high...

http://www.capewind.org/news787.htm

Strong Sea Breeze at Cape Wind Site During Times of Highest Electric Demand
Monday, July 02, 2007
BOSTON, MA, July 2, 2007 – Cape Wind’s Scientific Data Tower has recorded strong winds on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound during each of the past ten record electric demand days in New England. These results are available in a new report published by Cape Wind today entitled “Comparison of Cape Wind Scientific Data Tower Wind Speed Data with ISO New England List of Top Ten Electric Demand Days”.

The report finds that Cape Wind would have produced an average of 321 megawatts when electric demand was at its peak during each of the past ten record-setting electric demand days as recorded by the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO-NE), the region’s electric grid manager. Nine of these record demand days have occurred on very hot afternoons of the summers of 2006 and 2005 and one occurred last week on June 27, 2007. Cape Wind’s production of 321 megawatts during these times of record electric demand represents 76% of Cape Wind’s maximum potential of 420 megawatts and is 76% greater than Cape Wind’s average expected output of 182 megawatts.

Cape Wind President Jim Gordon said, “By producing an average of 321 megawatts during these times of peak electricity demand, Cape Wind would have a meaningful impact on enhancing electric reliability, improving air quality, providing greater energy independence and lowering energy costs.”

Cape Wind’s Vice President of Engineering Len Fagan explained why Cape Wind’s production would be higher during these hot summer afternoons that set electricity demand records, “These tend to be the hottest summer days when the air over the land heats up faster than the air over the ocean, this creates a difference in air density and denser air over the ocean expands toward the land, this is called the sea breeze effect and you get it most during the afternoon when electric demand is highest.”

<more>

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!111

[madokie]

4. The idea of wind is sold to us as unpredictable where as nuclear is sold to us as base load

That is where the difference is. We expect wind to be intermittent. We're told that nuclear doesn't have that problem when in reality it sure does. I guess when it comes right down to it coal and gas is the most predictable of all, Geothermal too but we don't get much power from it.
The coal and the gas plants here use cooling towers for cooling which uses the evaporation principle which is the more evaporation the more cooling taking place.

[quadrature]

6. during the California electricity troubles ...

a few years ago, IIRC,

during the day,
wind-electricity was supplying at 10% of rating,
which was 1% of state need.

[madokie]

7. I'd like to see a cite for that

Just doing some reading on CA. wind farms and it makes me think you made that up out of whole cloth since the majority of them are located where the wind almost always blows no matter what, Altamont pass, Tehachapi pass and San Gorgonio Pass as well as smaller turbines along the coast

[PamW]

9. No energy from Altamont in heat wave

madokie,

My home is in Livermore, CA; I've said I work at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. My home is nearby.

I can also see the Altamont windfarm from my house. During the recent week-long heat wave; the wind turbines at Altamont were barely turning. That's what happens during these sweltering heat waves; a large high-pressure system parks over the Bay area; and without the pressure differential; there's no wind at Altamont.

One also has to be cognizant that the power from a wind turbine, by basic physics; goes as the 3rd power of the wind speed. So when the wind speed is small, the power is small-cubed, which means essentially non-existent.

There's nothing more "unreliable" about a nuclear plant than other baseload electric power plants; be they coal-fired or gas-fired. The main determinant as to when the plant has to shut down is the necessity for regular maintenance on the Rankine steam system which is common to coal, gas, and nuclear plants.

The refueling of the reactor overlaps the Rankine steam cycle maintenance. In fact, the reactor can actually stay online longer without refueling than can the Rankine steam cycle. During the maintenance shutdown, typically one-third of the reactor fuel is replaced. The reactor is NOT the "long pole in the tent"; the Rankine steam cycle is. In that regard, it's no different than any other baseload power plant. People who are familiar with baseload power plants know this and don't expect that they will be up 100% of the time.

In fact, the reactors used in the US Navy go for much longer periods without refueling. Typically a naval reactor is refueled once every TWENTY YEARS. In fact, the refueling of naval reactors is so infrequent, that they don't make provisions for refueling in the nuclear subs. A nuclear sub doesn't even have a hatch above the reactor for use in refueling. Why have a hatch, which could leak, when you only plan to use it once every twenty years. So when it is time to refuel a sub; they cut a hole in the hull above the reactor, and then weld a repair. After all the hull is made up of welded plates, so the repair is just as strong as the rest of the hull.

PamW

[jpak]

32. Wow - I thought you said you worked at Argonne

oh well...

[PamW]

33. I DID!! ( Past Tense )

jpak,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The word I used, which you correctly quote is "worked".

That word is the past tense. I worked ( past tense ) at Argonne, from 1980 to 1985, during the years in which the Integral Fast Reactor was designed.

However, since 1986; I have worked, and am still working; at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

So I now live in Livermore, in sight of the Altamont Pass wind farm.

The laughing figure is so appropriate. Those that have a difficult time understanding past tense are easily amused.

PamW

[truedelphi]

27. We also are in a situation where wind is in its infancy.

I live in an area where wind energy should be offered up and supported by PG & E with the same enthusiasm as the solar. Wind turbines are now small and fashionable in appearance. If your house is equipped with a model that sits on its roof, it doesn't look any different than an attic fan.

I really wish people would wake up and demand de-centralized, home owner, property owner owned an dcontrolled renewables, rather than having these massive solar farms and wind turbine farms. With these large installations, you still need a vast network of power lines to bring the energy to your neighborhood, and during a bad storm, those power lines often go down.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. It's a single point of failure.

The continuous uptime of reactors is quite good, actually, but outages, when they occur, tend to be 'serious business holy shit it's not coming back online for a while' type outages.

The high reliability/risk of accident of a reactor alone makes it harder to quickly bring back online after an outage, when one occurs, compared to gas/coal.

Fuck something up in a gas cycle plant, and burn a hole through the side of it; big deal. Do the same with a reactor, and you have a serious problem on your hands.

[PamW]

13. Most reactor outages are for Rankine cycle maintenance.

AtheistCrusader,

The vast majority of nuclear power plant outages occur on regular schedules every year, or year and a half; and are dictated by the need to do preventative maintenance on the Rankine steam plant, the turbines, generators....

While the Rankine steam plant is down for maintenance, about 1/3-rd of the fuel in the reactor is replaced, and that activity is overlapped with the maintenance of the turbine.

There's NOTHING that makes bringing the nuclear plant online any more difficult than a gas/coal-fired unit.

The reactor is simply a "boiler" as far as bringing it back online.

In extremely rare cases, some maintenance was done to the nuclear steam supply system, and extremely rarely it results in an extended shutdown. Such is the case with San Onofre. Southern California Edison contracted with Mitusbishi to make replacement steam generators that met the specs of the original steam generators made for San Onofre by Westinghouse. The Westinghouse steam generators performed for about 3 decades.

Unfortunately, it appears that Mitsubishi BOTCHED the job. The new steam generators have wear that is accelerated compared to what the original Westinghouse generators did. The new steam generators do NOT meet the same specs as the original Westinghouse steam generators. SCE contracted for steam generators that met the same specs as the Westinghouse steam generators so that SCE could employ the "like for like" option of the plant's operating license which allows a swap in of new equipment that meets the same already approved specs of old equipment. Mitsubishi didn't meet that spec.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Scheduled is fine. Unscheduled is bad.

I wasn't talking about scheduled maintenance. Things like tripped switchyards or loss of offsite power, things like that.

You can't always just restart a rector instantly, due to issues like reactor poisoning, unlike a coal plant.

[PamW]

19. Actually....

It is true that one can't restart a reactor immediately due to Xenon-135 poisoning of the core. However, Xenon-135 has a half-life of a little more than 9 hours; and the reactor is fine by the next day.

Coal power plants aren't immediately restartable either. One normally has to let the whole system cool down to avoid unwanted thermal stresses; and then bring the whole plant up slowly.

So the time scales for bringing reactors and large coal and gas plants back online are pretty similar; which is why the electric power industry accepted nuclear power plants so readily; they really aren't much different from the machines they were already dealing with.

As you state, most of the shutdowns that are experience by electric power plants are due to the complex Rankine steam cycle, which nuclear and fossil plants share in common.

So there's very little that is unique to nuclear plants; and the things that are unique are readily dealt with.

Unfortunately, there are a bunch of anti-nuke propagandists that like to make mountains out of those mole hills. I prefer that the readers of this forum get scientifically HONEST information upon which they can make informed opinions.

PamW

[PamW]

12. Not fair to say "FAIL"

kris,

It's not fair to say "FAIL". The Diablo Canyon reactors did NOT FAIL.

Diablo Canyon Unit 1 went down for a prescheduled outage. That outage which has been "on the books" for many months; just happened to coincide with a heat wave. But there was no "failure" of the reactor or power plant due to the heat wave.

Likewise, with the French plants. The French reactors didn't "fail". As I pointed out in another post of this thread, the reactors and power plants could have kept going. The regulatory limits are for the preservation of the environment. Those French power plants could have kept right on producing as much power as they always did; but to do so would mean hotter discharge water.

Such hotter discharge water is not unique to nuclear power plants. A coal-fired or gas-fired Rankine steam cycle plant would do the same.

The effect of the heat wave is NOT on the reactor; its effect is felt by the Rankine steam cycle plant that is attached, and those Rankine cycle plants attached to coal and gas boilers are affected the same way.

So, as always, you attempt to dishonestly portray a characteristic that pertains to all Rankine steam cycle plants; as being somehow unique to nuclear plants.

PamW

[kristopher]

15. It's both fair and accurate to say "fail"

You are quite a piece of work, PamGregGreenwhoeverthehellyouarethisweek.

The plant failed to provide the electricity it was being counted on to deliver. IT FAILED.

It isn't complicated and there is no attempts at spin or deception except those you are engaging in by, among other tall tales, saying that the NAS says we should limit renewables to 20%. They didn't.

Why haven't you been banned from this forum for the your dishonesty and overt right-wing shilling?

[PamW]

17. The readers of DU deserve the TRUTH!!

kris,

I know how you would rather ban or censor the people that tell the truth or ask tough questions. It's hard to be a good propagandist for a cause when there are those that just want to get the scientific truth out there.

You have a funny definition of "fail". Diablo Canyon didn't fail; there were no mechanical problems with the plant. The power plant could have operated through the heat wave if PGECorp had decided they wanted to.

The FACT of the matter ( which you have such a hard time dealing with ) is that Diablo Canyon Unit 1 was scheduled to go down at the time it did for maintenance, which all power plants do. PGECorp had already lined up the sources of replacement power to compensate for Unit 1 being offline. If they wanted to, they could have delayed the shutdown of Unit 1 to some other time; but there's no guarantee that there wouldn't be another heat wave and high demand for power at that time.

It's just a fact of life in the power business; any time you schedule a power plant to go offline for maintenance, there could be a heat wave or other cause for a high demand for power. You can't keep the power plants running forever without maintenance; they'll "break" some time unexpectedly, and that is more troublesome.

So PGECorp took down Diablo Canyon Unit 1 as they had scheduled MONTHS in advance. They arranged to provide replacement power from other sources. The heat wave is over as of today. There were no power shortages; nobody had rolling blackouts, nor were there rolling brownouts.

So the PG&E system tolerated a scheduled shutdown that had been in the works for MONTHS without disruption to the system. Nothing "failed".

If your definition of "failed" means the plant is down for whatever reason, even preplanned shutdows; then you've just made the word "failed" pretty useless. There is no power plant that doesn't have to be shutdown for maintenance; and that includes renewables.

The problem one has with unreliability is when it is unplanned. A power plant that shutsdown when you plan for it to shutdown really isn't much of a problem. PG&E knew about the Unit 1 shutdown MONTHS ago and planned for it.

The problem comes when a plant shuts down or varies its output when you do NOT plan for it. By shutting down Unit 1 now, at a time of PG&E's own choosing, when they can have other resources marshaled to take up the slack; there is no disruption to the system. By shutting down Unit 1 now, and doing preventative maintenance now at a time of PG&E's choosing; they are preventing an unexpected shutdown of the plant due to some component that is nearing the end of its service life breaking. If you shutdown the plant now; you replace those components that are nearing the end of their service life; and prevent them from breaking unexpectedly.

That's how you run a successful utility. No machine is immune from shutdowns; not even your precious renewables. The trick to running this complex of machines successfully is to do preventative maintenance so you only have expected shutdowns at times of your choosing so that you have replacement power all lined up. That is much more preferable to having a sudden unexpected shutdown when you aren't as ready.

I'm really getting annoyed at your vacuous claims that I am lying. You think I'm lying; then tell me why you think something I say is untrue, and I will explain why your are WRONG, as always. But these feeble, vacuous, generic claims that I am lying or shilling serve no useful purpose to the readers of the forum.

There's nothing "right wing" about insisting on scientific truth. The left wing only respects science when to do so serves its purpose, like with climate change. However, when it doesn't serve their parochial interests, the left wing dismisses science when scientific truth is not what aligned with left wind politics.

As for the NAS recommendation of 20% renewables, that has been a recommendation by the National Academy of Science in numerous reports for the past 2 decades. Kris doesn't like the fact that such an august body as the National Academy of Sciences has stated as such; so he makes vacuous claims that the reports I cite don't exist. I've gone round and round with kris LYING about the nonexistence of reports from the NAS that I have sitting on my desk.

The most recent NAS energy study makes the same statement here:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=4

The NAS states that in the 2020 to 2035 time frame; that non-hydro renewables could APPROACH 20%. However, the NAS goes on to say that if renewables are to ever be predominant; then we need large scale energy storage capacity that we don't have now.

For all the hand-waving about flywheels, batteries in cars, pumped storage.... the fact remains that we just don't have the technology in hand at present, and the NAS also predicts neither will we have it in a few decades; for storing energy to make up for the instant to instant variation in the output of renewables.

People don't realize that the power system has to match energy supply with energy demand on an instant by instant basis. If there is no balance, then the electric grid is either creating or destroying energy out of nothing. That is forbidden by the Laws of Physics. Present power plants are able to sense the load because our rotating generators can sense the load via Lenz's Law. Unfortunately, as we have covered here numerous times; renewables don't have Lenz's Law to detect the load. Solar power doesn't sense the load on its output. The generators in wind turbines are NOT sychronized to the line due to their instant to instant variation in power as wind speed changes on a moment to moment basis.

Currently, we rely on the "dispatchable" power sources; coal-fired, gas-fired, hydro, and nuclear - power sources with a throttle that we control in order to match supply and demand, and avoid a mismatch that would cause the Laws of Physics to cause a collapse of our electric grid rather than have physical laws violated.

I know that kristopher is no scientist, and has meager scientific expertise. In fact, I remember it was kris's ignorance of the impact of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that got me to join this forum. Kris thought that a problem of power plant efficiency could be "regulated away" by merely passing a law that said that, in effect; stated that Rankine steam cycles all had to be 100% efficient. I joined this forum so I could post a counter and state that what kris desired as a solution was absolutely forbidden by the Laws of Physics, namely the aforementioned 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Once again, kris perpetually makes the same error. Kris see things as "it isn't complicated" when he doesn't see that it is complicated, and in fact absolutely forbidden by physical law. Kris doesn't see the prohibition by the Laws of Physics, because he is just flat out ignorant of them. One can't know the limits the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics puts on our energy systems, if one has NEVER HEARD OF the 2nd Law.

PamW

[kristopher]

18. Diablo Canyon Reactor Shut Down After Leak Found

Diablo Canyon Reactor Shut Down After Leak Found
06/26/13
by Kennedy Ryan


SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (KTLA) — A reactor at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was shut down Wednesday after the discovery of a small leak, according to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The utility company said the leak was found in Unit 1 during routine maintenance.

The leak occurred in equipment that helps manage coolant used to control temperatures within the reactor, according to the utility.

“PG&E made the decision to take Unit 1 offline after routine inspections detected a small buildup of boric acid on the residual heat removal system,” spokesman Thomas Cuddy said....

Read more: http://ktla.com/2013/06/26/diablo-canyon-reactor-shut-down-after-leak-discovered/#ixzz2YDqSFsea


The rest of your garbage is equally false and misinformed.

I'm not going to go around with you about the NAS paper yet again. You made false claims then and you are making false claims now.

You need to be out of here.

[PamW]

20. Censorship is always good for informed opinons - NOT

kris states above
I'm not going to go around with you about the NAS paper yet again. You made false claims then and you are making false claims now.

You need to be out of here.

Kris just can't stand that I quoted multiple NAS studies going back 20 years. His response was to tell me and this forum that the NAS studies didn't exist. What was I to do when I had those studies sitting on my desk with more on my bookshelf?

Kris isn't a scientist, and he doesn't get all the studies like the scientists who ARE members of the National Academy.

I can see why kris would like me to be gone; that way one can feed all the crap one wants to the forum, and there's no one to provide a sanity check.

Also the media gets things wrong. Such is the case with the KTLA report. The small leak was found in the Residual Heat Exchange System during a maintenance outage. The Residual Heat Exchange System is a system that provides a small coolant flow needed for decay heat power removal when the reactor is shutdown. The Residual Heat Exchange system isn't used when the reactor is in operation, because the main cooling system does the work of cooling the reactor. When the reactor is shutdown for a maintenance session, the Residual Heat Exchange System is the system that provides the small amount of cooling necessary while the main coolant system is out of service. In this case, a small leak was discovered in the Residual Heat Exchange System.

That's the other problem; we have a news media that is as scientifically ignorant about nuclear power, and doesn't realize that what they are reporting is inconsistent. Then we have non-scientist forum members who believe the scientifically illiterate news organizations as if they are the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

That's another source of misinformation and why this forum is actually blessed to have good scientists following that can correct the misinformation.

In any case, by checking a RELIABLE source of information like the NRC; one sees that as of July 5; Diablo Canyon Unit 1 was back at 97% power. That in spite of the "bleeting" by KTLA that restart of Unit 1 was nowhere in sight.

PamW

[oldhippie]

21. And again .......

PamW - 1

kristopher - 0

[kristopher]

37. It has nothing to do with censorship

It is editorial control.
You are intent on spreading false information and disrupting discussion on a forum for progressives.
You espouse right-wing talking points and bolster them right-wing methods of 'discussion' - including but not limited to profound ignorance of the topics, distortions of fact and outright false claims - all the while making invalid appeals to authority.

Your treatment of the shutdown of Diablo is a perfect example of a shameless willingness, no, make that eagerness, to lie directly in the face of proof of your lies.

You were tomb-stoned once before when you were 'Dr. Gregory'; apparently you learned nothing from that experience:

A blast from the past where you educate everyone on the effects of albedo of planetary warming.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=256645#258337

And another where you attempt to explain how for purposes of energy planning, electric cars are not more efficient than internal combustion engines.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258338

Another where you demonstrate your perverse concept of "scientific truth".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262032

This is where I first confronted you on your habit of misquoting the NAS (see posts 38 and 57) and where the whole thread makes entertaining reading.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282854

And here you make the exact same type of misrepresentation about a report from the California Energy Commission as you did the NAS study.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x296568#296623

That last one is worth quoting:

Posted by PamW

The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels:

http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf

The problem with renewables is that they are intermittent and not "dispatchable". That is you can't count on them to be able to deliver the amount of energy you demand. For example, land-based solar power doesn't work at night - and there's no getting around that. We do not have what the report calls ZELB - Zero Emission Load Balancing technology - a means of storing renewable generated energy so that it is available on demand. ( Pumped hydro is a ZELB technology - but the same environmentalists opposing nuclear also oppose more dams. ) Power from renewables has to be "firmed" with an energy source we can count on. The report cites natural gas as being able to "firm" renewable power. However,
the report states in one of the "key findings" on page 4 highlighted in bold:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.


Take a look at the long list of distinguished scientists and policy people that authored this study.

Renewables can't solve the problem alone.

PamW

Here is a part of my response:

Pam you are relying on people being fools - they are not.
Edited on Mon May-30-11 10:37 AM by kristopher
Your partial quote continues:
"Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieve with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology."


Now let's place that into the context of your original claim that the report contradicts the fact that "renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels". The underlined section is the part you left out - and it makes your assertion false.

The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels:

http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf

The problem with renewables is that they are intermittent and not "dispatchable". That is you can't count on them to be able to deliver the amount of energy you demand. For example, land-based solar power doesn't work at night - and there's no getting around that. We do not have what the report calls ZELB - Zero Emission Load Balancing technology - a means of storing renewable generated energy so that it is available on demand. ( Pumped hydro is a ZELB technology - but the same environmentalists opposing nuclear also oppose more dams. ) Power from renewables has to be "firmed" with an energy source we can count on. The report cites natural gas as being able to "firm" renewable power. However,
the report states in one of the "key findings" on page 4 highlighted in bold:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.


Take a look at the long list of distinguished scientists and policy people that authored this study.

Renewables can't solve the problem alone.

All renewable plans build around the need for load balancing - as do nuclear and coal. There are a number of technologies that can fulfill this role and as the need becomes pronounced the economic opportunities for deploying these technologies will increase. Among them are the dispatchable renewables such as hydro, geothermal, biomass, and wave/current/tidal; and the storage mediums such as the batteries in an EV fleet, large scale stationary battteries, used batteries from the EV fleet, pumped hydro, rock batteries, ice batteries, hydrogen, and biofuels.
In no sense can this be construed as a refutation of the ability of renewables to replace coal and nuclear...

Your exaggerated sense of self importance on full display (you are going to set national renewable policy to spite me) . Dare we call it megalomania?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277895


You have no place on this progressive forum.

[PamW]

46. TRUTH is TRUTH!!

kris,

Evidently, kris believes that there is a different scientific truth for progressives.

Sorry; to disabuse you of that notion; but scientific truth is scientific truth.

I know how progressives just HATE the conservation laws of physics; or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; because it tells them that they can't have their fantasy dreams of 100% efficient power generators and heat pumps.

However, Mother Nature doesn't have one set of rules that it allows conservatives to play by, and progressives get to play by another set of rules.

Mother Nature's rules are all the same for everyone.

kris is also full of "excrement" when he claims that I've been on this forum before under some other name.

Kris, you may have had an experience with another scientist who says the same things that I say. You've evidently conclude ERRONEOUSLY that the similarity is due to the two of us being the identical person.

NO - it's due to the fact that science is science. One scientist will sound a LOT like another scientist; because they are both speaking the same TRUTH.

Your babbling about having answered the issues raised in my quoted posts above is incomplete. You NEVER do the MATH!! You can say you are going to store energy in batteries; but you NEVER do the MATH ( elementary ARITHMETIC, actually ) that batteries are feasible. That's because you have ZERO expertise at doing the ARITHMETIC necessary. I don't give credit on vacuous say-so's alone; you need to show your work.

Kris's delusions notwithstanding; I do have influence in the energy field.

No place am I NEEDED MORE than on a progressive forum filled with ILL-CONSIDERED FANTASIES by a bunch of progressives that eschew REAL SCIENCE. You'd just love me to be gone; so you can flood this forum with your ill-considered, unscientific PROPAGANDA with no challenges. If you can't answer the challenges, mathematically; and you can't; I can see why you would want me to go away. But this forum would be POORLY SERVED by that occurrence.

I'm like the psychiatrist in the mental hospital attempting to cure the inmates; but I'm sure the inmates would rather eschew good mental health treatment in favor of their fantasies that have ZERO HOPE of coming to fruition.

PamW

[kristopher]

52. Yaaaaaawn

PawW/Dr.Greg's claim:

The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels....the report states in one of the "key findings" on page 4 highlighted in bold:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.

However, the report then says:

"Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about (sic) these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieve with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology."

Making the complete quote this:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.

Now I ask, is A even remotely similar to B when being used to support this claim?

"The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels"

A:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.

B:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748437#post37

[oldhippie]

22. Just amazing .....

The rest of your garbage is equally false and misinformed.

You need to be out of here.

Yeah, that's what we need, anyone who disagrees with Kristopher needs to be banned.

Spoken like a true propagandist. Sickening.

[PamW]

24. I WON!!

oldhippie,

That's how I know that I've WON the argument.

When the opposition can't address / respond to the points I make with their feeble arguments because the opposition doesn't know the science; and calls for me to be banned; then I know I've WON.

Yes - it really is SICKENING to see such manifestly POOR debating skills.

When the propagandist is over his/her head, and has absolutely nothing of substance to offer the forum in response, and calls for people to be banned; then one knows that one is dealing with a pure propagandist who isn't a "truth seeker" at all; but is merely pushing their own feeble parochial position for their own self aggrandizement.

PamW

[truedelphi]

35. + My household. n/t

[NNadir]

23. If there was an anti-nuke who could do math, we could compare the capacity utilization of Diablo...

...Canyon with any of the millions of solar panels on the planet that soak up money, produce toxic waste and according to the New York Times rapidly transform from expensive scams into dangerous electronic waste:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Regrettably there are zero anti-nukes who can do math, and zero who can frame any argument without selective attention.

The anti-nuke superstitions, fear, selective attention and ignorance is killing people and killing the planet, a point that Jim Hansen has made eloquently in one of the most widely read scientific publications of the year:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

It is increasingly clear almost everywhere in the scientific community that anti-nuke rhetoric is little short of murder.

[PamW]

26. Well said...

Dr. Patrick Moore gave an address a few years back to the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan in Grand Rapids, Michigan:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1

In his address, Dr. Moore states that IF mankind misses the opportunity to avoid the global warming crisis; then the BLAME for that FAILURE can be laid at the feet of the present crop of "environmentalists". ( I refer to them as "pseudo-environmentalists" because the environment is NOT their #1 concern, they all have parochial economic and political concerns that are more important than the environment. )

As Dr. Moore states; we have the technology in nuclear power to forestall the environmental catastrophe of global warming. The problem is that the so-called "environmentalists" have chosen to champion the most anemic forms of energy generation like solar and wind.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

36. Bankers can do math, N

And it is bankers who looked at nukes and said no, they won't finance nukes.

I have told you this before. But you continue to ignore the banking science.

Your selective attention is astounding and very un-science like. Meanwhile radiation from nukes is killing the planet. And your ignoring that is the most astounding thing that all you nuke lovers share.

Go ahead.... tell us manmade radiation is good for you. But first remember why they stopped nuclear testing before you show your ignorance.

[jpak]

51. What is the utilization capacity of Diablo Canyon today?

I know - ****0****

Just like Maine Yankee...

and Coming Soon to Oyster Creek....

[truedelphi]

28. Sincere thanks for all your work on the nuke energy issue.

This needs to be kept in people's minds - that a dangerous energy source might put us in the unique position of being the first major industrialized nation to bring a "Fukushima event" home to its people.

Many folks are unaware that the "Japanese" Gen Electric nuke plant is identical to two dozen of the nuke plants here.

[PamW]

29. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! 100% WRONG!!!

truedelphe states:
Many folks are unaware that the "Japanese" Gen Electric nuke plant is identical to two dozen of the nuke plants here.

The above statement is 100% FALSE.

The Japanese plants are NOT constructed to US standards; and the Fukushima plant could NEVER have been licensed in the USA.

Those plants are NOT even built by the same companies that built the US plants. The Fukushima plants licensed the General Electric design. However, only for Unit 6 was GE the actual reactor vender. The reactor vendor for Units 1, 3 and 5 was Toshiba, and Units 2 and 4 were Hitachi; the Japanese firms licensing the GE design. The Japanese reactor suppliers also did the architectural design for the plants; only loosely based on the corresponding GE architectural design:

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

Although, Fukushima licensed the GE design; the constructor for all 6 units were the Japanese companies like Kajima and Shimizu-Takenaka, which didn't follow the GE design in all details. US nuclear power plants were all built by US companies like Bechtel, Brown & Root, and Stone & Webster.

There are a number of deficiencies in the Fukushima plant design that are at variance with US Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. For example, the US NRC requires that the fuel tanks for the back-up diesel generators have to be buried in the ground or otherwise protected from a tsunami or storm. The Fukushima plant had the fuel tank for the back-up diesels positioned above ground at dockside for easy fueling from supply ships.

The back-up diesel generators and their switchgear were located in a non-watertight basement that flooded when the tsunami washed over the plant. The US NRC requires that the diesel generators be protected from flooding. When I was a doctoral student at MIT, we toured Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Station; one of the "two dozen" plants that are ERRONEOUSLY claimed to be "identical" to Fukushima. I saw the diesel generators at Pilgrim, and they are located high up in the reactor building and immune from flooding as per US NRC regulations.

You may recall a couple years ago when the Mississippi River overflowed its banks and flooded the site of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant in Nebraska:



As can be seen from the picture, the water didn't just "wash over" the plant and recede as the Fukushima tsunami did. The water flooded the plant site and stayed. This was a much worse scenario than the Fukushima tsunami when it comes to flooding. However, there was NO MELTDOWN, there was NO OVERHEATING, there was NO PROBLEM at Fort Calhoun. The plant NEVER lost its cooling because the back-up diesel generators stayed online because they are protected from the flooding as per US Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Fukushima could never have survived a flooding as happened at Fort Calhoun because of the vulnerability of its backup power sources. Fort Calhoun handled the flooding with no problem because of the more stringent design needed to meet US NRC specifications. ( Fort Calhoun may be a PWR as seen from the style of the containment building; however BOTH PWRs and BWRs in the USA have to meet the same standards as far as reliability of the backup generators and their susceptibility to flooding. )

In short; it is just plain 100% WRONG to say that ANY US nuclear power plant is "identical" to Fukushima.

PamW

[truedelphi]

30. Please do not use Wikipedia as a source.

They are known for locking out indie reporters and journalists. They also tend to favor the insiders from the Military Industrial Governmental and Surveillance Complex.

And yes, if you want to nitpick - no plant is identical to another. (I am guilty of being a nitpick myself, so I don't want to say you can't do it.) The plants must be modified to various factors, including terrain, and what various pieces of equipment etc that the plant itself will be connected with.

But these twenty one plants are similar enough that a recall effort to the NRC was put together:

http://berkeley-nj.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/petitioners-to-nrc-shut-down-all-fukushima-like-nuclear-plants enough

[PamW]

34. I like Wikepedia

truedelphi,

That's one of the reasons I LIKE Wikipedia; they lock out the indie propagandists and pseudo-journalists.

That absolute crap that you link to which are just political malcontents with ZERO technical expertise is an example of the pseudo-reporting that I'm very glad Wikileaks blocks.

I really don't care about the politics, I only care about accuracy, and if that accurate reporting comes from insiders from the Military-Industrial Complex; that's just fine with me.

I'm NOT nit-picking. I'm not talking about the minor changes to the plant's architecture to accommodate the site. I'm talking about MAJOR differences in the SAFETY design of the plant.

As stated, Fukushima didn't meet the US NRC regulations for placement / safety of the critical fuel tanks for the backup diesels - MAJOR SAFETY factor.

Fukushima didn't meet US NRC regulations for flooding immunity for the backup diesels and their switchgear - MAJOR SAFETY factor.

Fukushima didn't have the hardened vents to prevent hydrogen build-up and hydrogen explosions as US BWR plants have!

PamW