The value of resilience

[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.

[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]

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.

[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,

[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.

[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.

[nwdiver]

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

So run your house with it. Good luck.

[solardreamer]

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

[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...

[bcroe]

Can we use earthquakes? Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

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

In the meantime, make sure you have backup generators for days like these.

Besides wind and tidal power, just how would that be accomplished ?

Also, what days like these are you referring to ? You on fire, or getting flooded out or something ??

[solardreamer]

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

In the meantime, make sure you have backup generators for days like these.

[J.P.M.]

Maybe I'm being too hopeful but if you're on a solar forum you should have already plucked the low hanging fruit. I reduced my overall consumption by >50% before I got solar. I know ~roughly how much electricity the previous owners of my house were using since my PV system size was restricted based on that use. They were using ~13,000kWh/yr... AND they had gas. I'm using ~7,000kWh/yr, and I went 100% electric... AND I charge an EV. It's amazing what LEDs a HPWH and mini-split HVAC can do.

Is that 7,000 kWh/yr. gross usage before PV generation or net annual draw from the POCO after reductions for PV generation ?
Sometimes the usage waters get muddied by mixing up gross usage and net draw from a utility.

I appreciate what you write but your motivations and mine, or at least our usage, are not necessarily what is common in the U.S.

You and I are quite a bit below average with respect to average U.S. residential electric energy use which, according to the EIA, averages somewhere around 11,000 kWh/yr., depending on region, climate, the price of electricity and other things. I'd cite your 13,000 kWh/yr. number from previous owners as more typical.

Given my experience and from what I've gathered over close to the last 50 years, I believe there is a lot of fruit left on the tree of energy conservation. Most of it rots in place or on the ground.

I wouldn't describe what you feel as hopeful as much as the result of maybe being a bit naive. Most in the U.S. are not like you with respect to residential energy use.

[nwdiver]

All is more generation and no use reduction.
Some things never change.

Maybe I'm being too hopeful but if you're on a solar forum you should have already plucked the low hanging fruit. I reduced my overall consumption by >50% before I got solar. I know ~roughly how much electricity the previous owners of my house were using since my PV system size was restricted based on that use. They were using ~13,000kWh/yr... AND they had gas. I'm using ~7,000kWh/yr, and I went 100% electric... AND I charge an EV. It's amazing what LEDs a HPWH and mini-split HVAC can do.

[J.P.M.]

Looking through this thread leads me to the conclusion that meeting some of the demand by reduction of wasteful practices and more sane conservation of energy are dead issues on this forum.
All is more generation and no use reduction.
Some things never change.