Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[inetdog]

Then I would say the masses might be swayed back to the "dark side" and embrace it again.

As an alternative to the literally dark side, yes!

[DanKegel]

there are vast improvements in both the design and safety levels for those small GE ABWR and PRISM package systems.

I haven't kept up. What's the latest on deploying those new designs? Are any under construction?

[DanKegel]

It really is time for appliance makers and thermostat vendors, and disruptive startups,
to step up to the plate and start making this happen.

Speak of the devil: looks like SolarCity's going to start trying to integrate with Nest:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/solarcity-partners-with-googles-nest-to-integrate-smart-thermostats-with-r/385754/

[northerner]

An increase in the cost of electric power would be a good thing IMO, particularly if it's for clean energy sources. It will pressure users to conserve energy, and will help raise awareness, that we can't continue the way we currently are.

Electric rates where I live are about 30 to 35 cents per kwh, depending on usage. On the bill it might say 10 cents, but we pay a considerable amount for distributor charges. Higher power rates do equate to more conservation!!!

[SunEagle]

I haven't kept up. What's the latest on deploying those new designs? Are any under construction?

There is a one being considered by Virginia Power and I believe Saudi Arabia has a number slated to be built.

The NRC shows about 26 generating plants from various manufacturers (all Gen III type) planned around the US using various designs like the; AP1000, ESBWR, ABWR and EPR.

Not sure if there are any in operation or if any that have been built are in test mode. Hard to sift though the news to determine what is real or not.

I for one believe that safe nuclear power generation technology exists and will be a part of our power generation for my children and grandchildren along with a portion of RE and fossil fuel plants.

Until the American people can find ways to servery cut their usage we will continue to be a slave to the electron and when shortages happen people will not care where the power comes from.

[Sunking]

Sunking is mostly right. As he says, storage does not currently pay off for most scenarios (e.g. "storage must handle a one week outage, in British Columbia").

But the fact that it's a win for a few others (e.g. "storage must handle the 45 minutes per day when the grid is overloaded, in Hawaii")
is highly significant because they provide a toehold for the technology to be deployed in the real world.
And as deployments ramp up in volume, that will drive down prices of storage, making it economical in more scenarios.

It'll be interesting to watch the sales trends for solar storage systems in e.g. Hawaii, Australia, and Germany.

One poco in Australia has different feedin tariffs for different towns:

http://www.horizonpower.com.au/renewable_energy_agreement_buyback_price.html

and *requires* either storage or curtailment:

http://www.horizonpower.com.au/renewable_energy_technical_requirements.html

Now that's a toehold.

Dan don't you see a problem with that?

That is not a solution to the problem. The problem is failed energy policy and management. If you cannot meet peak demands for a few hours in a day is because you did a piss poor job of planning and failed to build capacity. Germany had that capacity, the idiots turned it off and now have to rely on their enemy France to provide it.

[Sunking]

I haven't kept up. What's the latest on deploying those new designs? Are any under construction?

Quite a few. mostly Asia but USA has 13 licenses in the grinder.

Source link here

Nuclear Plant Construction

Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.
Many countries with existing nuclear power programs (Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Rep., France, India, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, UK, USA) have plans to build new power reactors (beyond those now under construction).
In all, about 160 power reactors with a total net capacity of some 177,000 MWe are planned and over 320 more are proposed. Energy security concerns and greenhouse constraints on coal have combined with basic economics to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in many countries.
In the USA there are plans for 13 new reactors, and two combined construction and operating licences for these were issued early in 2012 while five more are under review. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units. it is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020.
In Canada there are plans to build up to 2200 MWe or more of new capacity at Darlington in Ontario.
In Finland, construction is now under way on a fifth, very large reactor which will come on line in 2014, and plans are firming for another large one to follow it.
France is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville, for operation from 2016, and a second may follow it at Penly.
In the UK, four similar 1600 MWe units are planned for operation by 2019, and a further 6000 MWe is proposed.
Romania's second power reactor istarted up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further Canadian units to operate by 2017.
Slovakia is completing two 470 MWe units at Mochovce, to operate from 2014.
Bulgaria is planning to build a large new reactor at Kozloduy.
Belarus is planning two large new Russian reactors at Ostrovets, the first to start in 2019.
In Russia, ten reactors are under active construction, one being a large fast neutron reactor. About 14 further reactors are then planned, some to to replace existing plants, and by 2017 ten new reactors totalling at least 9.2 GWe should be operating. Further reactors are planned to add new capacity. This will increase the country's present nuclear power capacity by 50% in 2020. In addition about 5 GW of nuclear thermal capacity is planned. A small floating power plant is expected to be completed by 2014 and others are planned to follow.
Poland is planning two 3000 MWe nuclear power plants.
South Korea plans to bring a further further four reactors into operation by 2017, and another five by 2021, giving total new capacity of 12,200 MWe. Of these, all but one are the Advanced PWRs of 1400 MWe. These APR-1400 designs have evolved from a US design which has US NRC design certification, and four been sold to the UAE (see below).
Japan has two reactors under construction but another three which were likely to start building by mid 2011 have been deferred.
In China, now with 15 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. Some 26 reactors are under construction and many more are likely to be so in 2012. Those under construction include the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant is due to start construction. Many more units are planned, with construction due to start within three years. But most capacity under construction is the largely indigenous CPR-1000 design. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020.
On Taiwan, Taipower is building two advanced reactors (ABWR) at Lungmen.
India has 20 reactors in operation, and seven under construction (two expected to be completed in 2013). This includes two large Russian reactors and a large prototype fast breeder reactor as part of its strategy to develop a fuel cycle which can utilise thorium. Twenty further units are planned. 18 further units are planned, and proposals for more - including western and Russian designs - are taking shape following the lifting of trade restrictions.
Pakistan has third and fourth 300 MWe reactors under construction at Chashma, financed by China. There are plans for more Chinese power reactors.
In Kazakhstan, a joint venture with Russia's Atomstroyexport envisages development and marketing of innovative small and medium-sized reactors, starting with a 300 MWe Russian design as baseline for Kazakh units.
In Iran nuclear power plant construction was suspended in 1979 but in 1995 Iran signed an agreement with Russia to complete a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr. This started up in 2011 and was grid connected in August.
The United Arab Emirates has awarded a $20.4 billion contract to a South Korean consortium to build four 1400 MWe reactors by 2020. The first are under construction.
Jordan has committed plans for its first reactor to be operating by 2020, and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure.
Turkey has contracts signed for four 1200 MWe Russian nuclear reactors at one site and is negotiating similar capacity at another. Its legal and regulatory infrastructure is well-developed.
Vietnam has committed plans for its first reactors at two sites (2x2000 MWe), to be operating by 2020, and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure. The first plant will be a turnkey project built by Atomstroyexport. The second will be Japanese.
Fuller details of all the above contries curently without nuclear power are in country papers or the paper on Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries.

[northerner]

Bruce Power planned to build a nuclear power plant in the region I live in, in northern Alberta. Bruce Power Alberta was formed, land purchased and environmental studies were carried out. Due to massive opposition from those that didn't want it in their back yard, the proposal was scrapped, and the company given marching orders out of here from those opposed it, unfortunately.

I don't see any reason why solar plants can not be built to help offset fossil fuel usage, in local communities. I have been surviving completely off grid for the past 2 years, and it has been working out very well.

[DanS26]

Never going to happen even with low resistance super conducting transmission lines. There just isn't enough real estate in the world to build enough solar pv to run the entire planet from the "Sunny Side". Even locating the panels in space won't work due to the amount of "junk" flying around which would damage the panels.

Sure it would be nice to have RE as the only power source but physics are physics and the math doesn't equal out. Maybe if they get the solar panel efficiency above 50% they may have a chance to supply large populations with land based pv but without Nuclear or Fossil fuel burning generators relying on RE will put a lot of people in the dark where the sun isn't shining.

The calculations I've seen have shown that a medium sized county in New Mexico covered in panels could provide all the electrical energy needs for the US. Is it practical......no. But the fact is that there is enough real estate in the world at the present state of panel technology to provide the worlds energy needs.

There is hope for low resistance super conducting transmission and research into this technology should be encouraged.

[Sunking]

There is hope for low resistance super conducting transmission and research into this technology should be encouraged.

Be realistic. Man has been working on that since WW-II. It can only be done at cryogenic temperatures.

[inetdog]

Be realistic. Man has been working on that since WW-II. It can only be done at cryogenic temperatures.

So difficult that some of the academic seekers for room temperature superconductors have started looking at ways to make cooler rooms.

[Sunking]

So difficult that some of the academic seekers for room temperature superconductors have started looking at ways to make cooler rooms.

LOL. There are some Academics in the White House I would like to see put in a cooler. At 77K ought to but some backbone in them and make them say who's side they are on.

[DanKegel]

[QUOTE=Sunking;148575]Quite a few. mostly Asia but USA has 13 licenses in the grinder.

Source link here

Most of those are planned, but not under construction. Was hoping somebody had a list of the ones actually under construction.

[DanKegel]

Dan don't you see a problem with that?

That is not a solution to the problem. The problem is failed energy policy and management. If you cannot meet peak demands for a few hours in a day is because you did a piss poor job of planning and failed to build capacity

That's an opinion. The power companies -- you know, the ones actually in the business of providing power -- seem to disagree with you, and find demand management and/or storage an appealing and economical alternative to building huge new powerplants, at least in some situations.

Or do you think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_demand_management is in all cases a bad idea?

[SunEagle]

The calculations I've seen have shown that a medium sized county in New Mexico covered in panels could provide all the electrical energy needs for the US. Is it practical......no. But the fact is that there is enough real estate in the world at the present state of panel technology to provide the worlds energy needs.

There is hope for low resistance super conducting transmission and research into this technology should be encouraged.

I don't think you have the correct math concerning the amount of square miles needed to duplicate the GigaWatts of power generation in the US. I doubt it would fit into even one state let alone a county. If you added up all of the major solar arrays (which can generate 1% of the US usage) you would fill up a very large piece of land. Now multiply that by 100 times.

Even if the panel efficiency got to be 100%, you had the real estate and you used a tracking system, you could only power the country for about 8 hours max. What do you do after the sun went down? There is no technology that can store enough energy to supply the country for the other 16 hours.