The value of resilience

[nwdiver]

Is that 7,000 kWh/yr. gross usage before PV generation or net annual draw from the POCO after reductions for PV generation ?

Before

If nuclear fission is being considered then why not consider energy from Earth's rotation? Free energy and safer than anything nuclear.

Do you want to live on a planet tidally locked to its star? Because that's how you eventually get a planet tidally locked to its star.

Wow... we've figured out everything. The Earths rotational energy is ~5.9 x 10^13 TWh. That's all we have, the Earth has been slowing down since it formed. We use ~150,000TWh/yr. So at present rates of energy use it would take ~40M years but still...

[solardreamer]

http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-0000...bital%20motion.

[nwdiver]

http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-0000...bital%20motion.

So run your house with it. Good luck.

[SunEagle]

That's just weird. Think of all the problems we could solve instead of burning $$$ on nuclear boondoggles. We lost $30B on Vogtle. That would buy ~30GW of wind or solar. That's A LOT of clean energy. If it even gets completed Vogtle will produce ~16TWh/yr. 30GW of renewables would produce ~80TWh/yr. I would chose to produce 80 over 16 because numbers.

If you hate $$$ why not spend on something that can do more good?

Because spending a lot of money on a couple of energy sources that can't provide power 24/7 can be a boondoggle. Unless you add in some base power sources you can and will lose power to some customers. If I am not right in this thinking then way is CA having rolling black outs due to the high temperatures. The simple answer is that there is not enough power to go around the state where it is needed 24/7.

So yes renewable energy is a worth while solution it still is not reliable as fossil fuel or nuclear energy sources. Maybe if the populace really cut their usage by 50% I would feel better but for now I still want fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in the mix.

[J.P.M.]

http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-0000...bital%20motion.

More perpetual motion machine crap.

Let us know how it works out for you.

[Mike90250]

...... If I am not right in this thinking then way is CA having rolling black outs due to the high temperatures. .......

Big reason was that after 5pm, all the solar power, shut off, and rolling blackouts started at 6pm. The high temps were the frosting on the cake. Along with other states kept their power at home because they didn't have any to export to Calif.

oh and lots of power plants were taken off line, sold for beachfront property and the investors pocketed the the cash,

[nwdiver]

Because spending a lot of money on a couple of energy sources that can't provide power 24/7 can be a boondoggle. Unless you add in some base power sources you can and will lose power to some customers. If I am not right in this thinking then way is CA having rolling black outs due to the high temperatures. The simple answer is that there is not enough power to go around the state where it is needed 24/7.

So yes renewable energy is a worth while solution it still is not reliable as fossil fuel or nuclear energy sources. Maybe if the populace really cut their usage by 50% I would feel better but for now I still want fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in the mix.

That's why... as I said... if you need a GW of capacity you add 1GW of gas that costs $1/w to install vs $15/w for nuclear and costs $14/kW/yr to keep ready vs ~$120/kW/yr for nuclear. If you want to reduce your use of fools fuel by 1MWh you generate it from renewables for ~$20 not nuclear for $120. 24/7 energy cleaner and cheaper the nuclear.

Think about it. Vogtle cost $30B. That's INSANE. Vogtle will provide (fingers crossed it's not cancelled) 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr of carbon free energy for $30B to build and $240M/yr to maintain. How much would it cost to get 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr from renewables and gas? 2GW of gas costs ~$2B. You'd need ~5GW of wind to get 16TWh/yr. So for $7B and ~$28M/yr you get just as much as if you'd spent $30B on nuclear. Since you hate money so much you can spend the $23B you saved on 23GW of utility scale solar and generate another 41TWh/yr. So that's 2GW of reliable capacity + 57TWh/yr (3.5x MORE) AND.... AND you're spending $200M LESS on O&M! (nukes are speeeennnnsive!)

AND.... AND those are costs TODAY. As I'm sure you're aware solar keeps getting cheaper while nuclear somehow keeps finding ways to get more expensive.

Eventually you can use surplus renewables to split water and use H2 to run your turbines when there isn't enough wind, solar or storage.

[J.P.M.]

That's why... as I said... if you need a GW of capacity you add 1GW of gas that costs $1/w to install vs $15/w for nuclear and costs $14/kW/yr to keep ready vs ~$120/kW/yr for nuclear. If you want to reduce your use of fools fuel by 1MWh you generate it from renewables for ~$20 not nuclear for $120. 24/7 energy cleaner and cheaper the nuclear.

Think about it. Vogtle cost $30B. That's INSANE. Vogtle will provide (fingers crossed it's not cancelled) 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr of carbon free energy for $30B to build and $240M/yr to maintain. How much would it cost to get 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr from renewables and gas? 2GW of gas costs ~$2B. You'd need ~5GW of wind to get 16TWh/yr. So for $7B and ~$28M/yr you get just as much as if you'd spent $30B on nuclear. Since you hate money so much you can spend the $23B you saved on 23GW of utility scale solar and generate another 41TWh/yr. So that's 2GW of reliable capacity + 57TWh/yr (3.5x MORE) AND.... AND you're spending $200M LESS on O&M! (nukes are speeeennnnsive!)

AND.... AND those are costs TODAY. As I'm sure you're aware solar keeps getting cheaper while nuclear somehow keeps finding ways to get more expensive.

Eventually you can use surplus renewables to split water and use H2 to run your turbines when there isn't enough wind, solar or storage.

Whether all, none, or any or any portion of all that is true may be discussable ad infinitum as has been beaten to death around here for years with pretty much inconclusive results.

At the end of a billing period Joe and Sally homeowner will probably still need to pay for supplying electricity to their home.

Sane, practical and achievable ways of lowering electric bills start with knowledge about energy and ways to use less of it, and then meet a reduced demand. The effect is felt almost immediately. That has the greatest effect on use and (parenthetically) is also one of the most effective and direct ways for the average person to actually have an effect on the environment - better than beating gums or banging on a keyboard about things few understand.

What you cite above are mostly numbers that few can wrap their brain around as relevant.

Solar/Alternate energy is great. I'm one of its biggest fans I know of and probably one of the oldest, but IMO only, it's not as great as reading your stuff would lead the average bear to infer.
50 years ago I could have been writing stuff similar to what I'm seeing from you. More training and experience have helped me see the hubris and gullibility my ignorance gave me back in the day.

Some see one of the Achilles' heel in alternate energy as its interruptibility or unreliable nature. Maybe if as much $$ and effort was spent on finding ways to attain safe, practical and cost effective energy storage as has been spent on nuclear energy, that concern could be put to rest. My bet is that doing so would still incur waste and corruption as much as with any such endeavor, but maybe the result could be made less onerous to those who claim to care about the planet.

[nwdiver]

What you cite above are mostly numbers that few can wrap their brain around as relevant.

Reducing emissions is ~6x more expensive with nuclear power than with renewables. I think most people can 'wrap their brain' around that.

Some see one of the Achilles' heel in alternate energy as its interruptibility or unreliable nature.

That's not the purpose of renewables. That's like saying the achilles' heel of a 737 is being unable to attain Low Earth Orbit. That's not what it's for.

The purpose of renewables isn't to be un-interrupitble or reliable. It's to reduce the fuel burn of generators that ARE un-interrupitble and reliable.

When I order materials for solar I have to order from 3 places. One has the best deal on rail. One has the best deal on panels and one has the best deal on inverters. Sucks but I save A LOT of money. Sadly the same is true for energy and power on the grid. When you want to add a GW you add gas. To reduce the GWh of fuel burned you add wind and solar. Then you add storage if you're curtailing too much wind and solar. Sure, nuclear is a one-stop-shop but you pay ~6x more if you just want to reduce GWh of fools fuel used and ~3.5x more if you want to add GW and GWh. ~15x more if you just want to add GW!

Point is that nuclear is nothing but a tremendous waste of money we cannot afford.

[peatmoss]

The only option currently for always on large scale power that is not carbon based is nuclear. Gas turbine with renewables is a nice bridge to the future of nuclear and renewables. I'm sure storage has a place in there as well to make renewables more stable. Bottom line its coming, maybe not in the US because we crippled by red tape and partisan politics and have no good plan for the future. The good news is we can probably buy it from China.

[nwdiver]

The only option currently for always on large scale power that is not carbon based is nuclear.

Only if they can find a way to use nuclear to make electricity without the liquid => gas => liquid cycle (aka thermal generation). It's cheaper to convert photons and wind into electricity than heat. So even if the heat source is free (it's not) Solar PV and wind are cheaper. The final piece will be power to gas then the gas turbines will effectively run on stored solar and wind.

Until someone invents non-thermal nuclear power, which I'm not even sure is possible. Nuclear is a dead end.

[peatmoss]

I don't understand how your "non-thermal nuclear power" argument is relevant? I guess your basing this all on cost and ignoring the fact that we don't have a large scale storage system. Hopefully the day never comes where we do have a small ice age due to a volcanic or other event.

[nwdiver]

I don't understand how your "non-thermal nuclear power" argument is relevant? I guess your basing this all on cost and ignoring the fact that we don't have a large scale storage system. Hopefully the day never comes where we do have a small ice age due to a volcanic or other event.

We don't need a 'large scale storage system' anytime soon. It's helpful but not necessary. Clearly storage is coming but the primary reason it doesn't exist at scale is necessity. Unless you're storing solar and wind that would otherwise be curtailed storage doesn't help reduce emissions. We can still add A LOT of solar and wind before we start seeing significant curtailment. Even then the best solution is demand response not storage. We simply don't need much storage until wind and solar are >80% of generation. At those levels nuclear would also require storage since it's so expensive to build and maintain. If demand varies between 30GW and 60GW you wouldn't build 60GW of nuclear. You'd build ~40GW and try to maximize capacity factor with storage.

[SunEagle]

That's why... as I said... if you need a GW of capacity you add 1GW of gas that costs $1/w to install vs $15/w for nuclear and costs $14/kW/yr to keep ready vs ~$120/kW/yr for nuclear. If you want to reduce your use of fools fuel by 1MWh you generate it from renewables for ~$20 not nuclear for $120. 24/7 energy cleaner and cheaper the nuclear.

Think about it. Vogtle cost $30B. That's INSANE. Vogtle will provide (fingers crossed it's not cancelled) 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr of carbon free energy for $30B to build and $240M/yr to maintain. How much would it cost to get 2GW of capacity and 16TWh/yr from renewables and gas? 2GW of gas costs ~$2B. You'd need ~5GW of wind to get 16TWh/yr. So for $7B and ~$28M/yr you get just as much as if you'd spent $30B on nuclear. Since you hate money so much you can spend the $23B you saved on 23GW of utility scale solar and generate another 41TWh/yr. So that's 2GW of reliable capacity + 57TWh/yr (3.5x MORE) AND.... AND you're spending $200M LESS on O&M! (nukes are speeeennnnsive!)

AND.... AND those are costs TODAY. As I'm sure you're aware solar keeps getting cheaper while nuclear somehow keeps finding ways to get more expensive.

Eventually you can use surplus renewables to split water and use H2 to run your turbines when there isn't enough wind, solar or storage.

If you had to build and maintain small gas turbines and keep them ready to go on line at a moment notice you would go broke waiting for those times.

Now if you had a fossil fuel generating station running close to top efficiency you would be able to make money and keep the equipment fixed.

Just like some peoples' feelings that nuclear plants are old school and costly, I really understand the costs of keeping peaker plant around without any income. They too will become old school and disappear because of cost before they become necessary.

Take a look at the cost of battery storage and then make me believe they are cheap and efficient to run a very large load over a long period of time. Sure they can be there for short period of time but how about for days when the sun isn't shining like it is now for most of the smoke covered states.

[SunEagle]

We don't need a 'large scale storage system' anytime soon. It's helpful but not necessary. Clearly storage is coming but the primary reason it doesn't exist at scale is necessity. Unless you're storing solar and wind that would otherwise be curtailed storage doesn't help reduce emissions. We can still add A LOT of solar and wind before we start seeing significant curtailment. Even then the best solution is demand response not storage. We simply don't need much storage until wind and solar are >80% of generation. At those levels nuclear would also require storage since it's so expensive to build and maintain. If demand varies between 30GW and 60GW you wouldn't build 60GW of nuclear. You'd build ~40GW and try to maximize capacity factor with storage.

Sorry. But you are dreaming that large scale storage will come cheap and do the job when needed.