Interesting articles on EV, utilities, renewables and their impacts

[kwilcox]

The "bottom layer of generation the cake" needs change. Power plants designed to run flat out (brown coal/nukes) need to be changed out for power plants that can change generation output easily such as NG. The loss of coal based jobs (and the misery/uncertainty any job loss causes) needs to be balanced against the jobs gained (and the happiness/certainty that any gainful employment creates) in the renewable energy sector. Yes renewables are making some people miserable, but renewables are also making some people happy. Building a smart grid will require investment and create even more jobs. Utilities that can innovate will simply slide into the energy storage/demand generation market.

The same dilemma happened to phone companies when Ma-Bell was deregulated. Look where we are today in that sector. Innovation made wireless/cellular widespread and essentially killed off the old-fashioned land-line based system. To our collective benefit too I might add. I'm posting this from my vacation home in the wilds of the VT North-East Kingdom in large part due to that change. In fact, a whole new generation of people are connected to each other in ways the older generation can't even imagine thanks to the Ma-Bell breakup.

We will change here too. Instead of whining and attempting to block it, we should instead be sizing up the opportunities that any fundamental paradigm shift causes.

[russ]

The "bottom layer of generation the cake" needs change. Power plants designed to run flat out (brown coal/nukes) need to be changed out for power plants that can change generation output easily such as NG. What is the fuel and don't say RE as that is far out of the question.

We will change here too. Instead of whining and attempting to block it, we should instead be sizing up the opportunities that any fundamental paradigm shift causes.

You will not block anything nor will anyone else - You are just repeating a green line that is nonsensical today - when a new approach or tech is available it will be used. Actually the tech is available - it is called nuclear but the green bunch get frantic over that.

[kwilcox]

I'm not planning on blocking anything Russ. It's big oil/coal that I'm worried about. They're already funding successful anti-net metering lobbying efforts in many states.

Fukishama killed nukes unfortunately. Also, we couldn't even get Yucca mountain operational because people in general, (not just the "green bunch") are scared to death of nukes. I myself feel its an unfounded fear but it is what it is.

[SunEagle]

I'm not planning on blocking anything Russ. It's big oil/coal that I'm worried about. They're already funding successful anti-net metering lobbying efforts in many states.

Fukishama killed nukes unfortunately. Also, we couldn't even get Yucca mountain operational.

When the coal plants have been closed and the price of natural gas starts to rise you will see a lot of scrambling to build small package nukes. Just because the old style nuclear plants were expensive and have had issues shouldn't take them totally out of the picture as a base electrical generation system. Until an efficient and low cost electrical "storage" system can be designed Renewable energy will never be enough to power us 24/7. You will still need either fossil fuel or nuclear to generate when the RE is not working.

And instead of trying to make an underground storage system work for "spent fuel" they need to look into converting it back into usable fuel like other countries are doing.

[kwilcox]

missing in my quote: "... because people in general (not just the green bunch) are scared to death of nukes".

I'd love to see small package nukes that have adjustable outputs become part of the grid, but it seems that every time people begin to accept nuclear generation, some disaster happens. We should be focusing on large storage systems instead. My take is that this will become the way forward when NG prices start to spike because investing in Nukes is just too risky from a public acceptance perspective.

[Sunking]

missing in my quote: "... because people in general (not just the green bunch) are scared to death of nukes".

That is because the anti-nukes have done an excellent job of misleading the public with misinformation. Here is the biggest lie of all. No place to store the spent fuel rods. Fuel rods do not need to be stored. The USA is the only moron who does that. Every other country reprocesses their spent fuel rods and recycle the fuel. The USA use to reprocess fuel rods, but the Traitor Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing via XO.

Secondly plants like 3-Mile Island, Chernoble, and the Japanese plants are 1970's designs employing Pressurized Water Reactors. Today's reactors are passively cooled and cannot melt down with thermal runaway. But you can certainly bet that is hidden from the public. The mass public is very stupid and can be made to believe anything. That is how Obama got into office.

[SunEagle]

missing in my quote: "... because people in general (not just the green bunch) are scared to death of nukes".

I'd love to see small package nukes that have adjustable outputs become part of the grid, but it seems that every time people begin to accept nuclear generation, some disaster happens. We should be focusing on large storage systems instead. My take is that this will become the way forward when NG prices start to spike because investing in Nukes is just too risky from a public acceptance perspective.

You are correct that a lot of people are scared to death of a nuclear reactor. That is because spreading fear is easy and a great motivator. Especially when the "real" data is not presented along with the "bad" data.

Some people used "fear" to try to keep the automobile from becoming a mode of transportation. It might have worked except for all the "merde" that needed to be shoveled up from the streets.

When it comes down to the general populace not wanting to pay more for their energy or not wanting to be in the dark, they will demand a power source that is 24/7. Then cooler minds will bring back the idea of package nuclear reactors. Maybe not first here in the US but we will follow when other countries are forced to find ways to generate their base power to augment their RE power.

Nuclear power is a proven energy source and can be safely built and used. It is also a "non fossil fuel" source so no Carbon goes up the stack. Electrical "storage" is still being developed and may take a lot longer to become economical.

What do you think people will move towards in the future if their "fears" can be resolved?

[kwilcox]

People have seen real disaster strike twice with Nukes. This isn't a fear campaign ginned up by propaganda artists. It was Fukishima that caused Germany to go all out Solar. That same disaster predicated the closing of the two Nukes in WI (point beach and Kewaunee). Fukishama is still dumping radioactive waste into the sea for God's sake... Whole towns there stand deserted in an eerie repeat performance of the area surrounding Chernobyl. You really don't think that's whats scaring people?

Look, I have no essential engineering disagreement with anything that's being said about Nuclear power. It won't happen though for non-engineering based reasons however, so we need to move on with something that will. That's why I put 4KW on my roof and that's why I'm evangelizing this tech.

[SunEagle]

People have seen real disaster strike twice with Nukes. This isn't a fear campaign ginned up by propaganda artists. It was Fukishima that caused Germany to go all out Solar. That same disaster predicated the closing of the two Nukes in WI (point beach and Kewaunee). Fukishama is still dumping radioactive waste into the sea for God's sake... Whole towns there stand deserted in an eerie repeat performance of the area surrounding Chernobyl. You really don't think that's whats scaring people?

Look, I have no essential engineering disagreement with anything that's being said about Nuclear power. It won't happen though for non-engineering based reasons however, so we need to move on with something that will. That's why I put 4KW on my roof and that's why I'm evangelizing this tech.

I agree renewable energy like solar and wind are good and will help but relying on them 24/7 is not around the corner. Even if a storage system is found rolling it out will take billions of dollars and years of installation. In the meantime some type of base generation is still required. So we either go with fossil fuel generation or nuclear. Your choice.

Wait a couple of years when Germany realizes that have painted themselves into a corner by shutting down their nukes. If there is any long term solar disruption people will be in the dark because they won't be able to generate power or purchase it from their neighbors. Sad to say but RE doesn't work 24/7.

[J.P.M.]

People have seen real disaster strike twice with Nukes. This isn't a fear campaign ginned up by propaganda artists. It was Fukishima that caused Germany to go all out Solar. That same disaster predicated the closing of the two Nukes in WI (point beach and Kewaunee). Fukishama is still dumping radioactive waste into the sea for God's sake... Whole towns there stand deserted in an eerie repeat performance of the area surrounding Chernobyl. You really don't think that's whats scaring people?

Look, I have no essential engineering disagreement with anything that's being said about Nuclear power. It won't happen though for non-engineering based reasons however, so we need to move on with something that will. That's why I put 4KW on my roof and that's why I'm evangelizing this tech.

As long as you're banging the bible of alternate energy sources, how about evangelizing a little of the idea of low tech/simply use less of both/all sources of energy ?

If nothing else, maybe you'll help someone else realize they can shave a few bucks off their your utility bills for less than the environmental, social, political or economic costs associated with either energy source.

Using less while wasting as little as possible of what is needed is the original appropriate technology and is still the most cost effective.

[inetdog]

Using less while wasting as little as possible of what is needed is the original appropriate technology and is still the most cost effective.

The pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
The optimist says that the glass is half full.
The appropriate technology advocate says that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[russ]

That's why I put 4KW on my roof and that's why I'm evangelizing this tech.

4 kW that others helped pay for and it works? Come to Turkey and watch roofs. You will see many, many solar thermal units (water heaters) and zero PV.

There are no incentives or freebies here. A nuclear plant is being built though.

[SunEagle]

The pessimist says that the glass is half empty.
The optimist says that the glass is half full.
The appropriate technology advocate says that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Sounds like the 4th dimension. I say drink up while there is still something in the glass.

[kwilcox]

I am very interested to see how this plays out in Germany...

[kwilcox]

4 kW that others helped pay for and it works? Come to Turkey and watch roofs. You will see many, many solar thermal units (water heaters) and zero PV.

There are no incentives or freebies here. A nuclear plant is being built though.

Russ, your plant in Akkuyu is a Russian VVER unit, a PWR. While safer than the older RBMK reactor that powered Chernobyl, it still depends on a containment dome for failure containment purposes and cannot fail safe. The newer plant in Sinop is a Mitsu design; also a PWR but unclear if it can fail safe. The Akkuyu reactor at least, is another piece being added to the set of Nukes where potential disaster is waiting to happen. While it may not be the one that fails, it adds to the overall list, thus increasing the probability that one, somewhere in the world will fail again in the short-term (10 yr) future.

We all talk about the superior fail-safe Nuke designs available (I've talked my share too over the years), but almost nobody seems to do anything about it when it comes to actually building something that can fail safe. I guess that's why I got off the nuclear bandwagon after the Fukishima disaster hit. People will start coming around to Nukes again, then another PWR somewhere in the world will melt down and the investment time/money will be wasted.