Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Hillhater said:
Feed in tarrifs are market determined ( supply/demand ). ...and is unrelated to construction/installation costs.

Not in Germany. Fallig interest rates play a minor role, but this is compensated by operating costs, which didn't fall by the same amount.

If you are able to sell solar electricity in Germany for 5ct/kWh at an installation cost of 2.000USD/kWh feel free to do so. It is not possible.
 
The actual price of the electrical generation as stated on my bill in my grid of NY USA is $0.047/ kWh. My price all together at the bottom of the bill is $0.127/ kWh. 37% nuclear, 38% gas, 19% hydro.
 
BBC reports that the British government will give the green light to build two new reactors at Sizewell!

This is a huge victory for Environmental Progress & in particular @ziontree our Europe Director
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54754016

Why I rebelled against Extinction Rebellion... and went nuclear: In an astonishing and brave volte-face, the eco-group's ex-spokesperson ZION LIGHTS reveals why she has changed tack over the future of energy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8716403/XRs-ex-spokesperson-ZION-LIGHTS-reveals-changed-tack-future-energy.html
^Not surprising that people who actually want to seriously reduce co2 emissions are merely just looking at the real-world data and seeing anything other than nuclear is really just garbage https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false&remote=true
 
by TheBeastie » Nov 01 2020 4:49am

BBC reports that the British government will give the green light to build two new reactors at Sizewell!

Strangely i'm becoming pro Nuclear energy it may be the only thing that stops Humans from destroying the planet. Nuclear will do a better job than this Virus is.
 
"The Great Unraveling" 10 minute video interview series hosted on the Post Carbon Institute site features luminaries in various disciplines speaking on what are our opportunities and constraints as human civilization moves forward into the future. As interviewed by Laurie Laybourn-Langton.
Paraphrasing Daniel Hayer on Cycles Of Societies: How societies throughout history all tend to fall into certain patterns. How they begin to develop, change, fall into crisis, and evolve. 
"It starts with a growth phase and then moves into a disintegration phase with fractured social cohesion from inequity in wellbeing. A possible surprise is that this occurs not only on the masses broadly from the top to the bottom, but also within groups of society, including the elites.
As population and resource consumption come up against limits, competition forces wages down which leads to popular immiseration where the wellbeing of the majority goes down. This should be a warning sign but this is also a phase where the elites do really well so they use their positions of control to continue it. As rising numbers of new elites compete for a finite number of positions of power nationally and globally we then see polarization and nationalism result in a rise of populist, demagogue figures. Because the majority of the population is immiserated they are ready to fall into factions and follow one or another of these charismatic leaders, leading to a fractured society. This is the disintegrative phase."
Are there instances of recognizing this as the tipping point to collapse and taking preemptive steps to mitigate the speed and severity?
When we recognize that inequity is the key marker then it is possible to redistribute resources to draw out the time scale for a softer landing onto what comes next.

https://www.postcarbon.org/great-unraveling/societal-cycles/
.
123401137_3425543527524735_7318652909986675950_n.jpg

.
 
ZeroEm said:
........
Strangely i'm becoming pro Nuclear energy it may be the only thing that stops Humans from destroying the planet. ..
There is nothing “strange” about recognising the obvious solution for the reliable supply of bulk energy in the mid term.......until something better is developed. !
 
ZeroEm said:
by TheBeastie » Nov 01 2020 4:49am

BBC reports that the British government will give the green light to build two new reactors at Sizewell!

Strangely i'm becoming pro Nuclear energy it may be the only thing that stops Humans from destroying the planet. Nuclear will do a better job than this Virus is.

Do you want to live next to a nuclear plant?
 
by markz » Nov 01 2020 9:51pm

ZeroEm wrote: ↑Nov 01 2020 5:33am
by TheBeastie » Nov 01 2020 4:49am

BBC reports that the British government will give the green light to build two new reactors at Sizewell!
Strangely i'm becoming pro Nuclear energy it may be the only thing that stops Humans from destroying the planet. Nuclear will do a better job than this Virus is.
Do you want to live next to a nuclear plant?

I look left then look right, no Nuclear Plant Next to me. I know one is with in 100 miles. No don't like Nuclear but like hydrocarbons less. Animals do better than humans with a meltdown, figure it's one way to reduce the population and stop drilling here in Texas!
 
TheBeastie said:
BBC reports that the British government will give the green light to build two new reactors at Sizewell!

And who will build them?

From the last UK plan of 6 new reactors only three started construction.

Hinkley C is a financial desaster and many years behind schedule, another two have been stopped forever costing their Japanes builders billions. The last three never even started.

UK needs a few reactors for their military use to be able to build nuclear warheads in future and keep the technological expertise.
 
Hillhater said:
German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles[

mPwhmi.jpg

https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676

Compare that against the public resistance against nuclear power in Germany :)
 
Ah yes, picturesque next to your $500,000 house, picturesque. Well those homes look small, it is Germany, those homes are like the size of a 3 Hummer H2 garage with 2nd floor in-law suite. OK 3 Hummer H2 garage is pushing it.

Hillhater said:
Cephalotus said:
Hillhater said:
Do you want to line near 50 wind turbines ?

Sure. Why not?

German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles[

mPwhmi.jpg

https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676
 
Chris Smage-Arguing For A Small Farm Future: Nobody can tell what the future holds, but it’s a fair bet that global economic output won’t grow sixfold over the next 50 years as it has done over the last 50. Nor is it likely that fossil fuel use will triple like it has done over the same period. In fact, it seems clear that we’ll probably have to make do with less energy globally and with virtually no fossil fuels at all
Various technologies and practices have been touted to buy us out of these changes – electric vehicles, veganism, tree-planting, zero tillage, nuclear power or renewables – but none of them currently seem equal to the task
It’s true that low-energy farm societies often involve hard work, even if it’s leavened with cooperation, simple machinery, the labour of livestock or an appreciation that bending your back on a farm can be better than alienating your mind in an office. Even so, with the limited energy budget likely to be available in the future, we need to start a debate about how to prioritise its use. I’d suggest that farming should stake a major claim – but sustainable farming will still involve a more peopled and diverse rural landscape, which may be no bad thing.
For some, that may sound too dystopian, apocalyptic or declinist. There certainly may be some dystopian or apocalyptic futures awaiting us unless we play our present hand of cards with skill.
So I offer this book as a kind of critical introduction, a way of starting to organise thinking about what a widespread turn to agrarian localism might look like. This seems worth doing because even though the idea of a small farm future is currently marginal to mainstream thought, it’s probably the best future now available for most of humanity, and we don’t seem to be discussing the implications of that nearly seriously enough.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-11-16/arguing-for-a-small-farm-future/
 
I see a lot of talk about self-driving cars here. There's an awful lot of positive 'spin' on the IOT but I think we can agree here in this ebike forum tjat simply using LESS energy solves an awful lot of problems. How many of you have considered the energy cost of the IOT (especially self-driving cars) :
https://www.ee.co.za/article/iot-could-cause-an-energy-crisis.html#.X7MoCneIayV

or even the energy cost of spam (thanks to McAfee for bringing this to my attention)?
https://www.cnet.com/news/spams-carbon-footprint-one-e-mail-is-like-driving-three-feet

Cheaper than all of these power solutions (which ALL have a carbon footprint of some kind or other) is not wasting it in the first place.
 
Interesting how many are pro nuclear all of a sudden, especially with Chernobyl in the news lately. The Chernobyl reactor had/has few thousand times more of the stuff that goes boom than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I don't trust nuclear, it's not likely to go off but if it does it would be felt all over the world. Personally I'd prefer a nice Hydro power plant, that runs perfectly clean for decades after being built. Coal pollutes a lot, it's especially CO2 pollution heavy, if you'd take the CO2 out of the equation they would not be that bad, too bad CO2 is so bad for the environment. Gas and/or gasoline would be fine if it was not a non-renewable energy source. Solar is not reliable, solar cells have short lifespan, only couple of decades, not recyclable, little power generation when overcast, and none when dark. Wind is not too bad, but they're ugly, the windmill blades are not recyclable and the blades need replacing more often than you'd think, and every now and then there is no wind.
The solution to mankind's energy crisis is simply to use less energy. Drive around in electrically assisted bicycles, not huge pickup trucks (or even Tesla's) :wink: . Build clever houses so you don't have to use AC during the summer. Buy local so your food doesn't have to be trucked/flown around the world.
 
Andsetinn said:
The Chernobyl reactor had/has few thousand times more of the stuff that goes boom than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Right - as does a typical coal mine.
I don't trust nuclear, it's not likely to go off but if it does it would be felt all over the world. Personally I'd prefer a nice Hydro power plant, that runs perfectly clean for decades after being built.
Hydro destroys habitat, causes emission of methane and endangers fish. There are no perfect sources of power. Hydro's pretty good. So is nuclear. Hydro is great paired with renewables because hydro is very throttleable. Nuclear is great for base load power because a reactor wants to produce close to its maximum output 100% of the time.
The solution to mankind's energy crisis is simply to use less energy. Drive around in electrically assisted bicycles, not huge pickup trucks (or even Tesla's)
All good stopgap solutions. But the need for energy isn't going away.
 
JackFlorey said:
Right - as does a typical coal mine.
But it's not in refined state in the coal mine.
JackFlorey said:
Hydro destroys habitat, causes emission of methane and endangers fish. There are no perfect sources of power. Hydro's pretty good. So is nuclear. Hydro is great paired with renewables because hydro is very throttleable. Nuclear is great for base load power because a reactor wants to produce close to its maximum output 100% of the time.
The amount of habitat destroyed, methane emissions and endangerment of fishes is depends highly on localized conditions. There are many hydro power plants set up in locations where there is no habitat to be destroyed, or fishes to be killed. Methane production from those places is minimal. Since dams prevent seasonal flooding they increase the amount of farmable land, creating work and making local produce cheaper.
JackFlorey said:
All good stopgap solutions. But the need for energy isn't going away.
Need for energy will not go away completely, but if we can reduce it, let's say 25%, we can close most of the highly polluting power stations. Net effect could be up to 50% reduction in pollution from the energy sector.
 
Hi Andsetinn, and welcome to the forum..
Andsetinn said:
Interesting how many are pro nuclear all of a sudden, especially with Chernobyl in the news lately. The Chernobyl reactor had/has few thousand times more of the stuff that goes boom than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I don't trust nuclear, it's not likely to go off but if it does it would be felt all over the world.....
We have had 70 years of Nuclear generation , with few accidents and a very good safety record.
The few accidents that have happened have ben studied and eliminated from current designs and operation practices.
In a few years there will be a whole new generation of nuclear technology with even lower risk levels and “clean” byproducts.
....Personally I'd prefer a nice Hydro power plant, that runs perfectly clean for decades after being built.
...too idealistic. Few countries have “3 Gorges” type natural resources, and most of the countries that do have good hydro options, have already exploited the biggest and best of those.
The “ low hanging fruit” has been taken, what is left is more remote, low capacity, or environmentally unacceptable. And even hydro is not guaranteed to always be consistent or available continuously (seasonal flows ?)

, too bad CO2 is so bad for the environment......
Are you an Environmental scientist ?
..you do know that CO2 is essential for every living organism on this planet ? Without it ,...everything dies.
 
Andsetinn said:
But it's not in refined state in the coal mine.
Right. But it sure sounds scary when you put it that way, eh?
The amount of habitat destroyed, methane emissions and endangerment of fishes is depends highly on localized conditions. There are many hydro power plants set up in locations where there is no habitat to be destroyed, or fishes to be killed.
Nope. Never happens. There are places where disruption is less than other places, of course. But rivers are disrupted where the dam is in run-of-river. River life is disrupted downstream because the flow changes in the case of hydro dams. Upstream of dams habitat is flooded.
Since dams prevent seasonal flooding they increase the amount of farmable land, creating work and making local produce cheaper.
Exactly. And those natural floodplains are no more. The annual flooding and retreat of the water no longer fertilizes the area. All the plants and animals that rely on that once-a-year flood die out. The farms then need tons of artificial fertilizer, damaging the river further.

No free lunch.
Need for energy will not go away completely, but if we can reduce it, let's say 25%, we can close most of the highly polluting power stations. Net effect could be up to 50% reduction in pollution from the energy sector.
Reducing energy consumption is indeed a good goal.
 
Chernobyl disaster for sure made many people changed their mind about nuclear power plants.
You can talk all day long about human errors at Czernobyl plant but that accident showed how dangerous nuclear is.
 
miro13car said:
Chernobyl disaster for sure made many people changed their mind about nuclear power plants.
You can talk all day long about human errors at Czernobyl plant but that accident showed how dangerous nuclear is.

Well yeah but the reactor design of Chernobyl was faulty because the communist government had cheaped out on some safety features in the design. The world learned a lot from that incident and that has been a big no-no ever since.

The real thing holding back nuclear power is economics. It is STILL one of the most expensive forms of power on a kwhr/$ basis.
 
Back
Top