2006: A very Good Year for Solar and Wind Power - a Very Bad Year for Nuclear Power

[jpak]

Global new wind power installations = 15,197 MW (name plate capacity)
= 5,319 MW (after 35% capacity factor correction)

http://www.nawindpower.com/naw/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.436

Global new photovoltaic installations = 1744 MW (name plate capacity)
= 436 MW (after 25% capacity factor correction)

http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNACO542.htm

Total new wind and PV = 16,941 MW (name plate capacity)
= 5,755 MW (accounting for capacity factors)

Global additions of new nuclear capacity 2006 = 1490 MW (name plate capacity)

Global reactor retirements 2006 = 2236 MW (name plate capacity)

Net growth in global nuclear capacity = -746 MW (name plate capacity)

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

Summary:

Global wind and PV added the equivalent of ~6 new 1000 MW power plants in 2006.

Global nuclear capacity experienced negative growth.

Let the Naysaying begin...

:popcorn:

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

1. No nay-saying from me. This

country is the Saudi Arabia of roof tops. There's not reason every roof in the country shouldn't/couldn't (someday) be covered in amorphous/crystalline silicon (to appease the CadTel deadly heavy metal alarmists)

[phantom power]

2. how is your solar rooftop working for you?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

3. Very well, thank you.

[phantom power]

4. So tell me more: What's it use? What's the wattage? How much did it cost?

Does it include storage? Is it grid-tied? Do you use an inverter?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

12. Home power. Three kilowatts. Too much...

No. Yes. Yes (has to if it's grid tie)...

[phantom power]

15. If I may, I'd like to focus for a moment on your phrase "too much."

Does that suggest anything to you about the economic viability of PV rooftops for the vast majority of people?

I might put some PV on my roof. It's on my list of things I think would be neat-o for my house. My family income is also pretty close to $200K/year. According to Time magazine, that puts me in something like the 95th percentile of Americans. Or maybe it's 98th. Even if I do it, I will not stop arguing for nuclear power, because my PV roof will not constitute an argument for the economic viability of PV rooftops as a solution for climate change.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

22. the economics of PV is like anything else

early adopters will pay more than folks down the line. Just the way technology in general works. That doesn't mean we should not be pursuing it. Silicon Valley is all over it because they understand it's not too terribly different than what they are currently doing (making efficient semiconductors) and they see a future where they can turn a profit doing something good for the environment.

As to your question about the "economic viability for the vast majority of people" - utilities are starting to also get on board because distributed generation (versus central station nuke/goal/whatever) plants makes for a more robust overall system. Not to mention they see it's good for their bottom line. In case you're interested: www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Reports/PV-ValueReport.pdf

I predict one day utilities will begin offering (not without much cajoling and kicking and screaming) customers systems for their use as part of the service they offer - especially in service areas with serious power constraints.

My original response was not meant to be a radical "why the hell aren't we doing this now" statement, but more of expressing a dream of covering all rooftops with PV versus . There is no reason that roofs and other building components can't serve two or more useful purposes: protection from the elements and power generation. Will this solve our growing need for power? No. Is it a part of the solution? Absolutely.

I can accept your belief in the need for nuke-u-ler if you can accept my belief that the more we generate from renwables and conservation (negawatts), the fewer nuke plants we will ultimately need.

[Zenlitened]

5. About as well as my "green" nuke plant.

:rofl:

[phantom power]

6. My local nuke plant works great for me.

It provides cheap baseload power for the entire area, and produces no CO2, unlike all the new gas-fired plants they're building lately.

[jpak]

7. Is there a permanent spent fuel repository in AZ???

If not, what are they going to do with it???

...and who is going to pay for it????

:evilgrin:

[phantom power]

8. Does there need to be a permanent spent fuel repository in AZ?

Or anywhere else? (I assume you're thinking of something like Yucca Mtn)

I am already paying for the storage of the spent fuel. I presume it's being stored on-site, and so it's a cost for the plant, and therefore it's a component of the rates I pay for electricity.

As usual, I will point out that we can reuse the fuel, although I know you disagree about that (for reasons that don't make sense to me).

[jpak]

11. what do you do with fission products produced from reprocessing???

(put them in a repository)

Reprocessing doesn't make the nuclear waste issue go away.

Also, the Nuclear Waste Fund (the $0.001/kWh tax on nuclear electricity that you pay) will not come close to covering the costs of spent fuel or reprocessing waste disposal.

Who pays for this???

:evilgrin:

[JohnWxy]

16. YOU are paying for storage of waste through your taxes. The cost of this little effort apparently

will be picked up by the public. In order to know what a technology really costs you have to account for all the costs of that technology. The nuclear industry is perhaps even better than big oil at getting the government to pick up much of the costs of nuclear technology.

[phantom power]

18. I'll make you a deal.

Let's take away the subsidies for nuclear power, the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, the subsidies for solar power, and (last but not least) the subsidies for the ethanol industry.

And remember, we're including tax breaks here. No more tax credits and/or deductions for that new PV roof.

Yes, by all means, let's level the playing field. That makes nuclear look better, not worse.

[jpak]

19. That's what Amory Lovins advocated decades ago (before there was global warming)

He concluded that energy efficiency, co-generation, distributed power systems and renewables would win (over nuclear) hands down.

Be careful what you wish for...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

30. Lovins also said that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to fuel cells

(Somewhere in his "20 things I've made up about hydrogen" paper.)

Excuse me while I look less than impressed.

[JohnWxy]

32. LOL. You are visiting from another planet, no doubt.

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534

Taxpayers contribute to nuclear subsidies

Nuclear power accounts for the largest share of government subsidies among all energy sources, even though its energy market share in the U.S. is only 18 percent. From 1948 to 1994, nuclear power received 60 percent of all federal R&D, while fossil fuels received 24 percent, renewables garnered 10 percent, and energy efficiency 6 percent. Nuclear power has remained an energy option over the past decades, due largely to these huge taxpayer subsidies.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13779

Nuclear Giveaways in the Energy Bill Conference Report

The energy bill conference report (H.R.6, “The Energy Policy Act of 2005”) negotiated between House and Senate conferees contains more than $13 billion in cradle-to-grave subsidies and tax breaks, as well as unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, limited liability in the case of an accident, and other incentives to the mature nuclear industry to build new nuclear reactors.

Given the latest revelations about data falsification in analyses of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository site – in addition to other numerous unresolved problems at the site – and the reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office pointing out security vulnerabilities of the highly radioactive waste stored at reactor sites, the government should not be promoting the construction of new reactors, which will only add to the nuclear waste problem. More taxpayer handouts to the nuclear industry are not part of a sensible and responsible energy plan.

R&D subsidies = $2.9 billion


Authorization of more than $432 million over 3 years for nuclear energy research and development, including the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs


Authorization of $580 million over 3 years for DOE’s program for research and development of nuclear reprocessing and transmutation technologies, which reverses the long-standing U.S. policy against it and needlessly augments security and environmental threats


Authorization of $420 million over 3 years for DOE to develop a plan to improve infrastructure at national laboratories for nuclear energy R&D, including a plan for the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory


Authorization of $149.7 million over 3 years for DOE to invest in human resources and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering fields through fellowships and visiting scientist programs; student training programs; collaborative research with industry, national laboratories, and universities; upgrading and sharing of research reactors; and technical assistance. This program would further subsidize the nuclear industry and entrench nuclear power research within the university system.


Authorization of $1.1 billion over 3 years for the Fusion Energy Sciences program for fusion energy R&D. Authorization for DOE to negotiate an agreement for the United States to participate in the ITER (International Fusion Energy Project). Requirement of DOE to submit a plan for a domestic burning plasma experiment if ITER becomes “unlikely or infeasible.” The fusion process requires deuterium and tritium, and would produce low-level radioactive waste


Authorization of $100 million for DOE to establish two demonstration projects for the commercial production of hydrogen at existing reactors


Authorization of $18 million over 3 years for DOE to survey industrial applications of radioactive sources and develop a R&D plan for developing small particle accelerators


Requirement of DOE to use 0.9 % of its applied energy R&D budget for matching funds with private partners to promote “promising technologies” for commercial use, which could include nuclear power technologies


Authorization of $60 million over 3 years for DOE to give grants to train technical personnel in fields in which a shortage is identified, including the nuclear power industry, which has been very vocal about its shortage of skilled workers


Authorization of $250,000 for research and development to use radiation to refine oil
Construction subsidies = $3.25 billion +

Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation. The payments would include interest on loans and the difference between the market price and the contractual price of power


Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals


Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review


Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of a project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated)
Operating subsidies = $5.7 billion +

Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry’s liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years


Incentives for “modular” reactor designs (such as the pebble bed reactor, which has never been built anywhere in the world) by allowing a combination of smaller reactors to be considered one unit, thus lowering the amount that the nuclear operator is responsible to pay under Price-Anderson


Weakens constraints on U.S. exports of bomb-grade uranium


Production tax credits of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation for the nuclear industry, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry
Shut-down subsidies = $1.3 billion

Changes the rules for nuclear decommissioning funds that are to be used to clean up closed nuclear plant sites by repealing the cost of service requirement for contributions to a fund and allowing the transfer of pre-1984 decommissioning costs to a qualified fund, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion

[JohnWxy]

33. here's some more :

www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/NuclearSubsidies2005_NPRI.ppt

Levelized cost of new nuclear: 3.1 – 8.2 c/kWh

Wide range reflects many uncertainties of new plants.

Real cost is higher: 3.9-12.4 c/kWh, due to subsidies embedded in initial estimates.

Lower-bound estimates rely on unrealistic assumptions for financing costs; optimistic scenarios on new plant costs and build periods.

Nuclear slated to receive 3.4-4.0 c/kWh in new subsidies as well.

Federal subsidies comprise 60-90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants.

Without subsidies, nuclear would not be viable.

[GliderGuider]

9. A good year for solar and wind, but a GREAT year for coal.

Global coal consumption is going up by 8% to 10% per year. It supplies 40% of the world's electricity, so that means coal is adding in excess of 30,000 MW of nameplate capacity every year. As a result just this delta is is adding another half a gigatonne of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. This is what solar and wind have to displace, not nuclear.

Nuclear power will never pose the same scale of threat to the ecosphere over the same time frame as coal.

If you keep arm-wrestling on the front lawn with nuclear you will be leaving the back door unguarded, and coal will sneak in and kill your family.

The real question is, how can solar and wind keep coal from killing us all?

[jpak]

10. There is no technical reason why renewables and energy efficiency *cannot* replace coal

and, in conjunction with carbon taxes, there is no economic reason why coal replacement can't be implemented rapidly.

Of course the naysayers will have something to say about (as they always do).

[GliderGuider]

13. In that case you'd better stop worrying about nukes.

You've got 15 years left to accomplish the displacement of coal, worldwide. You'll need all your energies for that.

Here's an interesting chart:



What this tells me is that as the proportion of the pies consumed by oil begins to shrink the boundaries will begin to shift. If the percentage of the "Primary Energy" pie occupied by Oil goes down from 34.3% to, say 24.3% over the next 15 years, that 10% will be made up by whichever energy source has capacity available at the lowest price. That means that in order for "Other" to ramp from 0.4% to 10.4% of the world's energy mix, it will have to have the capacity available when needed at a lower cost than any of the other sources. Of course this assumes an "invisible hand", and not some form of global regulatory intervention.

Looking at these charts make me wonder about your qualifier "technical". There's a lot more to energy displacement than the technical aspects. There are also logistical considerations (is the capacity available when and where it's needed) and economic factors (is it cheaper than the alternatives, or at least not so much more expensive that the difference can be easily justified on non-economic grounds). I wonder about both of these factors when it comes to solar, though perhaps less so with wind. Because of this, my bet is still on coal.

If your chosen technology is to succeed, it has to be willing and able to address the scrutiny of the nay-sayers.

[jpak]

14. I don't worry about nukes - they will go slowly away

But I do worry about the renewables naysayers - they haven't a clue...

:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

17. Sorry, I edited my post above to add a bit more analysis just as you were posting.

[jpak]

20. and your solution is?????

:popcorn:

[GliderGuider]

23. I don't have a solution. I have a set of expectations.

Here are my expectations for the world in 2020:

I expect world energy demand will be 25% higher than today. I expect that oil production will have fallen by 1/3 and gas will be down about the same. I expect that nuclear power will have expanded by 25% worldwide. I expect hydro to be essentially unchanged. I will be generous and expect that PV and wind capacity will have gone up 50x (that's 5000% - an increase of 27.5% every year from 2005 to 2020). Here's what the pie charts look like:



And we'd still be emitting 6% more CO2 in 2020 than today.

This is why I call my solution set an "alphabet set": "ABC, Anything But Coal". But I have zero expectations that's going to happen.

[jpak]

29. I have expectations too

In January 2009 Al Gore will be sworn in as the 44 the POTUS and the 111th Congress will have a 61 "Democrat" majority in the Senate and a 300 "Democrat" majority in the House.

Then we will see real substantive action on energy and climate policy.

:evilgrin:

[jpak]

21. The EU's goals for renewable energy and electricity are 20% by 2020

22 US states have goals of 10-30% of their electricity to be produced by renewables in 15 years (and they will easily attain them).

There is a movement afoot in the US to produce 25% of the nation's energy from renewables by 2525 - and studies support the economic and technical feasibility of these goals.

Achieving 0.4 - 10% of "Other" in that time frame is not the problem.

The "problem" is/are naysayers that continue to impede policies supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency....

:evilgrin:

[GliderGuider]

24. No, the problem is economics.

As long as renewables are more expensive than coal, you'll have to make a very strong case to encourage a poor nation to use them in preference to coal.

[jpak]

25. Subsidies and carbon taxes can take care of that

But if one presupposes that "solar don't work" there is no point now is there...

[GliderGuider]

27. Whether or not "solar works" isn't the issue

If there are sustainable, lower carbon ways of generating energy we need to be using them yesterday. But they will only be widely adopted if they can produce enough energy, and either are cheaper than the high-carbon, unsustainable alternatives OR their use can be legislated. Given that we face a global problem, the solution needs to have global scope. If the alternatives are not the least expensive options, we need the world to legislate carbon taxes or subsidies. All things considered I'm more convinced that such legislation "won't work" than I am that solar "won't work".

[Dead_Parrot]

31. So, why is Denmark stuck on 20%?

Are Danes particularly stupid or something? Come to think of it, why do you still use fossil fuels for your home? Are you particularly Danish?

[jpak]

41. Denmark will produce 50% of their electricity from wind power by 2025...

Denmark to Increase Wind Power to 50% by 2025, Mostly Offshore

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46749

link to the report within...

..and the 485 MW(e) 570 MW(t) Avedøre-2 CHP biomass power plant near Copenhagen produces 20% of eastern Denmark's electricity and much the district heat (180,000 homes) for Copenhagen.

This plant replaced 3 older Danish coal-fired plants (they were decommissioned).

Denmark is well on the way to establishing a carbon-neutral economy...

Did you know Denmark banned the use of coal in 1996???

(prolly not)

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

48. I think you're confusing "capacity" and "Power". Again.

Denmark is importing increasing amounts of electricity, due to that annoying habit the wind has of not always blowing. The biomass plant is nice, though.

Out of interest, does your idea of "carbon-neutral" cover Denmark's oil & gas exports, or don't they count?

Edit - BTW, You still haven't told us why you're happy to use fossil fuels while you tell everyone else to buy solar. Why is that?

[july302001]

26. why....

jpak, why do you always see things in black and white "solar/wind vs. nuclear?"

Today, 78 coal miners died in an awful explosion in Russia. Why don't you ever speak out against coal?

The reality is that solar and wind provide just a few percent of electricity. Those like you who want to ban nuclear energy are really in favor of your little few percent of renewables PLUS NATURAL GAS and COAL.

[jpak]

28. I don't

but others do - and that's why I post info like this.

And others see the problem as a B/W choice between coal and nuclear - i.e., if you are critical of nuclear power, then you are pro-coal blah blah blah...

As far as "denouncing" coal is concerned - that's a given - so why should I preface every E&E post with "Coal Bad"????

It reminds me of republics condemnation of "Liberals" during the Cold War.

They blasted "Liberals" for not vigorously condemning Soviet human rights policies 24/7/365...and because they didn't do this to their satisfaction, "Liberals" were somehow ignoring the problem or promoting "comminizm".

It really was a disingenuous argument.

on edit:

and please - find one single post where I want to "ban nuclear power".

You can't find it, because I never said it...

[july302001]

34. reply

Almost every time a post has the "jpak" byline...it's against nuclear power. Very rarely, there will be a post from jpak on another topic...but it's once in a blue moon.

Jpak, do you support those "others" who see things in such black-and-white terms and who are against nuclear energy...no matter the alternatives?

Hardly ever is there a jpak post about problems with coal.

Although I rarely post, I've read the boards for a couple of years...which is long enough to observe this.

I decided to draw attention to this fact today, because coal has just had a BIG problem over in Russia...78 human beings dead. Totally needlessly.

Y'know, if renewables like hydro, wind and solar were 98% of our energy sources, I'd be happy to wave the "NO NUKES" sign. That's so far from reality that it's a joke.

Here's the reality:

Renewables are like 2, 3, 5 or max 10% of energy sources...even in jurisdictions where they've been heavily favored and where nuclear power construction is BANNED. I'm talking about California and Germany.

By the way, I wouldn't be posting here if I weren't liberal enough to care about things like workplace safety. That's something that I care about, and the Republicans have given workplace safety short shrift since the days of Ronnie "Bonzo" Reagan.

I challenge kneejerk thinkers on both the Left and the Right.

[bananas]

36. I hardly ever see july302001 post about problems with coal

does that mean she is pro-coal?
:popcorn:

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Err, Bananas...

One of the nice things about donating to DU, is that you can then search posts by author.

You might want to bear that in mind, next time you fancy making an ass-hat of yourself.

:D

[bananas]

38. 55 posts? nt

[Dead_Parrot]

39. and the percent relating to coal is... ?

Hint: it seems to be higher than yours...

[jpak]

40. Nonsense - go back to the recent archives and show us all those "antinuclear" jpak posts

Virtually all are about renewable energy - not "antinuclear" articles.

...and I defy you to find one where I advocate "banning nuclear power".

...and why should I waste my time beating the "coal is bad" dead horse???

Everybody realizes that.

...and finally - despite what the naysayers say - renewable energy is in ascendancy all over the planet (see the OP) and will make up double-digit percentages of total and electrical energy in the EU, Japan and the US in a few short years.

You can take that to the bank.

[bananas]

35. I never said I wanted to ban nuclear, either

What do you think of Al Gore's proposals in his policy address?
There's a link to it in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=87466&mesg_id=88015

[hunter]

42. From the barrel of misleading statistics...

In the manner of Amory Lovins, 195 miles to the Denver Airport, 115 miles to Grand Junction, 16 miles to Aspen... (ooooh, famous people vacation there!) And a car that gets 60mpg, so you're cool.


"Mama, I wanna be an intern at RMI and save the world! I wanna be a capitalist by a new model, a natural capitalist, save the world, and make a lot of money doing it!!!"

"Sounds good to Daddy. He always wanted you to go into business, just like he did. Let me write you a check, give you the hand-me-down Prius, and your aunt will send you some lift tickets too. Have fun, dear. I'm so proud of you."


So, how's the coal industry doing, jpak? It is about coal, you know, but we don't worry about that because eventually coal plants will be replaced by solar and wind, just like nuclear power... right?????

I can't wait. Popcorn. Hot, fresh, and sprinkled with curry powder.

[jpak]

43. at (minus) -746 MW, nuclear power did not re/dis-place any coal-fired capacity in 2006

5+ GW of new PV and wind power did.

misleading????

not

[hunter]

44. From your own source...

New units:

Tarapur 3 (490 MW(e), PHWR, India) was connected to the grid on 15 June
Tianwan 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR-WWER, China) was connected to the grid on 12 May

Final shutdowns:

Bohunice 1 (408 MW(e), PWR-WWER, Slovakia) was shutdown on 31 December
Kozloduy 3&4 (2x 408 MW(e), PWR-WWER, Bulgaria) were shutdown on 31 December
Dungeness A 1&2 (2x 225 MW(e), GCR-Magnox, UK) were shutdown on 31 December
Sizewell A 1&2 (2x 210 MW(e), GCR-Magnox, UK) were shutdown on 31 December
Jose Cabrera 1 (Zorita) (142 MW(e), PWR, Spain) was shutdown on 30 April

Construction initiation:

Shin Kori 1 (960 MW(e), PWR, S. Korea) - construction officially started on August 15
Beloyarsk 4 (750 MW(e), FBR, Russia) - construction officially started on July 18
Lingao 4 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on June 15
Qinshan II-3 (610 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on March 28
Ground-breaking for Shin Wolsong 1 & 2 units (960 MW(e), PWR, S. Korea) started on 28 April

The shutdowns are interesting; especially the current controversy in Bulgaria.

But look at New Units and Construction initiation...

Most certainly, any new reactors displace coal in the same manner as wind or solar.

Whatever our opinions may be about the desirability of nuclear power, it's a good bet that it will outpace solar and wind development once global warming becomes a glaringly obvious hazard. It will be an easy sell to people who have lost their homes to the weather and/or rising sea levels, and farmers whose land has been rendered infertile.

My greatest concern is that hasty energy developments of all sorts will do great damage to the environment. When I weigh the numbers in my head the energy sources with the environmentally most damaging and deadliest potentials are coal and biomass. Despite it's supposed "carbon neutrality" I think biomass conversion has the potential to destroy entire ecosystems and cultures, and that the potential horrors of it have a similar grim weight as the horrors of global warming.

I don't want ethanol in my gasoline if I know it is causing the destruction of natural ecosystems, damaging the sustainability of existing farmland, and increasing the misery of agricultural workers and people living in poverty.

[jpak]

45. Since you asked about coal - here's some more "misleading" data

New US wind capacity 2006 = 2550 MW = 893 MW after 35% capacity factor correction.

New US geothermal capacity 2006 = 30 MW = 26 MW after 85% capacity factor correction.

The 2006 US PV/biomass/biogas numbers have not been released but it will be somewhere around 100 MW (25 MW after 25% capacity factor correction) for new grid-tied PV capacity.

New natural gas-fired capacity 2006 = 9014 MW = 7662 MW after 85% capacity factor correction (conservative as some of these may be peaking - not base load plants).

New US coal-fired capacity = 1213 MW = 1092 MW after 85% capacity factor correction.

No new nuclear capacity was added in the US in 2006.

http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/News/6365475.xml?S=printer&p=Electric%20Power/News&sub=Electric%20Power

Summary:

New US gas-fired capacity 2006 = 7662 MW (corrected)

New US coal-fired capacity 2006 = 1092 MW (corrected)

New US renewable additions 2006 = 948+ MW (corrected)

New US nuclear additions 2006 = 0

Conservatively, renewables contributed ~10% of new US generating capacity additions in 2006 - nearly as much as new coal additions.

Renewables are making a difference - and nuclear ain't.

And you have my permission to use only 100% eco-friendly non-ethanol gasoline in yo' ride...

:evilgrin:

[hunter]

46. So why'd you switch from global to U.S. statistics...

We don't know anything in the U.S. (Yikes, we're still arguing about Evolution vs. Creation in many places...)

So we built 7662 MW of gas fired plants, but we don't really know where the gas is going to come from.

You are going to say that we don't know where the uranium is going to come from either, but it's actually a different sort of problem. It could come from a wide variety of sources, and the cost of uranium is not a huge fraction of the cost of producing electricity, as is the cost of natural gas.

I suspect in a crunch, especially the sort of crunch that could result from any devaluation of the dollar that shuts the U.S. out of the international competition for natural gas, that these new gas plants will be converted to run on syngas made from coal, with some storage of syngas-derived methane for conventional peaking plants. So in the long run I don't see natural gas plants will be any less harmful than "clean coal" plants. (I wouldn't be surprised if fossil fuel industry insiders saw these new gas plants as stealth "clean coal" projects...)

Anyhow, I'll call you on your numbers, for neglecting natural gas in your argument.

Using your own numbers, fossil fuels accounted for ~90% of the total increase. This isn't a "half full, half empty" kind of a statement, because it doesn't matter if you are an optimist or a pessimist, a glass "~10%" full is mostly empty.

[jpak]

47. Because the 2006 numbers for global coal/gas/oil plants haven't come out yet

You got 'em - let's see 'em...

and where did I ever advocate for new natural gas plants???

and where have I ignored Peak Gas???

(in you dreams, perhaps???)

:evilgrin:

[hunter]

49. But you said it was a bad year for nuclear power...

... when the figures you linked to indicated otherwise.

A few cranky old nuclear plants got shut down, while new plants are opening and being built.

Fossil fuel plants were still king, overshadowing alternative energy, including your oft mentioned (coal convertable) wood "waste" fired plants.

[jpak]

50. Those figures were for operational grid-connected wind, PV and nuclear facilities

They did not include the thousands of MW of new wind and solar/PV projects "under construction" world-wide.

and they did not include off-grid PV additions.

If those were included, they would more than double wind and PV additions...

Furthermore, they did not include additions of new solar thermal capacity (1050 MW in Germany alone in 2006 - global numbers not available).

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47322

...and it did not include global growth in geothermal/biomass/biogas electrical generating capacity or biofuels in 2006 (numbers not yet available).

Even if you included nuclear plants "under construction" in 2006 (4280 MW name plate) minus the negative growth in operating nuclear capacity (-746 MW name plate),"growth" in nuclear capacity (before capacity factor correction) was only 3535 MW (3181 MW assuming a 90% capacity factor).

In comparison, new wind + PV + German solar thermal additions in 2006 were 6385 MW (assuming a 60% capacity factor for German solar thermal).

Anyway you cut it, global additions of new renewable energy sources *greatly* outpaced additions of new nuclear capacity.

So yes - it was a Very Bad Year for nuclear and a Great Year for renewables...

[hunter]

51. I'll be happy and dance because the tiger who's got my throat hasn't got my feet!

:party:

I just can't see where your optimism is coming from. The numbers are not good enough to significantly reduce the impact. We are falling out of the sky without a parachute. If we deploy all the alternative energy you celebrate, then we hit the rocks below at 100 mph instead of 110 mph.

Ouch.

This is like arguing about which herbal supplement will cure your cancer, when in fact, the only treatment that's ever worked involves four hours of surgery and several months of chemo.

Or maybe it's like rubbing aloe on a gangrenous leg. How do you get that guy to consent for an amputation?

I don't know, doesn't matter.

I honestly believe the United States is going to end up looking a lot like Mexico. Canada will be Canada, France will be France, Western Europe will be Western Europe, but the United States will be a cheap vacation with bad roads, policemen who look like soldiers, and cute little white kids always in your face selling Chiclets gum and paper flowers.