Renewable Energy Passed Up Nuclear in 2010

[jpak]

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/17/renewable-energy-passed-up-nuclear-in-2010/

It seems that total cumulative installed power capacity from renewable sources passed up nuclear for the first time in 2010, according to the draft version of a new report coming out soon by the Worldwatch Institute, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011.

“In 2010, for the first time, worldwide cumulated installed capacity of wind turbines, biomass and waste-to-energy plants, and solar power reached 381 gigawatts, outpacing the installed nuclear capacity of 375 gigawatts,” the draft report says.

Nuclear Renaissance is Hype — Nuclear Declining

While there has been much hype of a nuclear renaissance and I have seen a number of nuclear proponents even try to turn the scenario in Japan into an argument for nuclear, the bottom line is that nuclear has been sliding for awhile. According to the report:

developments even prior to March 11, when the Fukushima crisis began, illustrate that the international nuclear industry has been unable to stop the slow decline of nuclear energy. Not enough new units are coming online, and the world’s reactor fleet is aging quickly. Moreover, it is now evident that nuclear power development cannot keep up with the pace of its renewable energy competitors.

<more>

[FBaggins]

1. So... now that installed capacity has exceeded nuclear...

...how long do we have to wait until actual electricity generated does so?

[msongs]

2. nuclear = obsolete power source that refuses to die due to government subsidies nt

[Confusious]

3. renewables get government subsidies too

but I guess that's OK? isn't that... oh what's the word for it....?

as a matter of fact, they get more per KWH generated then nuclear does. The only reason nuclear got more was because it generated more.

[madokie]

5. Yeah but they don't go POP really really big like nuclear can

Don't piss and shit all over the world like nuclear does either
Lot of reasons that giving renewables subsidies is a smart penny spent where as with nukes its good money thrown after bad. Nuclear is simply Stupid
When it comes right down to it.

[txlibdem]

20. Don't pee and poop all over the world -- like COAL does

Coal is killing the planet -- SLOWLY. Since we can't see it happen it's just peachy, right?

Ocean corals are dying due to ocean acidification caused by coal. Fishies need the coral. We need the fishies. Ergo, coal is harming us by harming the corals. By 2050 it is estimated that 100% of all ocean corals will be dead. That will cause extinction of thousands of important sea creatures including the fish we need to eat.

Coal power plants spew out 5.8 tons of Uranium and 11 tons of Thorium -- completely uncontrolled and unconfined. In fact, the coal industry sells the ash to be mixed in with concrete -- which is used in homes, commercial buildings and roads. Hello! uncontrolled radioactive material??? Thank you coal.

Yes, nuclear sucks. But coal sucks 1000 times as much. Even if we got 50% of our energy from nuclear and 50% from coal, the coal would still spew out more radiation than the nuclear. But those are facts and the pro-coal/anti-nuke crowd isn't too good with facts, unfortunately for the human race and the future of our planet.

[madokie]

23. Those are your facts and your facts alone

We'll not be building any more nuclear power plants when this is all said and done
hide and watch and see if I'm wrong on that.

Lets see some links to those figures you're throwing around there cause I don't believe it for a minute

[txlibdem]

39. "My" facts? I never knew that pro-coal types had their own facts. Facts do not equal facts???

This is an amazing revelation. Thank you for sharing your world view in this way. It's freeing in a way, right? I'm sorry that I disagree with you but that is a given.

"Coal is killing the planet -- SLOWLY. Since we can't see it happen it's just peachy, right?"
... do you honestly need a link for this? If so, I think there is no hope for you to ever find truth.

"Ocean corals are dying due to ocean acidification caused by coal."
... http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-12-13-coral-reefs_N.htm
... and http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-world-coral-reefs.html

"Coal power plants spew out 5.8 tons of Uranium and 11 tons of Thorium"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. coal plants annually release over 900 tons of radioactive uranium and 2000 tons of thorium into the environment, most into coal ash which is usually radioactive(44.6). More radioactivity was released by burning coal than is contained in the fuel of all nuclear power plants in the U.S., but without the regulatory oversite (sic) faced by nuclear facilities. Coal ash in Florida has been found to be releasing toxic metals and radionuclides into water bodies and the food chain.

from: http://www.flcv.com/cap.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. Those are "my" facts. What do you use for "your" facts?

[diane in sf]

42. As soon as you insist coal is the only alternative to nukes you are spewing nuke propaganda

wittingly or unwittingly.

[txlibdem]

43. I'm hiding under my covers, too, just like the rest of the anti-nuke geniuses

Nookz-Iz-Bad

:hide:

Here's a suggestion, why don't you refute the facts I post instead of hurling insults? Does that not work for you?

[madokie]

50. self delete

[TheWraith]

36. Renewable energy gets many times more subsidies than nuclear power ever has. nt

[diane in sf]

45. I don't believe you--have any reputable citations for this statement?

[diane in sf]

55. Not true: subsidies to nukes in their first 15 years were 40x subsidies to wind.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/17/renewable-energy-passed-up-nuclear-in-2010/

Quoting Worldwatch in the article:

"“In the United States, even though nuclear and wind technologies produced a comparable amount of energy during their first 15 years (2.6 billion kWh for nuclear versus 1.9 billion kWh for wind), the subsidy to nuclear outweighed that to wind by a factor of over 40 ($39.4 billion versus $900 million).”"

[PamW]

56. You didn't look to see what World Watch counted as a subsidy....

"“In the United States, even though nuclear and wind technologies produced a comparable amount of energy during their first 15 years (2.6 billion kWh for nuclear versus 1.9 billion kWh for wind), the subsidy to nuclear outweighed that to wind by a factor of over 40 ($39.4 billion versus $900 million).”"
===================================

You didn't look to see what World Watch counted as a "subsidy". This is the typical
bit of propaganda that one gets from the anti-nukes and the renewable energy
community.

The $39 Billion figure includes the money the USA spent on nuclear weapons and
naval propulsion reactors.

The power reactors in our power plants are derived from designs by Westinghouse (PWR)
and General Electric (BWR).

Just in case S.F. in "diane_in_sf" means San Francisco; you can go see the prototype
facilities where General Electric developed the BWR. It's right across the Bay, south
of Pleasanton, on Route 84 just before it connects with I-680.

PamW

[madokie]

4. Fission is a stupid way to boil water to make steam to make electrical power with

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Rec

The thing with using fission is when something does go wrong it can do it in a big big way, not cool.

[PamW]

57. Why is fission a stupid way to boil water.????

Fission is a stupid way to boil water to make steam to make electrical power with
-------------------------------

This is where scientists really disagree with the feeble attempt to denigrate
nuclear power by saying it is just a way to "boil water".

Guess what - lots of ways of releasing energy release that energy in the form of heat.

Nuclear reactions release energy as heat, chemical reactions release energy as heat....

The problem is you don't want heat - you want electricity. How do you get electricity?
You need to turn a generator. Therefore, you need to turn that heat into motion - specifically
rotary motion. So how do you get motion from heat? You need to generate a force, i.e.
a pressure. One very good way of generating that pressure is a phase change in a working
fluid. It turns out water has some very good thermodynamic properties that makes it very
good as the working fluid.

So when someone says it is just boiling water - it shows how very little they
know of the physics.

PamW

[Statistical]

6. Installed capacity is meaningless.

Your house doesn't run on capacity is runs on energy generated.

[kristopher]

7. No, it isn't; it is where accounting begins.

Note the range of resources mentioned in the OP - wind turbines, biomass and waste-to-energy plants, and solar power - and tell me what is missing? Where is hydro? Doesn't hydro ALREADY produce more electricity than nuclear?

What's the global capacity factor for the nuclear fission Rube Goldberg design? 71% or so isn't it? Or has it dropped lately?

[FBaggins]

8. Hydro and nuclear are roughly equal worldwide.

The difference is that most of the best locations for hydro power are taken... while nuclear is expanding again (at least until a month or so ago).

What's the global capacity factor for the nuclear fission Rube Goldberg design? 71% or so isn't it? Or has it dropped lately?


Two obvious comments there:

1) What's with your recent goldberg nonsense? Just because something is beyong your ability to understand doesn't make it particularly complicated.

2) The capacity factor for nuclear worldwide is WELL above 71%. A little dishonest to insist on a capacity factor for wind from only the latest designs in the best locations while ignoring retired farms and older designs... while playing fast and loose with the numbers for nuclear.

Dishonest... but not surprising. :rofl:

Last I read... only Armenia and England had nuclear capacity factors below 71%.

[Wilms]

9. Not so funny. You may have to add Japan to the list.

Meanwhile, how much of the US nuclear capacity results from extending licenses of aging plants?

And how much of the US capacity is the result of "uprating", a practice even the "Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own safety advisory panel have expressed concern over..."?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4817833

[FBaggins]

10. Depending on how you measure it, yes.

A destroyed reactor really isn't a 0% CF reactor... though it's more reasonable to include those that are shut down for inspection (etc).

And how much of the US capacity is the result of "uprating",

Well... uprating would actually lower the CF unless the uprated plant actually produced that much extra electricity (in which case it would be unchanged).

a practice even the "Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own safety advisory panel have expressed concern over

If they're concerned, then they shouldn't approve them.

[kristopher]

11. Hydro alone exceeds nuclear;PLUS solar, wind and biomass exceed nuclear.

I'd say that fission is exceedingly exceeded.

Nuclear fission is the quintessential Rube Goldberg machine (RGm); but it isn't funny. RGms aren't known for being hard to understand, they are known for being idiotically complex ways to perform simple tasks. In fact, in the next edition of Webster's I understand they are thinking of including a description of a NPP as the Rube Goldberg machine exemplar.

http://www.rubegoldberg.com/

[FBaggins]

12. "Solar wind and biomass" most certainly do NOT exceed nuclear.

And won't for a very long time, if ever.

Hydro is nothing new... it's by no means an "alternative" energy source.

Interesting that you're in favor of it BTW since you seem to think that all greens agree on energy matters. You do know that many oppose hydro dams, right?

You would be hard put to find ANY pro-nuke poster who opposes getting all the energy from hydro that's available. Unlike wind/solar, hydro actually makes MORE sense than nuclear.

And if providing gobs of clean reliable power 24/7 was a "simple task"... everyone would be able to do it. A windmill driving a generator which drives a pump to move water to a higher level to then run another generator to provide a minimal amount of electricity is more "RG-esque" than anything nuclear. Heaven help you if you imagine "rock batteries". Boiling water to turn a turbine is about as straighforward as you get.

[kristopher]

13. Let's look at that foolish, foolish statement.

China's factories manufacture 35GWp of solar panels each year right now.

Each year's worth of those panels panels will produce the same amount of electricity as 7 or 8 large nuclear power plants.

So in the 12 years it optimally takes to plan and build a single nuclear fission reactor, the amount of now existing factory capacity in China alone will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear power plants.

The buildup of renewable manufacturing is just getting started.

Within ten years it is hoped/expected/thought that global solar manufacturing capacity will hit 1000GWp/year.

And that is just solar.

We do not need any more idiotic fissioning Rube Golberg Machines to boil water.

[FBaggins]

14. Your future fantasies are not the same thing as reality.

You really don't have any idea how many solar panels they're going to build, let alone where they will be installed and how much power they will generate.

[kristopher]

15. So China spent all that money over the last 4 years to NOT produce panels.

You've gone off the deep end with that bit of logic...

35GWp of solar manufacturing capacity ALREADY in place in China.

Fukushima.

[FBaggins]

16. They've spent ever more building reactors

Are you certain that they'll build them out completely?

How many are they starting each year?

35GWp of solar manufacturing capacity ALREADY in place in China.

Which does NOT equal the power generation of 7-8 large reactors. Not even close. Not unless they're all going to be installed in Arizona. If it's Germany it looks more like half that many.

[kristopher]

18. The potential of real mass production is starting to sink in, isn't it.

You are so used to thinking of "mass production" in the phony terms of the fission industry the reality of it actually is a surprise to you, isn't it.

We do not need nuclear fission Rube Goldberg machines to boil water.

If China's existing factories manufacture 35GW of solar panels each year those panels will produce the equivalent electricity of about 7 or 8 large nuclear power plants.

So in 12 years, the amount of now existing factory capacity in China alone will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear power plants.

[FBaggins]

22. Nope... but your lack of connection to the real world is becoming more apparent.

So in 12 years, the amount of now existing factory capacity in China alone will manufacture enough panels to equal the output of between 84 - 96 nuclear power plants.

You aren't even close.

[FBaggins]

17. Can you document that 35GWp capacity already in place claim?

Last I read, the expected worldwide production for this year was going to be a bit over half of that.

[kristopher]

19. Yes I do.

But you can look it up yourself if you want to challenge it.

[FBaggins]

21. A simple "No" would have sufficed. You can't. Because it isn't true.

I think what happened was you read a poorly translated article that talked about a 15GWp figure and a 19GWp "increase to above" and added them together (and rounded up).

15GWp was not China's capacity... it was (roughly) the worldwide production capacity that they expected to expand to 19 GWp (I've also seen 20) by the end of this year.

That's light-years away from China alone already producing 35 GWp.

[kristopher]

24. You just keep right on rationalizing the truth away.

That is what nuclear fission supporters do...

I told you what was going to happen when China changed the law requiring grid operators to buy all renewable electricity BEFORE they buy coal/nuclear.

I told you it was going to cause a rush to renewables because investors want to put their money into generation that is at the front of the line to be purchased.

This is what that looks like in the real world.

I really don't give a flying fig if you believe it or not.

[FBaggins]

25. Nope. You keep making the "truth" up.

I don't think you're lying... I think you're a bit deluded.

http://www.iceach.com/htm_news/2010-9/6526_293416.htm

China's solar production capacity is a very small fraction of what you claimed it was. The world's capacity isn't close to what you claimed China's was. China doesn't even expect to have that much installed at home for decades.

[kristopher]

26. ROFL

In other words you can't do research so it must be false. That's the Baggy we all know...

[FBaggins]

27. I gave you a link... where's yours?

I can give you several.

Can you provide ONE?

[kristopher]

29. Ok you gave a link

Here is the content of your link.

CMIC (China Market Intelligence Center) recently released: in 2009, despite the global economic experience of the international financial crisis, the global photovoltaic industry maintained rapid and healthy development momentum, its vitality and more powerful, more of its strategic position important. As the importance of renewable energy applications, solar photovoltaic power generation in the past 10 years has been rapid development. The last 10 years, the global solar cell production average annual growth rate was 48.5%; and last 5 years, this data is as high as 55.2%. In 2009, global solar cell production reached 10.5GWp, up 33% over the previous year. Visible, although the PV industry between 2008-2009 by the international financial crisis, but still the process of rapid growth. As of the end of 2009, total global installed solar capacity has reached 24.5GWp. In a variety of renewable energy applications, the photovoltaic power generation growth is most rapid. From 2000 to 2009, and net annual average growth rate of PV 60%; and net solar photovoltaic power generation in all applications in the share of 50% in 2001 to grow to about 90% in 2009 . The world's major developed countries have set the PV 2020 roadmap, by 2020, European countries PV installed capacity will reach 400GWp, the U.S. installed capacity will reach 300GWp.

In 2009, global solar cell production output of the top 10 companies combined to 5612.3MWp, 56% of total global output. Among them, the world's top 10 companies in four from China, namely Suntech, Yingli, JA, and TRW, the four companies in total output in 2009 was 2088.3MWp. China's solar cell production in 2009 reached 4GWp, accounting for 40% of the global total, ranking first in the world. CMIC analysts expect the global solar cell production in 2010 will reach 15.2GWp, 2011 will be a year or more to 19GWp. In recent years, China PV industry chain, to be coordinated and rapid development, equipment and raw materials to accelerate the localization process. However, China's PV market is still slow. In 2009, China's installed capacity of solar cells is only 160MWp, only 4% of national output that year, only the world's current installed capacity of 2.4%. As of the end of 2009, China's total installed capacity of photovoltaic power generation is only 300MW. Along with the continuous production of silicon materials release, CMIC analysts believe the market to open up the domestic PV applications imminent, it has become the key to the development of photovoltaic industry. LT1352CS8 is the number for products that is related with integrated circuit.

If that is the type data you want to put your faith in, you go right ahead. We already know that you are dedicated to spinning everything for the fission industry anyway so it really doesn't matter what you hear, your only objective is to put it into the corporate narrative supporting nuclear.

But the reality of what is happening isn't amenable to spin. this isn't a matter of public opinion, it is dollars and cents and the reality fo a world hungry for energy right now.
China's progress on solar isn't remarkable or in any way unbelievable; it is precisely what is expected with the change in the grid purchase priority law I told you about.

[FBaggins]

30. Just making yourself look even more foolish here Kris.

I've given you a couple more links since then... and can give you several more. I picked that one because I think it's the english version of the article that caused you to get this wrong in the first place.

Have you got ONE???

http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2011/04/12/navigant-releases-annual-pv-manufacturer-shipments-capacity--competitive-analysis-report/19798

Time to admit that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about.

[kristopher]

33. You don't understand, do you?

You are a person that is intent on nothing but distortion and spin. You are on a mission to derail any discussion that you think hurts the financial prospects of the nuclear fission industry. You have unceasingly violated the norms of polite discussion and interactive social behavior in an effort to control all discussion on this forum while you literally sneer at valid evidence and truth.

I told you I'm not going to give you a link and that if you want to challenge the information, then go for it. You've done that, and I've bookmarked the thread. Now I will repeat it yet again, China is going to hit 35GWp of manufacturing capacity this year; all built since 2007. And you are going to be faced with even more by the end of 2012 and more still by 2013. Every year that number is going to continue to rise and every year each of those factories is going to crank out another round of panels that will keep making power for 30+ years.

Meanwhile the amount of global capacity in Rube Goldbergian fission generators is going to be at best stagnant, and most likely declining.


Continuing to work on public opinion isn't going to help you; nuclear is just a bad choice.

[FBaggins]

34. I do... you've gone off the deep end.

Now I will repeat it yet again, China is going to hit 35GWp of manufacturing capacity this year

And you're flat wrong. The whole world isn't going to be much over half that amount.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true kris... it makes you look unhinged.

I told you I'm not going to give you a link

Because you can't. There is no such link. In fact... I've already GIVEN you your link. You just read it wrong... probably from a poor google translation. You took the existing 15.2 worldwide number and assumed it refered to China alone... then you saw the rapid growth figure for the coming year (19) and added the two together.

It's sloppy... but entirely consistent with your M.O.

Do you think there's a SINGLE person on E/E who will read your bluster and think "I bet kris could prove it if he really wanted to... he's just not going to" ??

And the notion that you even think it's possible to get to 1,000 GWp annually in ten years just shows how disconnected you've become from reality.

And you are going to be faced with even more by the end of 2012 and more still by 2013.

Actually, no. Word is that they're cutting back because world demand hasn't ramped up nearly as rapidly as their production capacity. Fukushima will no doubt help, but expectations are the 2H2011 isn't looking good.

[kristopher]

35. Sorry baggy you are wrong.

It is personal with you and your methods. Sweat, balls etc; I'm sure you've heard the expression.

It isn't about winning a point, it is about you being obnoxious.

[FBaggins]

38. Think anyone here buys that ?

Anyone at all?

You really think anyone believes that you could back up your BS but simply choose not to?

I know that neither one of us believes it. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

28. Another link

Manufacturers in China/Taiwan increased capacity by 125% in 2010 over 2009, with shipments growing by 154% and capacity utilization of 79%. The manufacturers in this region had 53% of global capacity and 54% of shipments. If all expected expansions take place, capacity, now at 11.9GWp, is expected to increase by 50-70% in 2011 for manufacturers in China and Taiwan.

China, Taiwan fab majority of PV, capturing more share in 2011

So let's see. If they're able to maintain their capacity utilization and expand by the full 70% (unlikely), that would put them at less than half of where you claimed they already were.

What a shock. Kris made something up and them spammed it as proof of other positions on several threads.

So... at an average 15% capacity factor, their current production would replace about one large reactor per year.

And how many reactors are they building per year?


Another interesting read that I'm sure you'll ignore... and by tomorrow will not even remember that you saw it.

Prices of PV products may fall due to oversupply.

[kristopher]

31. 35GWp by the end of 2011.

It will either be true or it will not be true. Your antics on behalf of the nuclear industry are not going to change it one whit of a watt.

[FBaggins]

32. It won't be true... and you didn't claim "by the end of 2011"

You said it's what they had NOW and they were continuing to expand. You said "China's factories manufacture 35GWp of solar panels each year right now." You further went on to say that "Within ten years it is hoped/expected/thought that global solar manufacturing capacity will hit 1000GWp/year."


The entire WORLD capacity doesn't come close to even that 35GWp...and right now their overcapacity has caused a glut in supply that they're really worried about. Fukushima actually gave them a breath of hope that they might be able to clear some of their excess supply.

You made it up out of whole cloth... and now you know it.

It's time to fess up.

Come on... tell us where you got the 35 GWp figure from that you've been spamming. Was it in a dream?

And for the record... I think that the 1,000 GW figure is not an annual manufacturing goal, but a total INSTALLED label capacity goal... and for much longer than 10 years from now. I'm thinking 2050.

[kristopher]

37. Are you familiar with the Grid Parity by 2020 goal announced for solar

How, precisely do you think that is envisioned to come about? You know, what mechanism is going to reduce the price of solar produced electricity to below that of coal?

[FBaggins]

40. By overproducing so they have to sell it at a loss?

What connection could you possibly make between a price point target and a specific production level? There were some who were touting grid parity by last year as recently as year or so prior to that.

You claimed that this is how much they're producing right now.

You were full of it and we both know it.

Time to be a man kris.

[PamW]

58. He does worse than that...

2) The capacity factor for nuclear worldwide is WELL above 71%. A little dishonest to insist on a capacity factor for wind from only the latest designs in the best locations while ignoring retired farms and older designs... while playing fast and loose with the numbers for nuclear.
===================================

He does worse than that. Kris and his sources add in the capacity factors for
nuclear power plants that have been shutdown.

That way they get to toss a bunch of zeros into the average to drag it down.

The only thing that it makes sense to talk about is the capacity factor of plants on
the margin - that is new plants. Those are the ones that we would be building in the
future.

If we were to commence building new plants, nothing says we have to build some old
Generation I nuclear power plants in the same proportion to newer plants. No - we
would build all new modern plants.

Hence, the intellectual dishonesty of averaging in shutdown plants is immediately apparent.

PamW

[kristopher]

59. So you consider it appropriate to exclude non-productive facitlities?

I did make a mistake above, the global CF is 79%; it is the US that is at 71%.
"Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation."

That said, when someone builds a nuclear plant, it costs a huge amount of money and it built with the promise that it will deliver a certain amount of service for that money. When a plant only delivers 25% of that service, how would you suggest that deficiency be accounted for in public discussions on the merits of the technology where the industry is looking for more public money? Is there somewhere you can point to where the nuclear fission industry highlights the number of plants that have had to shut down for more than one year and what the costs were of those shutdowns?

I've removed the references from these paragraphs for ease of reading. The link to download the entire paper (includes the paragraphs with references) follow.

Trimming Nuclear Costs by Inflating Reactor Load Factors and Lifetimes
A third nuclear-cost-trimming strategy in a majority of the 30 studies is overestimating reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load or capacity factors (or plant output-percentages, compared to 100% output). For instance, the WNA report claims (pp. 21, 10) that nuclear plants "can offer electricity at predictable low and stable costs for up to 60 years of operating life," and that "capacity factors of nuclear plants around the world have increased....Levels of 90% and above have been achieved by many plants in Europe and Asia for many years". Likewise the 2009 MIT study presupposes (p. 18) a "capacity factor of 85%". Yet what do actual empirical data say about current reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load factors?

If one assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance, at best reactors can achieve very-short-term, 90% load factors. During the first 30 years of US-commercial-fission experience (beginning in the 1950s), proponents say nuclear-load-factor averages were 50%. With more reactors than other nations, the US has 104 plants. Nuclear proponents say their lifetime-load-factor average is 71%. UK load factors are similar. Only 7 global reactors (1.7% of 414)—mostly those with lax design/standards/enforcement in developing nations—have ever eliminated original "bugs," then later achieved short-term, 90% load factors. Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation.

Rather than 71 or 79%, however, most nuclear-cost studies, like the WNA and MIT analyses assume 85–95% nuclear-load factors, a lifetime-fleet average never achieved by any nation. When the pro-nuclear MIT (see later discussion) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies recently reported US-nuclear-load factors of "about 90%," they admitted this figure covered only the last 5 years, included no new plants, and ignored lifetime-average data and early-shutdown reactors, all of which reveal the correct, lifetime-load average to about 70%. Obviously assessors should use national, lifetime-load averages, not short-term load factors, and neither those for the highest-performing reactors (that likely have deferred maintenance), nor those for the lowest-performing reactors (e.g., 14% load factor for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, reactor).
pg 6,7

http://nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/
First paper for download: "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest," Science and Engineering Ethics, 17:75-107. 2011

Part of the problem is the long lived nature of nuclear plants. Obtaining lifetime data for a plant expected to last between 40-100 years takes time and necessitates assumptions while that data is being gathered. The assumptions of the nuclear industry and their uncritical mouthpieces at institutions like MIT are entirely designed to promote business interests, they are not fair representations of the body of evidence available. While improvements have been been made that predict higher capacity factors, there are enough OTHER issues still extant to make the case for a more cautious predictive approach than we have seen from the industry.

In other words, a sales pitch isn't science.

[FBaggins]

62. A sales pitch isn't science?

So I guess you would find a claim of CFs going forward for, say, wind energy that was double (or more) the historic figure for wind generation... dishonest?

Pretty harsh. :)

[kristopher]

63. If such a claim were made without empirical support, yes.

As I wrote, the data going forward for all technologies requires assumptions. The assumptions of the nuclear industry exclude large swaths of data that has proven itself as germane to interpreting ongoing technological improvements. For example we have one area where history has been validated over specious sales claims - the cost predictions embodied in the 2003 MIT report. The foundation of those cost predictions was the same data stream that includes the projections of capacity factors for the next 60 years. There is little reason to believe that the drastic proven mistake by MIT in the area of cost is not a reflection of their forecasts on CF.

[FBaggins]

65. Double standard

As I wrote, the data going forward for all technologies requires assumptions.

Which would obviously (to anyone but you) include not assuming that the latest generation of technology would have similar results from decades-old technology... wouldn't it?

[kristopher]

67. So, do you consider it appropriate to exclude non-productive facilities?

I did make a mistake above, the global CF is 79%; it is the US that is at 71%.
"Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation."

That said, when someone builds a nuclear plant, it costs a huge amount of money and it's built with the promise that it will deliver a certain amount of service for that money. When a plant only delivers 25% of that service, how would you suggest that deficiency be accounted for in public discussions on the merits of the technology - especially in discussions where the industry is looking for more public money? Is there somewhere you can point to where the nuclear fission industry highlights the number of plants that have had to shut down early or for more than one year; and at that spot is there an accurate accounting of what the total associated costs were of those shutdowns? Where are those costs factored into the price the industry quotes for nuclear fission derived electricity?

I've removed the references from these paragraphs for ease of reading. The link to download the entire paper (includes the paragraphs with references) follow.

Trimming Nuclear Costs by Inflating Reactor Load Factors and Lifetimes
A third nuclear-cost-trimming strategy in a majority of the 30 studies is overestimating reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load or capacity factors (or plant output-percentages, compared to 100% output). For instance, the WNA report claims (pp. 21, 10) that nuclear plants "can offer electricity at predictable low and stable costs for up to 60 years of operating life," and that "capacity factors of nuclear plants around the world have increased....Levels of 90% and above have been achieved by many plants in Europe and Asia for many years". Likewise the 2009 MIT study presupposes (p. 18) a "capacity factor of 85%". Yet what do actual empirical data say about current reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load factors?

If one assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance, at best reactors can achieve very-short-term, 90% load factors. During the first 30 years of US-commercial-fission experience (beginning in the 1950s), proponents say nuclear-load-factor averages were 50%. With more reactors than other nations, the US has 104 plants. Nuclear proponents say their lifetime-load-factor average is 71%. UK load factors are similar. Only 7 global reactors (1.7% of 414)—mostly those with lax design/standards/enforcement in developing nations—have ever eliminated original "bugs," then later achieved short-term, 90% load factors. Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation.

Rather than 71 or 79%, however, most nuclear-cost studies, like the WNA and MIT analyses assume 85–95% nuclear-load factors, a lifetime-fleet average never achieved by any nation. When the pro-nuclear MIT (see later discussion) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies recently reported US-nuclear-load factors of "about 90%," they admitted this figure covered only the last 5 years, included no new plants, and ignored lifetime-average data and early-shutdown reactors, all of which reveal the correct, lifetime-load average to about 70%. Obviously assessors should use national, lifetime-load averages, not short-term load factors, and neither those for the highest-performing reactors (that likely have deferred maintenance), nor those for the lowest-performing reactors (e.g., 14% load factor for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, reactor).
pg 6,7

http://nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs /
First paper for download, its titled "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest," Science and Engineering Ethics, 17:75-107. 2011

Part of the problem is the long lived nature of nuclear plants. Obtaining lifetime data for a plant expected to last between 40-100 years takes time and necessitates assumptions while that data is being gathered. The assumptions of the nuclear industry and their uncritical mouthpieces at institutions like MIT are entirely designed to promote business interests, they are not fair representations of the body of evidence available. While improvements have been been made that predict higher capacity factors, there are enough OTHER issues still extant to make the case for a more cautious predictive approach than we have seen from the industry.

In other words, a sales pitch isn't science.

[FBaggins]

68. Wouldn't you claim that you don't spam E/E be more persuasive

if you didn't spam the thread? :rofl:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

71. There's a no-spam policy on DU

I'm not aware of a "no butting in" rule. Are you? :rofl:

Of course... if there were such a rule and you were to hold yourself to it... we might not hear from you again.


I can see why you would rather not have your behavior pointed out... what I can't see is why (given your own record) I would be inclined to cut you any slack?

[kristopher]

70. Once more, do you consider it appropriate to exclude non-productive facilities?

I did make a mistake above, the global CF is 79%; it is the US that is at 71%.
"Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation."

That said, when someone builds a nuclear plant, it costs a huge amount of money and it's built with the promise that it will deliver a certain amount of service for that money. When a plant only delivers 25% of that service, how would you suggest that deficiency be accounted for in public discussions on the merits of the technology - especially in discussions where the industry is looking for more public money? Is there somewhere you can point to where the nuclear fission industry highlights the number of plants that have had to shut down early or for more than one year; and at that spot is there an accurate accounting of what the total associated costs were of those shutdowns? Where are those costs factored into the price the industry quotes for nuclear fission derived electricity?

I've removed the references from these paragraphs for ease of reading. The link to download the entire paper (includes the paragraphs with references) follow.

Trimming Nuclear Costs by Inflating Reactor Load Factors and Lifetimes
A third nuclear-cost-trimming strategy in a majority of the 30 studies is overestimating reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load or capacity factors (or plant output-percentages, compared to 100% output). For instance, the WNA report claims (pp. 21, 10) that nuclear plants "can offer electricity at predictable low and stable costs for up to 60 years of operating life," and that "capacity factors of nuclear plants around the world have increased....Levels of 90% and above have been achieved by many plants in Europe and Asia for many years". Likewise the 2009 MIT study presupposes (p. 18) a "capacity factor of 85%". Yet what do actual empirical data say about current reactor lifetimes and nuclear-load factors?

If one assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance, at best reactors can achieve very-short-term, 90% load factors. During the first 30 years of US-commercial-fission experience (beginning in the 1950s), proponents say nuclear-load-factor averages were 50%. With more reactors than other nations, the US has 104 plants. Nuclear proponents say their lifetime-load-factor average is 71%. UK load factors are similar. Only 7 global reactors (1.7% of 414)—mostly those with lax design/standards/enforcement in developing nations—have ever eliminated original "bugs," then later achieved short-term, 90% load factors. Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation.

Rather than 71 or 79%, however, most nuclear-cost studies, like the WNA and MIT analyses assume 85–95% nuclear-load factors, a lifetime-fleet average never achieved by any nation. When the pro-nuclear MIT (see later discussion) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies recently reported US-nuclear-load factors of "about 90%," they admitted this figure covered only the last 5 years, included no new plants, and ignored lifetime-average data and early-shutdown reactors, all of which reveal the correct, lifetime-load average to about 70%. Obviously assessors should use national, lifetime-load averages, not short-term load factors, and neither those for the highest-performing reactors (that likely have deferred maintenance), nor those for the lowest-performing reactors (e.g., 14% load factor for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, reactor).
pg 6,7

http://nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs
First paper for download, its titled "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest," Science and Engineering Ethics, 17:75-107. 2011

Part of the problem is the long lived nature of nuclear plants. Obtaining lifetime data for a plant expected to last between 40-100 years takes time and necessitates assumptions while that data is being gathered. The assumptions of the nuclear industry and their uncritical mouthpieces at institutions like MIT are entirely designed to promote business interests, they are not fair representations of the body of evidence available. While improvements have been been made that predict higher capacity factors, there are enough OTHER issues still extant to make the case for a more cautious predictive approach than we have seen from the industry.

In other words, a sales pitch isn't science.

[txlibdem]

41. Here is a map which shows the size (area) we need for solar to provide 100% of our energy needs

That means replacing all other forms of electricity generation and all fossil fuel use in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Africa#Solar_resources

Click on the world map to get a better view. It assumes 8% conversion efficiency; both solar PV and solar thermal are already above that level (models available for sale, not in some egg head's lab).
... like this one: http://www.pvpower.com/bp-230w-polycrystalline-solar-panel-bp-3230t.aspx
... or this one: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11630152&search=solar+panel&Mo=5&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Sp=S&N=5000043&whse=BC&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=Text_Search&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=solar+panel&Ntt=solar+panel&No=3&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1
... which is available in my local Costco individually but online only in a kit like this one


This is doable, folks. We just have to stop bickering about how to reach that goal. I happen to believe that we need nuclear power for another 30 years or so and then it should be phased out. Whenever we perfect fusion power then we can use that too.

There is only about another 55 years worth of Uranium left if nuclear power doubles globally. That's not sustainable and once the suppliers realize they've hit peak production you *know* what will happen to prices. Thorium cycle reactors that are mass produced are the only logical answer to tide us over till we can get to 100% renewable energy.

[diane in sf]

44. You are leaving out wind and efficiency. And what about all the rooftops and roads we've paved over

many of this may useful for holding solar collectors. Also you can continue grazing and other activities under solar panels and wind machines.

[txlibdem]

47. It was just a visual aid - the land area needed to get 100% of our energy from solar

Of course I don't want to end wind power. I've almost ended my consumption of beef (still have one steak per year and maybe 2 or 3 fast food burgers if we're out and about) but I respect other people's food choices.

The map merely puts it into perspective for me: we do not need to cover the globe with solar to generate all the energy we need. Yes, each dot is a pretty large area but in perspective with the rest of the world it's next to nothing.

[FBaggins]

46. Do you realize how large those dots are? n/t

[txlibdem]

48. See my response to DianeSF - the map is only to give a sense of perspective

We can get all of our energy from solar placed in those few areas around the globe. Did you see the huge area of ocean off the pacific coast of South America which gets very high solar insolation? We could build floating cities there and power them entirely from the sun. Or we could put floating solar farms there and never need an inch of land. That's not the point. It's a tiny area compared to the amount of land in the world. It's doable.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/researcher-push/

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1408

[kristopher]

51. That is a nonsensical visualization**

Myths about Solar Electricity

The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.

Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1
Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.

Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

...Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

[txlibdem]

53. You're funny

I can't see a single thing in my posts to this thread that you should disagree with. The only thing I can think of is your preference for distributed renewable energy.

The problem with that is economics. It's better to put a solar panel in a place where it will get 7 or more hours of peak sunlight, a place that has the most sunny days during the year. Putting solar panels where they will get 4 hours of peak sunlight, and a whole lot more cloudy days or foggy days just doesn't seem economically sound. You'd have to buy at least double the amount of solar panels to do the same job.

HVDC transmission lines could carry the power from the desert to the grid interconnect points near cities with minimal losses (far less loss than high voltage ac transmission lines).

Refer to the solar maps of the US:
1) Solar PV =
2) Concentrating Solar Thermal =

[kristopher]

60. Distributed generation is how the system is going to function.

The economics works in phases. While prices are high and we are still oriented around centralized generation the economic niche you are describing is valid. But as that is exploited it drives manufacturing investment and the investment results in lowered prices. The lower prices expand the niches available - most significantly rooftop commercial systems become cost effective (this is where we are moving into now). As this niche becomes saturated it drives more manufacturing capacity, lowers prices and expands the cost effective geographic niches available until you end up with a distributed system.

Do you know the states that installed the most solar last year?

[FBaggins]

61. 2011 Global Solar Demand to Hit 17 GW, 20.3 GW in 2012

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1871

I wonder where those extra 28 GW of production are going to this year. :rofl:

[kristopher]

64. Probably somewhere sunny.

[FBaggins]

66. Nope. It's going to fairyland.

IOW... it doesn't exist.

Also "nope"... a high percentage of solar panel demand over the last few years has NOT been "somewhere sunny". Germany has been only of the largest buyers (probably THE largest on a per-capita basis) and they can barely squeek a 10% capacity factor out of their solar production. Yes, some of that will be improved with newer technology... but a lot of it is because Germany isn't Northern Africa.

[FBaggins]

52. The world is a very large place.

Being a small percentage of that whole doesn't make something "tiny".

We can get all of the energy the world needs from a VERY small percentage of the wind... or a very small percentage of waves and tidal forces...

...but none of that changes the fact that it's a HUGE amount of generation equipment to accomplish that.

[txlibdem]

54. I never said it would be easy

and I never wrote the word "cheap" either. But we need to act decisively and we need to act now or we (or rather our children and grandchildren) will curse us for turning the world into a living hell thanks to anthropomorphic global climate change.

Some climate scientists are saying it is *already* too late to avoid serious consequences from our mass stupidity (using fossil fuels).

[kristopher]

49. Renewables are beginning to completely overshadow fission.

Direct quotes from the draft paper referenced in the OP. The paragraph in the summary (quoted in the OP article) omitted small hydro. It is also pointed out that in the US in 2004, renewables accounted for 2 percent of new generation, but that by 2009 renewables' contribution had risen to 55 percent of the newly installed total.


...In 2010, for the first time, the cumulative installed capacity of wind power (193 GW), small hydropower (80 GW), biomass and waste-to-energy (65 GW), and solar power (43 GW) reached 381 GW, outpacing the installed nuclear capacity of 375 GW prior to the Fukushima disaster.18 Although renewable electricity generation (excluding large hydro) will remain lower than nuclear output for a while, it is catching up fast.

...Total investment in clean energy technologies increased 30 percent in 2010 to $243 billion globally, a nearly fivefold increase over 2004.19 China is the world leader, investing $54.4 billion in renewables in 2010 (up 39 percent over the previous year), followed by Germany at $41.2 billion (up 100 percent) and the United States at $34 billion (up 66 percent).20 (See Table 4.) Italy more than doubled its renewable energy investments in 2010, to $13.9 billion, jumping in rank from 8th to 4th. Extension of a favorable feed-in tariff is expected to more than double Italy’s installed PV capacity in 2011 to around 8 GW—the government’s target for 2020.21 p35


...China in particular has become the global leader for new capacity in both nuclear and wind power. Forty percent of all reactors under construction are in China. The extent to which both technologies are expected to grow is unparalleled, although the installed capacity for wind power, at roughly 45 GW, is currently more than four times that for nuclear (roughly 10 GW).23 (See Figure 14.) Even with a 3–4 times lower load factor, wind is likely to produce more electricity in China in 2011 than nuclear power. China’s wind power growth is so dramatic that the country must continually raise its production targets, as they are repeatedly being met prematurely.24 China is not only a major implementer of wind technologies, but a global player in related manufacturing. p36


...Are Nuclear and Renewables Compatible?
“If someone declares publicly that nuclear power would be needed in the baseload because of fluctuating energy from wind or sun in the grid, he has either not understood how an electricity grid or a nuclear power plant operates, or he consciously lies to the public. Nuclear energy and renewable energies cannot be combined.”
—Siegmar Gabriel, Former Federal Environment Minister of Germany p37



Interesting read, and it contains a country by country review of nuclear activity.

Page 45 has a particularly interesting graph derived from S&P data.


Download here:
http://www.worldwatch.org/nuclear-power-after-fukushima

Draft Version!
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World
25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident

By
Mycle Schneider
Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France)
Project Coordinator and Lead Author

Antony Froggatt
Independent Consultant, London (UK)

Steve Thomas
Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK)

Paris, Berlin, Washington, April 2011
Commissioned by Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. (USA)
with the support of the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament