Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

And ultimately, the other reason it's not for everyone is that solar sometimes unfortunately just doesn't work out. Today's picture:
IMG_20240113_123104.jpg
We've had over a week of the worst overcast weather, day after day. I reset my counter on January 1. Picture is from today, the 13th, middle-ish of the day. Only 22kwh accumulated. That means over 13 days, I generated only 1.7kwh per day, on average. From 5kw of panels! And that's average; a couple of those overcast days were so overcast I literally produced 0 kwh one of those days. During the summer I can get 15-20kwh per day.

I love having solar, I think it's great and more people should do it, on some sort of scale. But you can't argue that some days, the sun just don't shine, and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
JackFlorey said:
If you have a "standard" (i.e. non-hybrid) solar power system it will not grid-form; it will only grid-follow. In other words it needs a sine wave to sync to. When power goes out it gives up. This is both to make design easier and to ensure that the system shuts down and doesn't try to feed back to a "dead" grid which is super dangerous for linemen.

Most standard (non-hybrid) solar power systems now have an emergency power output that will basically provide an outlet that gives you power while the sun is out. Most people plug things in directly, so they can charge their phones, flashlights, radios etc. Heck, you could even charge an EV at Level 1.

Some people have wired them such that they will feed back to the house's loads. You do this by building the dreaded and dangerous "two ended male extension cord" and plugging one end into the inverter and the other into a home outlet. Then you turn off the main breaker, keep the breaker to that outlet on, and the power feeds back to the home and powers everything up to the limit of the inverter (2000 watts in the case of SMA.)

But of course such schemes are fraught with danger, for both the user and the utility. The smarter way to do it nowadays is to move your important loads (outlets, lights, furnace etc) to an "essentials panel" and then run that panel from a hybrid inverter. That way there's no risk of backfeeding the grid, the loads the inverter has to handle are lower, and there are no unexpectedly energized conductors. Nowadays you can get hybrid inverters with or without batteries, and if you change your mind later you can add batteries then.
Click to expand...
The utility company in my area simply does not allow battery storage if you want to participate in their grid tied system. No exceptions. And it's a private company, you can't easily legislate it.
 
harrisonpatm said:
The utility company in my area simply does not allow battery storage if you want to participate in their grid tied system. No exceptions. And it's a private company, you can't easily legislate it.
Click to expand...
The way to approach that would be:

Get a Sol-Ark or Skybox inverter and set it up for batteryless operation. Get it installed, certified etc. Then when everyone leaves, add a battery. At that point there's no way for them to detect it.
 
JackFlorey said:
The way to approach that would be:

Get a Sol-Ark or Skybox inverter and set it up for batteryless operation. Get it installed, certified etc. Then when everyone leaves, add a battery. At that point there's no way for them to detect it.
Click to expand...
I could, but I just did it my way of not asking for grid tie permits in the first place, don't want them.
 
Kairos MSR, Molten Salt Reactor,..approved by NRC.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the construction of a groundbreaking new power reactor in eastern Tennessee. Once operational, Kairos Power’s Hermes reactor will be able to provide thermal power at 35 megawatts to decarbonize industrial processes in the United States. The reactor is the first non-water-cooled design to receive NRC approval since 1968.

“[NRC] has voted to issue a construction permit to Kairos Power for the Hermes demonstration reactor to be built in Oak Ridge, TN – a critical step on our iterative pathway to commercializing advanced reactor technology,” Kairos stated on X.
A recent study found that nuclear power is best for the environment. Yet green activists in places like Germany have still forced the closure of nuclear power plants. And they have done so even though “every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity,” saysa long-time environment activist. “Solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste,” such as “dust from toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium.” Unlike wind farms, nuclear power plants don’t kill birds. And “wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.” “Nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have, if you consider deaths per megawatt of energy produced,” notes Yale University professor Steven Novella.
Click to expand...

Groundbreaking nuclear plant approved, uses non-water-cooled reactor - Liberty Unyielding​

Could nuclear power make a comeback? It provides most electric power in countries like France and Slovakia, but in the U.S., nuclear power plants provide only about 18% of all power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes it very expensive to construct a nuclear plant — even the application...
libertyunyielding.com
 
Hillhater said:

Groundbreaking nuclear plant approved, uses non-water-cooled reactor - Liberty Unyielding​

Could nuclear power make a comeback? It provides most electric power in countries like France and Slovakia, but in the U.S., nuclear power plants provide only about 18% of all power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes it very expensive to construct a nuclear plant — even the application...
libertyunyielding.com
Click to expand...
Cool! In 20 years or so we can check back and see if it's operational yet.
 
Not because the technology was to blame……as demonstrated by the 400+ operating plants worldwide !
…..and not a good reflection on US management !
A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale ... only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[4]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So , yes,…maybe that new MSR in Tennessee does not stand a chance ?
 
I suppose we could take a lesson from Australia, and their lone single nuclear facility that doesn't even make power, but just produces medical radioisotopes.
In fact, isn't nuclear power generation illegal in Australia, even though they are the third largest producer of uranium?
 
Voltron said:
I suppose we could take a lesson from Australia,
Click to expand...
You could,..but i would not recommend it ….
.We have a grid generation system teetering on the verge of collapse !
Its the result of poor leadership, corruption, and “green” influences.…
….Be careful who you elect to make decisions for your future !

Take a lesson from France instead !
 
Hillhater said:
Take a lesson from France instead !
Click to expand...
Permanent overhead costs in return for temporary power generation? Naw thanks. France does a lot of things very well, but producing energy with any regard for the future isn't one of them. Their approach seems to be IBGYBG.

It's a very different outlook from the French folks who could spend their lives building a cathedral that wouldn't be finished for hundreds of years after they were gone.

Things that are worth doing in the long run, are worth doing. Things that are economically superior in the long run, are economically superior.
 
Last edited:
Voltron said:
You mean this France, that is running out of space for all it's nuclear waste,
Click to expand...
Yes,….and that article says that they have solutions to that issue, but are waiting on approvals to impliment them

Jean-Christophe Varin, deputy director of the La Hague site, told Reuters Orano could be flexible to ensure more recycling is done at the facility and there were "several possible scenarios"
Click to expand...
However, he said they could not be worked on in detail in the absence of a strategic vision. Orano, for which EDF accounts for 95% of its recycling business, says it needs clear direction from the government no later than 2025, to give it time to plan the necessary investments.
Click to expand...
"We have real skills and a real technological advantage, especially over the United States. Russia is the only other country that is able to do what France does in terms of treatment and recycling."
 
Chalo said:
Permanent overhead costs in return for temporary power generation?
Click to expand...
But spending $$billions on solar, wind + battery, infrastructure that needs fully replacing every 20 yrs or so is not a “Permanent overhead cost “ for an intermittent , unpredictable, power generation system ?
Do you have any comprehension on what the cost is to install enough solar, wind and batteries to replace the generation capacity in the USA ?….…..
….and then replace it all again on a 20 yr cycle !
 
You really do gloss over the bad parts of things you support. What that article said was they have one stopgap measure, that will cost a couple billion and not be ready until 2035 at the earliest. Then they have a potential solution that they can't get approval for because of all the people that would live near it, with an unknown price tag, completion date, or total capacity.
And their current storage already costs $300,000,000 a year to operate, and getting more expensive every year.
Also mentioned, the increase in heat in Frances rivers that is beginning to cut into production, because they're at the limit of how much waste heat can continue to be dumped without killing off everything in the rivers.
 
Last edited:
Hillhater said:
But spending $$billions on solar, wind + battery, infrastructure that needs fully replacing every 20 yrs or so
Click to expand...
You better tell all the people who have had solar for 30 years that they are running on imaginary power!

The first house I owned had solar installed in 2002. Still working just fine.
Take a lesson from France instead !
Click to expand...
They tried. The Vogtle plant in Georgia decided to take a lesson from France and add two new reactors. Cheap reliable solar! 100% availability! They started planning for it in 2003, and applied for their permits in 2006 after the design was complete. They decided to use the AP-1000 design, a Gen IV reactor that promised fast construction, simplified designs, safe operation and low costs. So they'd have more power by 2009! Maybe 2010 by the latest. And it would cost only $14 billion - a huge amount of money, but one that they hoped to pay off with higher power prices and long service life.

By December 2011, they were up to their 19th revision of the design certification. It required them to basically start over. Obama gave them an $8 billion loan guarantee so they could continue construction.

In June 2013, the construction company added another 14 months to the schedule.

In 2015, the construction company was close to bankrutpcy from all the cost and schedule overruns and bailed. Westinghouse took over.

In 2017, Westinghouse's nuclear division went bankrupt due to all the cost and schedule overruns. The power company found another sucker firm, Bechtel, to take over.

Later that year, the Georgia Public Service Commission realized that many of the plans had not been approved by anyone with an engineering license. So all construction stopped again. They also passed a ruling that the power company could NOT recover the costs of the overruns from the public, meaning that the power company was almost certainly headed for bankruptcy once they could no longer get loans.

2018 - the cost was increased by another $2.3 billion, bringing the total to $25 billion. They got more government loan guarantees so they could continue construction. But good news! It would be finished by 2021.

2022 - the plant started loading fuel for the first time.

Feb 2023 - during the first full-up test of the reactor, unexpected vibrations caused an emergency shutdown. More delays.

July 2023 - Unit 3 generated power for the first time.

So only 14 years late; total time from planning to first power 20 years. Total cost $34 billion - over twice the original estimate. Prospects for the future - grim, since the utility is now losing money operating it and cannot raise rates to cover it. Their only hope is to sneak in rate increases in other areas to pay for the debt service on the reactor.

So no, US companies are not going to take lessons from France. They are going to take lessons from US firms that have been bankrupted - or almost bankrupted - by nuclear power. Georgia Power. CB+I. Westinghouse. Oglethorpe Power Corp. And this is even with huge federal subsidies in the form of loan guarantees.

They are also going to take lessons from Solaredge, Enphase, Sun Power, NextEra, Avangrid and First Solar, all making billions by building out solar and wind.

Nuclear power is great in theory. Not so great in practice.
 
Chalo's inherent curmudgeonlyness is correct though, fast/hot nuclear is not a solution with any viable longevity.

Pebble bed, thorium, LifTr all have signifigant potential, but historically the issue was not whether these units worked, it was that there was no long term sales potential in them. You can get Thorium by the truck load from fields in Oklahoma, it is a bi-product.

All of the low pressure nuclear systems have the added benefit of the default state being a shutdown, not a catastrophe.

The concpt that baffles me is that people who want *green* energy, do not want the ultimate in green energy. They say things like "oh the radiation" Coal produces more harmful radiation than Fukishima. So does the big ball of fusion in the sky, but that is another topic.

Nuclear can be safe, and economical with very low environmental impact, Canada and Germany have done deep research into this and found that the only reason that fast/hot nuclear plants are dangerous is because decisions were made for long-term sales potential by plants making fissile fuel rods. Not the scientists doing the reports...

What, I learn stuff, besides, Chemo boy is a Physicist, he gets bored a lot and I get physics lectures.
 
DaLanMan said:
Nuclear can be safe, and economical with very low environmental impact
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and I am all for more research into them. Perhaps someday we will have safe/cheap/quick-building nuclear reactors. We see them in the news all the time. Heck, we might even have fusion. Until then, we go with the best options we have.
 
Uhmm.. if you are waiting for the research, it started in the 50's and was very successful, 3 plants built, the least safe was chosen to move forward.

Canada started research in the 60's and I believe Germany did as well, Belgium is still digging into things I do not believe they have a test plant, the original slow/low pressure plant is still open and operational here in California.

I agree entirely, ceasing research is not the answer, however Germanies complete anti-nuclear status coupled with the biggest coal digging operation on the planet ... even dumber.

We have better solutions to the problem, but none of them include buying fissile fuel rods from GE, then selling them back to GE, who then figured it was cheaper to make new ones than to replenish the old ones (yep, they can be recycled, who knew) so they literally gave them back to the govt, sent em a bill for storage and shipping and said "not our problem"

The problem is economics and unchecked corporate decision making. Not Nuclear (insert Rant about Fukishima looking a lot like it was either a planned failure, or at the very least an ego the size of Montana that caused it)
 
The reason we even have nuclear power generation at scale is because it generates weapons grade byproducts. It's not a good reason, but it is the reason. That's why safer, more efficient, less polluting, lower EROEI alternative fission plant designs were never fully developed and commercialized. They still haven't made the case for themselves as being commercially viable in practice. I expect we'll see eventually whether they are or not, but there's no getting around the fact that this is very expensive tech with very expensive long term externalities of security, site cleanup, and waste disposal, plus undesirable suppressive effects on property values and land uses.
 
People do want the ultimate green energy. They just don't want to trade one long term problem for a different long term problem. Once they solve the meltdowns, the spent fuel storage, cost overruns and proliferation problems, nuclear will be great.
 
Voltron said:
People do want the ultimate green energy. They just don't want to trade one long term problem for a different long term problem. Once they solve the meltdowns, the spent fuel storage, cost overruns and proliferation problems, nuclear will be great.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And that's true of all forms of energy.

Once they solve the problem of CO2 emissions, sulfates, bottom and fly ash disposal, mining damage and inefficient combustion, coal will be great (for example.)

Some sources, though, have fewer problems than others.
 
They started planning for it in 2003,…..
…..yaada, yaada, yaada,….
July 2023 - Unit 3 generated power for the first time.
So only 14 years late; total time from planning to first power 20 years. Total cost $34 billion…..
……..
hmm?…sounds like a classic example of poor Project management
Maybe , instead of just taking the technology idea, They should have also taken an example of how to manage a project, ….or just let the French run the whole job !
JackFlorey said:
They are also going to take lessons from Solaredge, Enphase, Sun Power, NextEra, Avangrid and First Solar, all making billions by building out solar and wind.
Click to expand...
So, enableing prrivate corporations to “make billions” from an essential service is a good reason ??
And who do you think is paying for those billions in profits ?
 
Last edited:
Chalo said:
The reason we even have nuclear power generation at scale is because it generates weapons grade byproducts. It's not a good reason, but it is the reason. That's why safer, more efficient, less polluting, lower EROEI alternative fission plant designs were never fully developed and commercialized. They still haven't made the case for themselves as being commercially viable in practice. I expect we'll see eventually whether they are or not, but there's no getting around the fact that this is very expensive tech with very expensive long term externalities of security, site cleanup, and waste disposal, plus undesirable suppressive effects on property values and land uses.
Click to expand...
Nimby for the frocking up of everything that is needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
400
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
351
Hillhater
H
J
Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
7,939
jonescg
jonescg
RustyKipper
    • Like
Ammo box battery with solar charging
Replies
4
Views
772
99t4
9
E
GMAC vs Grin All Axle vs Dual Drive Catrike
2
Replies
28
Views
1,273
edben05
E
Back
Top