Sturgis is going solar… a little. To keep bikers cool at the city’s new Harley-Davidson Rally Point, the city is putting up a shade canopy. Sturgis could have spent $250,000 on fabric canopies that would have last ten years. Instead, they’re going with concrete pillars and solar panels to juice city hall and the city library:
Because the fabric canopies were expensive, and their longevity was short, the city went in search of a shade structure that had a dual function, he said. They worked with representatives of Black Hills Energy.
“They brought up the point that if we already were building the columns to support the canopies, that it makes more sense that instead of building a typical roof, you put solar panels on it,” [city manager Daniel] Ainslie said.
In the summer of 2017, the city put out requests for proposals for a solar canopy and chose Interconnections Systems, Inc., Central City, Neb., who submitted a bid of $225,000.
…[City engineer Liz] Wunderlich estimated the energy savings would add up to about $6,000 a year, and the solar panels last about 20 years, she said.
“There is a little decrease in production over their lifetime, but generally they don’t require much maintenance. They may need to be washed once a year and that’s it,” Wunderlich said [Deb Holland, “Solar Panels on Sturgis Plaza to Power City Building,” Black Hills Pioneer, 2018.05.05].
Now if we could just see Harley-Davidson get in gear with its electric motorcycle project, the city could expand its Rally Point shade project so bikers could ride around the Black Hills on solar power!
From The “Cali Always Gets There First” file … California is about to become the first state to require solar panels on most new homes.
Yup…an extra $25-30K upfront on average. And the output reduces slowly over the life cycle. Note that you do not get the purported $50K-$60K savings upfront.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
There are costs that they are not including.
Electricity would have to cost more to deal with the intermittency, i.e. to store it, to transmit it, or to use any excess right away. A lot of the material can be recycled, but recycling costs are not included.
But don’t worry. California will be happy to burn Wyoming coal to make up the difference….as long as the coal is burned outside the borders of California.
Always known for negativity and fear of change, Doc. The average pay for a second year employee in Silicon Valley is $250,000. The average home is over a million. California is America’s frontrunner. It’s that way in part because residents care about their environment much the same way Europeans do. It’s easy to speculate that “those grapes are probably sour, anyway” when you live without the public gumption for change and speculation within a state that’s been on the wrong side of history for a hundred years.
There are a lot of bikers with extra cash that come from California each year for the Sturgis Rally (the place ain’t cheap for the month of August). I am sure that many will appreciate the fact that Sturgis has not only provided shade for them, but coot shade that will pay it forward. When I am out and about in other states and out of the country, I always appreciate innovative thinking of ways to make things happen by using less energy. With gas prices now on the rise due to trump policy dealing with Iran, I think that we will be seeing more solar and wind projects in our sister states.
What is not to like about good clean renewable energy that can and will pay you back, California Dreaming is really awake.
Agreed, Jerry. I’ll speculate that there will be many more young people in South Dakota that see California as a ground floor opportunity and move out there than people in California who will refuse to pay the extra price of a new house and move up to South Dakota, for a lower cost of living. Of course, both viewpoints are valid. Some people need new adventures and some would rather slow down and let the wind blow between their knees. lol
~ An off topic aside: It’s this seventy year “brain drain” of young liberals in SoDak that’s created the “Republican gene pool of ignorance” which has chained the state to record low growth, destructive Conservative government, negativity and fear of change.
McTaggart – have you ever lived in S. Cali? I have – 15 years. There are typically about 2 weeks of the year that are NOT sunny. Hey – are the aluminum parts of the panels recyclable? yep. How about the copper wiring? yep. Is the spent uranium from your go-to Nuke plants recyclable? Nope. How about the waste from that Wyoming Coal – recyclable? (well the flash – with it’s 19 different carcinogens can be used as an additive in concrete).
There are those people who sell those houses in California and move to South Dakota, register to vote republican, freeze their arse’s off and then rent their place out, so they can move back where there are public services they cannot get here.
Porter,
Fear of poor planning and unintended consequences is more like it.
Just because you dump a lot of solar energy on the grid doesn’t mean power will be there when you want it at night, or to the degree that you want during the day. Or that sustainability will just happen instantaneously and recycling magic occurs.
Just be honest and address the true costs of implementation. If it needs to be done, then the case can and should be made to pay for it.
Excellent point, Jerry. There are oodles of Ex-Pat Californians that sold their million dollar 1200 sq. ft bungalows and moved to Colorado. They joined with the religious born agains and even have their own little town. Colorado Springs. Problem is they all think they’re Ron Reagan and they’ve cut taxes so much the town looks like a dump. Grass is dead in the parks. Trash all over the streets. No street lights at night. The place sucked until these wanna be “patriots” wised up and became semi-liberal enough to save what tourism they had left. The Springs is a text book case of how unregulated conservatism can kill an economy.
McTaggert … Implemtation with poor planning is much better than no implementation at all. Spending more time thinking about what can go wrong instead of just getting started with an attitude of “We’re capable enough to fix it as we go along.” is how successful states differ from stagnant, negativity bound states. History proves me correct and you wrong.
Richard,
Yes, we can recycle our spent nuclear fuel. And we should in order to reduce the amount of uranium that is mined, and the amount of radioactivity that must be permanently isolated.
Check out my letter in the Argus Leader….how flexible nuclear energy can actually help produce carbon-free back-up power for wind and solar. Nuclear energy and renewables are NOT incompatible.
https://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/05/07/turn-nuclear-energy-supports-wind-solar/34663491/
You can have all the renewables you want Porter. Just don’t emit carbon when renewables are not available or not enough to meet the demand.
Heck, nuclear energy could provide the back-up power and the energy required to recycle all that material…without carbon.
And you can even glow at night with nukes so you don’t need the light to read.
Jerry,
If you are ingesting enough radioactivity to actually make you luminescent in the dark, then you have bigger problems. Years before any nuclear power or nuclear weapons (in the 1920s), or any digital watches for that matter, there were a group of women called the Radium Girls that painted watch dials. They would lick the tip of their paint brush, ingesting radium paint and generating long-term problems. Yes, they glowed with the lights off, but a lot of them died as a result.
Eliminating pathways for human ingestion of radioactivity is part of what health physics is about. The people who actually work at the nuclear power plants…the ones that are closest to the source of nuclear fuel…have the lowest rates of occupational accidents or deaths of any means of energy production due to health physics.
Dr. McTaggart. – It’s invalid to compare potentially deadly nuclear power with potentially expensive wind and solar power.
So make nuclear energy as un-deadly as you would like.
The technology exists to reduce if not eliminate much of the radioactivity in spent fuel. We choose not to employ it because it would mean more nuclear energy would occur. But if there is more flexible nuclear energy, you can have more wind and solar too.
We could also build better reactors to make them “walk-away safe” or “meltdown-proof”. The accident tolerant fuels are a good first step.
We are setting ourselves up to generate less carbon per kilowatt-hour with renewables and natural gas back-up, but one day having more total carbon per year due to enough kilowatt-hours from a growing population. We are going to shoot past 10 billion people pretty quickly. Or we can generate all the energy we want and not emit carbon.
Right now the energy markets are not necessarily completely free markets. Texas has apparently doubled the renewable energy that California generates with far less regulation (largely due to the abundance of wind) and lower energy prices.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/05/07/texas-produces-double-the-renewable-power-as-california-at-almost-half-the-price-blame-regulation/
Nuclear needs to compete better in a different market than was envisioned in the 1970’s. Which means it needs to deliver lower cost power plants, and be available when renewables are needing a boost to make money. Both of which are possible today if it is allowed to do so.
Working with nuclear power requires the type of meticulous planning and execution Prof. seems to think is best. Similar to a space mission if the planning isn’t exact, people die or with nukes have deformed babies.
~ With wind and solar you can begin a project and adjust/tweek as you go along. Much better. e.g. Americans didn’t enter WWII with a complete plan of how to win. It had to be done and we were confident in our ability to think on our feet.
~ Getting solar panels on roofs in CA needs to be done. Spending years planning every contingent is foolish. Nobody’s gonna die or have deformed kids.
~ Nuclear energy isn’t really necessary. Show us a game changing development and we’ll rethink. There will be safer ways to deal with the carbon produced for backup power until we make solar/wind more efficient.
~ Let’s get going.
Yeah, who cares about any more carbon or delivering power to the consumer when they want it.
Carbon mitigation is of course important. However … It’s invalid to compare potentially deadly nuclear power with potentially expensive wind and solar power.
Energy storage isn’t here yet. Neither is carbon capture for all of the natural gas you want to burn to complement renewables.
But we can use existing reactors in a different way to deliver more carbon-free power that still allows for more renewables. France already does this a lot, we have just chosen not to.
And here is some more good news…energy storage would help nuclear too. Then you could run the current power plants in baseload capacity and provide peak power from the storage. So in that light I am surprised that you are in favor of energy storage.
Meticulous planning is already required for placing a lot of intermittent energy sources on the grid. If it were that easy, Puerto Rico would be fine today. Plenty of sun there too.
People die falling off of a roof, which is where most of the solar energy would be installed in California. More die doing that than at the nuclear power plant in fact. I would rather have a ground-based solar energy system myself for that reason, and for the much easier maintenance.
You obviously have not kept track of the chemicals used in processing solar cells, or the mining necessary for the rare earths. Don’t worry, no health effects could ever come from those chemicals.
How many solar panels would you need to deliver a 200 mile charge to each motorcycle that would attend the rally?
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113300_2018-zero-electric-motorcycles-longer-range-6-kw-charging-only-a-few-price-hikes
We’ll go with this for the moment. In theory, it will store 18 kWh of energy. Somewhere between 150 and 200 miles in range. Close enough.
If the rally is 14 days, and you get 8 hours of sun per day (clouds/night included), that is 112 hours of recharging time. A 1 MW solar farm at 100% efficiency would then generate 112,000 kW-hr of electricity. If solar is only 20% efficient (which is actually on the high side), then you need 5 MW solar farms to achieve that same energy. So for every 5 MW solar farm you can recharge 6,222 motorcycles once.
In 2015 there were over 700,000 visitors. So you need 112.5 5-MW solar farms. Since each 1 MW solar farm needs about 2.5 acres, that is more than 1400 acres. That is 55% the size of the City of Sturgis.
I guess you need to cover the whole city so you can have two charges: One to ride around there, and another to get back home. More if you need a bigger range, bigger bike, or use a less efficient solar panel.
If it costs about $1 million to build a 1 MW solar farm, you need $562.5 million to build 112.5 5-MW solar farms….minimum.
Solar powered motor scooters will end Sturgis. Those fellows don’t ride their scooters to be quiet and weak, like electric scooters are. I won’t say they are efficient, as they are not, unless you use Nuclear Power to juice up those batteries.
Solar ends Sturgis.
Best argument I’ve heard to make grudznick be pro-solar yet.
Forgot to times 2 to cover the whole city, so we are actually over $1.2 billion.
For a comparison, the total economic impact of the 2017 rally was said to be $738 million.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/2017-Sturgis-Rally-economic-impact-reportedly-738-million-450642483.html
It almost seems that you’re trying to be misleading, Professor.
~ According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as “disaster-related” by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
“People die falling off of a roof, which is where most of the solar energy would be installed in California. More die doing that than at the nuclear power plant in fact.”
~ Is this the legacy you want when you retire? Overlooking the souls of 573 people because you want to promote your profession?
..the disaster was a tsunami and an earthquake. Who is being misleading?
Never mind. I see where your head’s at.
So you are not going to recharge the Sturgis Rally and make them all electric motorcycles. If you want to use solar to power the town and festivities (i.e. reduce the need to burn coal), then that is a better use and a more achievable goal. Even more so to provide extra air conditioning when available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
“there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome.”
So how many deaths from installing solar panels are OK?
The correct answer is zero, but getting there will make solar energy more expensive.
How many deaths have occurred installing solar panels?
How many deaths have occurred from nuclear accidents?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
What we really need is more boreholes, and maybe a way to harness the lava stuff. Geothermal. That’s where the real greenies’ heads are these days. I know. I’ve been to some meetings.
Porter’s list does not include deaths that occurred from longer term exposure to lower dosages of radiation. Uranium miners exposed to radiation and workers at various plants died as well. Many of the workers who cut piping out of the Pathfinder plant near Brandon ended up dying from a combination of radiation and asbestos inhalation.
Good lord of darkness, Mr. Pay. Lots of gold miners died of silicosis. Many people in the trucking industry die of crashes or being squished. A staggering number of office workers die of fat globules on the brain or their hearts imploding. Many workers in the solar industry die of sunburns.
The world is not a fluffy pillow of safety, my young friend.
It’s also misleading to say no one will die from exposure at Fukushima. It’s a slow and painful death. Much like the cancer ridden workers at our Rocky Flats, who never got their day in court due to Rockwell stalling until they’d all died.
You are conflating what happens at very high doses with what happens at low doses. At very high doses human biology is challenged, including the repair mechanisms of human biology. Human biology has been handling low doses for millions of years.
Plus don’t forget that many of the radioisotopes of interest are also heavy metals. Much of the impact may in fact be chemical, not radiological. Below a certain threshold, there are no health effects shown from radiation.
Much of the basis for the use of the linear-no-threshold hypothesis at lower doses comes from studies of uranium miners who smoked. It just so happens that smoke (namely carbon) is a good vehicle for attracting and carrying radioisotopes, and why carbon filtration is good for pulling it out of the air. It is also why fire is of great concern, because smoke is a great delivery system over large distances and into the lungs. A fire at the solar and wind dump would also be of similar concern.
The real problem at low doses is our inability to distinguish effects from several causes. If smoking was prevalent, do you think that impacts the health results? Is working in an industrial environment and being exposed to chemicals or metals on a daily basis a factor? How about being displaced from your home and wading through the chemical soup after a tsunami and earthquake, or undergoing a lot of stress at the same time?
The linear model of radiation response has one big advantage. It is much easier to explain to the public and therefore get into policy.
However, it only PREDICTS that a certain percentage of a LARGE population similarly exposed will get cancer, and the linearity has only been experimentally verified at high doses.
Many of those incidents you quote come from third world nations that did not have the equivalent of an NRC, and particularly for uncontrolled doses from either imaging or therapy units that were orphaned.
But most of these occurred before 9-11. Then there was a lot more interest in shutting down and securing any such sources globally.
Here is India and Pakistan…boiling average temps over 113 degrees. Sturgis has worked with the sun to provide shade and energy. One of those death trap cones does not cast much shade, only death. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/pakistan-sets-april-world-temperature-record-180503084609942.html
Attempting to justify a slow cancerous death from radiation exposure is great, Doc. It’s your conscience, I suppose.
My point and I hope it doesn’t get glossed over is that nuclear energy doesn’t belong as a common participant in talks about renewable energy sources.
The world is not a fluffy pillow of safety, my young friend.
Antonin Scalia found out that a pillow can exact retribution from an activist rwnj Supreme Court Justice just when he least expected it.
Justice was finally served!
Porter,
You are promoting unsustainable solar energy.
Nuclear offers carbon-free back-up power, but you would rather damn the torpedoes and continue to emit carbon from natural gas. Let’s solve the waste issues and let flexible nuclear energy compete with other solutions. Bring on energy storage…that is good for nuclear and renewables.
Having a carbon-free back-up method would actually facilitate more wind and solar on the grid. Right now there are issues with handling larger percentages of intermittent energy on the electric grid past 30-40% penetration.
Furthermore, you want to build out solar without any plan for recycling the solar panels…..maybe the manufacturers will see some profit in it and that will happen.
So how does putting more intermittent energy on the grid with no other measures solve intermittency? And how does not having a plan for sustainability promote sustainability?
If a future study were to show that LNT definitively was incorrect at low doses, I don’t think things would change that much in terms of regulation. There would be a threshold, and radiation safety practices and regulations would aim at keeping doses below that threshold. Maybe some costs would come down for licensing and construction, but I don’t think it’s a big game changer. So there should be nothing to fear from doing the science.
As far as nuclear power is concerned … The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.
OK. Tell me what other option do we have to generate bulk electricity without carbon, with minimal waste, and with minimal land footprint?
When excess occurs, California is not planning to store the excess or use the excess in any fashion. It gets sent somewhere else for someone else to deal with. Electric cars and secondary heating/cooling would help reduce this problem, but that would cost extra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwozVKOkzz4
Why is eliminating all carbon such a high priority that we have to take potentially dangerous steps? Moving from coal to natural gas is sufficient until solar and wind and the “next big thing” can take over.
You’re using a negative false narrative to promote something that’s time has passed.
Thanks to Porter, Japan has ditched nuclear energy and is going to coal now. Good news for Wyoming.
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/sydney/japan-plans-to-build-45-new-coal-power-plants-27762428
You don’t have to eliminate all carbon, because the natural cycle if working properly will have some carbon. But you do need to reduce our carbon below today’s levels.
Moving from coal to natural gas will reduce our emissions per kilowatt-hour. Economic and population growth, as well as an increase in the use of technologies that use electricity, will grow the number of kilowatt-hours. If we stopped coal today and had like 2% growth in electricity, we would have 3-4 decades before we get back to today’s rate of carbon emissions, which are largely regarded as unsustainable.
And what if energy storage and carbon capture fail to deliver? We’ll be glad we have a nuclear energy option to rely upon.
Your approach is like “Let’s continue to drive at full speed towards that chasm. I’m certain they will finish the bridge before we get there.”
The US has in place, carbon farming and it is really helping make land more sustainable. So you are correcto mundo Porter when you question eliminating carbon, carbon is not such a bad thingy if you understand it. Here is how: http://www.centerforsustainabilitysolutions.org/carbonfarming/
Now that your boy trump is gonna get all tough with Iran, we may all find out how that nuke energy works by…what did Condi Rice say? Yeah, a mushroom cloud. There, trump fixed it.
Jerry,
Isn’t this where you say something like “carbon is for suckers” ?
;^)
And KM/Jason wants to debate science with me? He/She doesn’t even read the links they post.
….. as the country gradually ramps “UP” its nuclear power generation following the Fukushima disaster in 2011.
….. it began importing all of its coal, primarily from AUSTRALIA.
Japan is building MORE nuke plants and DOESN’T get coal from Wyoming.
~ KM/Jason … reconsider your choice to home school your kids. It’s child abuse and you should be arrested.
Porter,
The climate change problem is serious enough that we need to be prepared in case those other things do not work. Otherwise a lot more people will burn a lot more carbon for their energy (see Beijing in summer for what would happen elsewhere).
Let’s make sure that the bridge will be there regardless. I am fine with allowing nuclear energy to compete with energy storage and carbon capture, because at the end of the day it can deliver.
Why is there even a debate about nuke plants? The only guys who can build them cheaply are the Russians…They want to build them in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Mid East. Haven’t ya heard about the Kurshner deals? Mike Flynn? Hello
At the moment Iran should not be doing any enrichment. There should be an international consortium that does that for them and controls the fuel cycle.
Bob,
Your arguments would be more convincing without the negative sensationalism. USA will never be like Bejing. USA will not burn a lot more carbon. Our citizens are in tune to the effects of global warming. Solar and wind aren’t new and there’s no chance they won’t work. Backup with the nukes we have is adequate. No need to tear them down like Rick Perry wants. Trying to promote your job with scare tactics is beneath SDSU.
~ USA’s biggest problem with carbon is in the White House promoting coal to get votes from laid off, pain pill addicted, barstool sitting coal miners (who should be offered ways to reeducate themselves instead of pie in the sky dreams of going back in the mines.)
We had better stick with solar and wind, those are things that will not create a mushroom cloud.
Jerry,
You have hit on one of the major issues of removing American reactors from the global marketplace. The only other reactors available may come from Russia and China. We would certainly want the safest reactors possible with the best regulation, which the NRC supports.
There is a lot of interest in Saudi Arabia in nuclear energy. The oil isn’t going to last forever, so they will let everyone else burn the oil and they will use that money to build the solar/nuclear infrastructure they need.
Right, Jerry. Putin is building floating nuke plants to send to the Arctic. When one explodes it can contaminate the ice that’s melting and infect every coastline in the world, of which Russia has very little. They’re like little floating, unregulated nuclear weapons that can be towed offshore to any country he wants to intimidate.
Doc, in case you may have missed the Iranian deal that the world agreed too, was exactly what you are saying. Iran has kept its end of the deal and the inspectors have proven that. We simply want to rewind the clock back to the days of Hans Blixt and lie our way into Baghdad. That didn’t work out so good for us 17 years ago and still counting.
American nukes are a joke because they cannot be built. Time to move on down the road and work with renewables as the nuke thingys just sit there and cost money while the old ones burn the rods that cannot be stored safely. Nuke power and a two bottom plow pulled behind old Bess are both relics.
Perry doesn’t want to tear down today’s reactors, but he isn’t championing the potential of using today’s reactors differently, or pushing the construction of new ones.
Beijing is what happens when people demand energy but wind and solar are not enough. They are putting up a lot of wind and solar, but they are also building more coal plants too.
The issue with much of Appalachia (hey, there is an election today in WV), is that nothing has replaced the purchasing power of a coal job. Democrats have so far failed to deliver a better outcome or to diversify more, which is why they lost the state. Recently there is a push for more natural gas and chemicals.
Guess the US will just pound sand while the rest of the world moves on. “In a joint statement earlier on Tuesday, the European Union, Britain, France and Germany said they met Iranian officials in Brussels and reaffirmed their support “to the continued full and effective implementation of the JCPOA by all sides”.” Looks kind of like the China trade war deal and NAFTA, pretty quick we will be exchanging dollar’s for YUAN and or the EURO.
Nuclear power plants are not nuclear weapons. Sorry, but they are not.
As long as you maintain access to water, power levels will oscillate about an average value in today’s reactors, not run away exponentially. It is the loss of coolant that is the primary driver for other issues.
Build the newer ones that do not rely on water for emergency cooling, or have the better fuels that do not melt at higher temperatures, and they become walk-away safe.
Disappointing about the Iran deal, but we’ll see if this is just another tactic to get a “better deal”.
American nuclear plants have suffered for two reasons. High upfront costs (licensing/regulation issues, lack of a domestic supply chain, lack of domestic expertise), and current power grid economics (low cost of natural gas, and the decision not to use them to boost renewables).
Using existing plants in a flexible manner as I have suggested will help the latter. The upfront costs do need more work.
“Democrats have so far failed to deliver a better outcome or to diversify more, which is why they lost the state.” Wrong!!!
Republicans won W. Virginia because Trump cheated. He illegally hired a foreign company (Cambridge Analytica) to misuse Facebook data to psychologically target poorly educated and bigoted voters with untrue Facebook posts, untrue mailers and untrue robocalls. That’s all been exposed. As far as rigging the voting machines … that proof is coming.
Bad news for us then, with the climate changing, the seas are rising and are causing issues with plants close to the sea. Those nuke plants then are like nuke bombs, too damn dangerous to be called anything but weapons.
The better deal was gotten by these guys “In a joint statement earlier on Tuesday, the European Union, Britain, France and Germany said they met Iranian officials in Brussels and reaffirmed their support “to the continued full and effective implementation of the JCPOA by all sides”.” I am thinking that the deal California is working on for solar on all homes will make us even more aware of what we are doing to ourselves. We view the climate like an opioid user looks at his pharmacist.
They only heard Hillary was going to shut down coal and kick them out of their jobs. She had a plan, but it wasn’t developed within West Virginia, and they stopped listening. That is what cost her West Virginia. Maybe not the total election, but it didn’t help.
Nuclear plants are not nuclear bombs. Porter may caution you about all that negative sensationalism….probably not though.
Since you like California so much, here’s the pro-nuclear energy candidate for CA governor.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/
Sweden and France generated 95% and 88% of their respective electricity by nuclear and hydro.
I like this quote:
“Serious problems will, of course, be raised by the fact that sun-power will not be continuous,” wrote a New York Times reporter in 1931. “Whether these will be solved by some sort of storage arrangement or by the operating of photogenerators in conjuction with some other generator cannot be said at present.”
Drumpf also hired an Israeli spook outfit to dig up dirt on Obama’s nukular deal makers with Iran.
WOW, McTaggart. You just made my case for Russian interference and Trump cheating. Even in l’il ol’ SoDak you heard the false propaganda from Cambridge Analytica that Hillary wanted to shut down coal. See, even educated minds are susceptible to OCEAN profiles. i.e. Tell someone something they WANT to believe and they’ll very likely believe it. Even if it seems to outlandish to be true.
Hillary didn’t want to shut down coal any more than scientists or Congress. The power companies who buy coal want to switch to natural gas. Colorado did it a decade, ago. It doesn’t matter what politicians or scientists want, it matters what the people who buy coal want and they don’t want nukes and they don’t want coal. They want natural gas.
Shellenberger polls at less than .05 %. Just shows that McTaggart will believe anyone and anything that tells him what he wants to hear, regardless of viability. Much like the viability of nuclear power making a comeback. Zilch, amigo.
Porter,
You’re not very smart. That author made a mistake.
Further down in the article it says:
“By the end of 2017, Japan will have 42 operable nuclear reactors, with a combined installed net generating capacity of about 40 GW, down from 54 reactors with 47 GW of combined capacity in 2010, it said.”
Here’s another link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html
You owe me an apology.
You should stick to the kiddie forums Porter.
Robert McTaggart wrote:
The climate change problem is serious enough that we need to be prepared in case those other things do not work.
The climate isn’t changing and it has been proven NASA/NOAA changed prior year temps going all the way back to the 30’s.
I just read today that the orbits of Jupiter and Venus affect Earth’s climate, new study says
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/587280002
Hillary tried to have it both ways, my friend, and it didn’t work. What you say to one audience will get back to the other. I don’t think she anticipated that the whole area, Michigan-Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia, would play such a pivotal role. If she had a do-over she would change her strategy.
Shellenberger isn’t going to win, but he is running to make a point.
Neither Germany nor California are carbon-free. Neither have reduced energy prices by adding more solar and wind. The key is to push the intermittency elsewhere so that somebody else has to burn the carbon. Then your conscience is clean. Your air isn’t, but you feel good.
Cost is the driving factor at the moment for why natural gas is winning, not carbon. But a monoculture for energy is not the best way to go.
Comrade Jasonovitch … Again with the links from 2011? Ask your supervisor for an updated data base from the Kremlin, will ‘ya?
Apologize? Done. Just for you, sweetie. ♫ Извините, пожалуйста. Вы мне верите?🎵
You are right on one thing, though. I’m not very smart. Definitely no genius. My IQ was certified in 2016 at 132. Nowhere near genius level. How about you? Tell us or STFU.
If you are so smart Porter you would post a link that proves my link wrong.
Btw Porter, internet IQ tests aren’t true.
Jason,
If you do not believe in climate change, a diversity of domestic fuel sources is key to managing the demands of the grid while having enough competition to keep costs down. So for you, fewer emissions may just be a side benefit.
Wind and natural gas are most often being selected for new electricity generation because they are relatively cheaper to build upfront, and easier to get approved. Nuclear does as well or better in the long term because fuel costs and operational costs are low.
OK … here it is. https://amp.portersezyoufunny.com/amp/567890.
Mr. McTaggart makes an important point.
Regardless of whether we believe that humans cause climate change, it might be a good idea to consider whether we can enjoy other benefits from enacting policies to reduce carbon emissions into our climate.
Porter, para mi, tu enlace no funciona.
Solo funciona en Rusia. :0)
Eso es una sorpresa, pero lo entiendo!
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/california-require-solar-panels-homes-2020-55035457
California is voting on the proposal to require solar on new homes by 2020 today.
“It does include exceptions when requiring solar panels isn’t feasible — such as on a home shrouded in shade — or cost effective. Installing storage batteries or allowing community-shared solar generation are available options. The requirement would only apply to newly constructed homes, not existing ones, although many homeowners are choosing to install solar panels with the help of rebate programs.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-panels-homes-20180508-story.html
“In addition to the new standards for residential buildings, there would be additional energy-efficient lighting requirements for new commercial buildings. In all, the Energy Commission said it expects the rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4 million metric tons over three years.
That’s tiny compared with California’s overall goal — to slash annual emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, something that from the most recent estimate of current emissions in 2015 requires a reduction of 180 million metric tons.”
Gee…maybe they should replace their carbon generation with nuclear power if they want to reduce emissions by 180 million metric tons instead…
I would think that Sturgis would be an opportunity for the manufacturers to showcase electric bikes and the gear needed to recharge them. Whether or not that is done by solar is another question altogether.
That is a more achievable positive first step.
It looks like the upfront costs regarding solar for the new homes would be $14-$16K, but overall the cost would be $25-$30K. The regulations also require other things like increased insulation, efficient windows and appliances, efficient heating/lighting.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/10/california-requires-solar-panels-on-new-homes-5-years-after-1st-california-city-did-thumbs-nose-at-washington-d-c/
They predict that the owner will save $50-60K overall in 25 years. But that is not given upfront, or necessarily in FY2018 dollars. I think the electricity prices will increase due to the glut, so that one is not saving money, just paying less than what they would have been paying.
The regulations appear to give builders credits for energy storage, but that is not mandated, that is extra. If they could do energy storage OR solar, that may be better. One homebuilder states only 1% of the homes it has built over the last 7 years have been net-zero homes.
There is good news/bad news here. The bad news is this will increase the glut of electricity that California has to push elsewhere. And they will lose money because the elsewhere will not buy the electricity at California prices, and California has to take a loss to get rid of it.
The good news is IF people can afford electric cars, the electric vehicles can put a dent in that glut. So they pay $30K upfront for new regulations, they pay $35-40K for the electric car, and pay for any additional energy storage for when the car is not in the garage. That wouldn’t impact McMansions as much, but they would need to subsidize affordable housing more.
Here is your Fukushima update:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/remediating-fukushima-when-everything-goes-to-hell-you-go-back-to-basics/
Good news: The most exposed citizens are expected to have no more than an additional 10 mSv of dose over a lifetime. That includes all external and internal pathways. We get 2-3 mSv (milliSieverts) of dose on average per year just from the natural environment.
The reactors have been stable for a long time. No airborne activity. The three molten cores are emitting no more heat than a car does.
“To reduce environmental contamination, they also removed top soils and vegetation, deforested the site, and then applied a polymer resin and concrete across much of the plant complex. This has locked contaminated material in place and limited the flow of groundwater through the site.”
The long-term work will really be in cleaning up the inside of the reactor buildings. That will take a while, but it is safe for the general employee to work on the campus outside the reactors. If you camped out at the gate just outside the facility, you would get under 1 milliSievert of extra dose in a year.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act passed 340 to 72 in the House. It aims to move nuclear waste from its present locations to centralized facilities, ultimately at Yucca Mountain.
“Regardless of your position on nuclear energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of tons of waste already exist,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment.
It faces opposition in the Senate, but at the end of the day the Senators can either vote to keep nuclear waste in their state or send it elsewhere.
Also, an amendment requiring a consent-based siting process for a permanent facility failed, 80 – 332…not very close.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Bipartisan-majority-for-pro-Yucca-Mountain-bill-1105187.html
Robert, its my understanding that no nuclear plants are being built or are planned because of COST. Soooo, how can you say that renewable’s are too expensive? I have said for many years that if the US government had not agreed to accept responsibility for all nuclear waste at the dawn of the nuclear age, no nuclear power plants would have ever been built. What would be the cost to energy monopolies of dealing with that waste in real dollars? What is the cost to the taxpayer still today since it is still all sitting right where it was created. Nearly 250,000 tons of the stuff world wide oooor whatever. Estimates are all over the place. When a huge area such as the area around Fukushima becomes uninhabitable what are those cost’s?
The cost of renewable’s looks pretty cheap to me.
…until you consider the costs of replacing all of the wind turbines and solar panels several times, and the costs of carbon associated with backing them up with natural gas, and the environmental costs of mining the critical elements to make the solar panels and the wind turbines work, and the costs of dealing with greater intermittency on the grid, and the costs of recycling solar panels and wind turbine materials (or the costs of just throwing those away in the dump).
So renewables are definitely cheaper if you ignore those things!
The current nuclear fuel cycle was set up with the intent to isolate the wastes, but then we collectively decided not to follow through with that plan.
So it is not completely fair to blame nuclear for not dealing with the waste, when the government has not accepted the waste for permanent isolation. And you and I are the government (as Cory has mentioned before!).
Complaining about nuclear waste will not make it disappear. Now if you wait long enough, radioactive decay will do that for you, but that can be a long time!
Not that I think direct isolation and burial is the best way to proceed. More than 90% of the energy originally in the nuclear fuel stays within the spent nuclear fuel, and we intend on throwing that away. That is the real waste!
Ironically, there is probably more radioactivity in renewable wastes just simply due to the larger volume required to deliver the same energy. That is just due to naturally-occurring radioisotopes (yes, your solar panel has a tiny bit of uranium in it!). And all of that is going straight to the dump at the moment.
By the way, Fukushima is doing fine. Just don’t go inside the reactor buildings. Safe to work on the site. I can tune down my geiger counter so it clicks more frequently too.
Estimates are that the largest dose that anyone from the public could get will be about 10 mSv over the course of a lifetime…that is from both external and internal doses (say from eating food or drinking water). By comparison, we get 2 – 3 mSv every year just walking around.
The health physics society has said that doses up to 100 mSv above and beyond radiation background have not shown any statistically significant difference in health outcomes.
Good news, the NuScale small modular reactor passed an important stage in its NRC review.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/05/15/nuscales-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-passes-biggest-hurdle-yet/
“But the real power of SMRs are the fact that they can’t melt down. This is a big deal. It means the reactor just won’t melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worse for nuclear power.”
Sing with me Clyde…Oh…the costs are coming down, the costs are coming down…no more need to frown, cause the costs are coming down.
Robert, still saying that if the government hadn’t agreed [ as you mentioned…..us] to accept all nuclear waste no nuclear power plants would have ever been built. No private company would accept the responsibility or cost of a deadly to all life poison that would remain that way for hundreds of thousands of years.
ANYWAY, I’m wondering how these solar panels are going to work for the city of Sturgis. Black Hills Power pays what they CLAIM is their wholesale power cost to independent power producers. Nearly nothing. They then tack on a surcharge for being hooked to their line. In the end independent producers claim their pay is such that they would get by cheaper if they didn’t have a generating facility. And that isn’t figuring their installation cost.
If this country wanted a efficient and abundant supply of power it would stop letting the energy monopolies interconnect all over the country at rate payers expense just so they would always have another facility with excess capacity willing to drive down the wholesale cost. Monopolies are the problem. Small nuclear reactors will do nothing except guarantee the monopolies can stay in place. They will never get the true cost of their waste assessed against them i’ll bet.
Why do you suppose Trump put a 30% tariff on solar panels? Why do you suppose that nation wide the monopolies are imposing the same connection fees as Black Hills Power. It’s all about keeping the money at the top. Battery costs are coming down as well, Robert. Even if Trump wants to help the monopolies by his tariff on solar panels.
Uhh…there are private companies in Texas and New Mexico that are trying to collect the wastes on a temporary basis. And the government is paying fines for not taking the wastes…monies that could be spent on other things!
Solar energy has this hump in mid-afternoon. Building more solar panels is only going to exacerbate that hump. So when you have an excess, the prices are low. But then when you don’t have the energy, the prices are high.
We could try and change when we use energy to match the supply curve, but nobody wants to, and that is actually pretty difficult to do because you have to modify behavior, not power lines or circuits.
If you know when the hump is going to occur (and we can now do a pretty good job at that), then you can ramp down the nuclear power at the right time, and ramp it up again when solar decreases….all without emitting carbon.
Yes you generate nuclear waste in the process, which is why we should treat the waste accordingly and minimize it. You also generate much more solar waste by volume per kilowatt-hour (including production wastes and throwing items away).
Batteries are not available to store enough energy to make up the difference….and the rate of energy delivery from energy storage does not necessarily match supply/demand curves either. I know you want to do the JFK thing and throw your hat over the wall so we have to go after it, but we haven’t solved that problem yet, hat or no hat.
The Trump administration is pushing the end to the MOX facility in South Carolina (at least for reclaiming plutonium from warheads into usable fuel). They want to instead dilute the plutonium in an inert material and bury it.
It is always cheaper upfront to bury it, but not in the long term. The real cost of dilution will come when they have to dig additional caverns. They may have space for the plutonium, but eventually they will need to dig to make room for other things. And they will have to consume other resources for energy (costs not included in their analysis).
Consuming it once and for all gets rid of the plutonium altogether. Converting plutonium intended for nuclear weapons into peaceful nuclear energy is a good outcome.
If they convert the South Carolina facility to production of plutonium pits for nuclear weapons, that may keep those jobs, but more nuclear weapons is not the best outcome that we could have, and we do not know what those costs are at the moment.
Robert, lets get off the nuclear discussion. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I’d like to hear your point of view on our power monopolies.
I think discussions about monopolies are wrapped up in the idea that we can do everything with renewables and we don’t need anything else and we don’t need a grid, and that anything corporate is evil and must be avoided.
But we do need something else besides wind and solar. Think people complain about monopolies now? Just wait until the utility structures as we know them go away! You could be paying for everything yourself. Essentially we are paying for electricity insurance and/or renting out our power infrastructure.
Pushing excess energy from your home solar system does not solve intermittency. You have just pushed the problem onto the utilities to solve for you. Which they currently do with natural gas, efficiency measures, and upgrading their grid. Which costs money.
So the wind and the sun may be free, but the conversion into electricity and the other requisite infrastructure to deliver on-demand power on a reliable grid are definitely not free. Waste management for the renewable life cycle is not free either.
In terms of subsidies per kilowatt-hour produced, wind and solar top the charts. This is largely due to their lower capacities. When they are not delivering power, they cannot pay for their infrastructure, thus the need for more subsidies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/
Speaking of subsidies, I do not like that nuclear and coal have been shoved together as reliabilibuddies because of my objections to carbon. Yes, you could deliver all of the power you need whenever you want with nuclear, coal, and natural gas, but that isn’t going to happen.
Robert, I have not always been a dirt farmer. I hold a degree in mechanical engineering. During our so called “energy crisis” of the 1970’s I was working in that capacity and became very interested in our energy situation. One thing led to another and I finally became interested in actually generating power as a sideline business. After looking at all the different ways of doing that the idea of starting up a unused municipal hydro site became my goal. Most people don’t realize that virtually every town built on a small river was built to take advantage of a good mill site and those mills usually produced the first electric power for the town. In many cases they became quite large sites that produced power until the town either outgrew the site or were talked into tying to the grid. At the time grid power was priced so cheaply it was hard to turn down. Mainly because of subsidies to the power monopolies.
Anyway, these sites were mostly sitting unused with the equipment intact until the PURPA act of 1978 said independent producers could sell power to the monopolies and they were forced to buy it.
Overnight virtually every turbine at every dam in the mid west was scrapped out. I heard the same idiocy from the town fathers of town after town. The power company’s convinced them the equipment was useless BUT the copper was worth quite a bit AND the power company was generous enough to do the scrapping for them and give them a check!
With no equipment and extremely low buy back prices offered by the monopolies the projects wouldn’t pay so I abandoned the idea.
One municipal hydro site was put back in operation in South Dakota at White River. Someone sabotaged the flood control gates and the dam washed out.
I have no love for monopolies supposedly controlled by an elected PUC. And neither should anyone else.
The latest is a group of so called environmentalist’s that are extremely well funded that are seeing to it that dams are being taken out. Several of the sites I had my eye on no longer have a dam. Robert if you are for cutting down on CO2 wouldn’t you think that maybe removing hydro dams makes little sense?
Over in Iowa you have Berkshire Hathaway owning Midwest Energy and in the process of filling Iowa up with giant wind turbines while Warren Buffet publicly argues that it is unfair to the public for a few members to get paid a subsidy for their solar power. The utility’s are completely justified in charging a fee to the little people who happened to put up some solar panel’s.
Take a hard look at where the problems really are and maybe a viable solution can be reached. One that uses a minimum of nuclear in its present form.
This is yet another area where different environmentalists have competing interests. Hydro can impact fish and wind can effect birds. Wind, solar, and hydro all have a larger land impact per kilowatt-hour than nuclear.
The good news is that Sweden has reduced its carbon faster than just about anyone else on the planet with hydro and nuclear. Wind, hydro, and nuclear in fact emit the lowest amount of carbon over their life-cycles.
So carbon issues are not the drivers that have reduced hydro. I know pumped hydro has been championed for some time, but it has never really caught on. If you can run wind, solar, and hydro and not tap into the grid, and do it cheaply, more power to you (literally and figuratively).
I think there was a push for more coal during the 70’s and 80’s that affected nuclear too. Coal was cheap and was not as dependent on the weather/calendar for power (which all the renewables are, including hydro). So the power source with the cheapest cost was usually favored, as it still is today.
Nuclear can run in a flexible manner with some pre-planning to complement renewables, but the newer reactor designs will just do a much better job. But there are competing environmental factions: anti-nuclear at all costs, vs. reduce carbon at all costs.
Why are you guys worried about carbon?
There has been no significant change in the Earth’s temp in the past 100 years.
According to the historical data, we are close to going into another ice age.
Carbon levels are at their highest values for the last 800,000 years, and they are increasing at a steady rate.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/04/global-warming-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-soar/581270002/
It is not the only greenhouse gas, but it is the one most highly correlated with man-made processes. So it is the one we have a better chance of changing.
Global temperatures have been rising steadily since the mid 70’s at least.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The problem is that this trend has not been decreasing. Statistically if things are really random, you can flip a coin enough times so a whole bunch of heads show up, but eventually you should also see a whole bunch of tails at some point. So where are the tails?
Robert,
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/
I’m not saying that carbon should go down to zero, just back to normal levels with some oscillation about that from natural processes. If we can emit less carbon from our power sector, natural processes may get back to normal.
The isotopic content from fossil fuel-based carbon is different, and that is being detected in the atmosphere. And if you are burning coal, there are other emissions you have to worry about.
Variability in solar output and orbital mechanics have not been sufficient to explain the increase in the global temperatures or the changes in global weather patterns.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
Not sure if you can read the above article or not, but they go through an analysis of the impacts of CO2, and they study all the inputs and outputs for the climate model.
“Calculations at very high spectral resolution, and using state-of-the-art data for gaseous absorption properties, indicate that as the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises from zero the total (instantaneous) RF at first
grows very sharply but the rate of increase moderates such that for concentrations between about 30 and 800ppmv RF increases in proportion to log(mixing ratio). This is the situation in the contemporary atmosphere, for which the concentration is 389ppmv and total RF about 38Wm–2. For
higher concentrations, however, the rate of increase becomes supra-logarithmic. This is because, while the centre of the 15μm band becomes saturated, the band wings and, especially, the 10μm bands become dominant in determining the radiative effects – and these are nowhere near saturation.”
Robert,
Nasa/Noaa has falsified data. They changed historical temps.
Water vapor affects temperatures way more than carbon dioxide.
Linky linky on the falsified data. trumpers always always talk about falsified data on factual data. It is the fox propaganda way.
Robert, you cited Sweden’s use of nuclear while right next door Denmark intends to run on 100% renewable’s by 2050. They aren’t far off right now at somewhere over 50% I believe. In Denmark they have gotten rid of their centralized utility’s and gone back to localized small utility’s. There power is mostly produced by wind. Denmark produces high quality ag products as well and their animal waste goes through methane digester’s so that the energy can be recovered.
In this country we can subsidize big energy to drill methane well’s into old garbage dumps but we can’t pay farmers enough so that they can afford to utilize the methane they produce. Each one of those big hog house’s produce as much methane as a large town. Methane is a far worse green house gas than CO2. In the case of hogs, that stink up Iowa, we could cut down on the odor if the manure was digested as well. Low cost pilot projects have been built but wide use implementation just won’t quite pay!
Back on the subject of hydro. There isn’t a much better way to compensate for power peaks and troughs than a hydro water impoundment or a pumped hydro scheme. I believe its far easier to adjust the guide blades on a turbine than to control a nuclear reaction.
Now if the 95% energy recovery from nuclear fuel that the industry claims is possible or if nuclear fusion actually could be achieved perhaps I would have a more favorable view of the atom but for now, as I mentioned, you and I are just going to have to disagree.
Wanted to mention also that blocking rivers with dams is bad if you are blocking Salmon from getting to their spawning grounds but here in the midwest we long ago did in any valuable fish and replaced them with introduced invasive Asian grass carp. We should be making every effort to impede their migration by leaving municipal hydro dams in place rather than letting some wacko so called environmental group likely getting their funding from big energy take them out.
Clyde, no one is happy with the dams and no one is happy with the carp. Whose happiness gets priority?
All it takes is one careless fisherman or bait dealer that does not recognize small carp to infest waters upstream from dams. Invasive species should never be allowed in America, but laws won’t stop them from being smuggled in if there is a buck to be made.
BTW- where I live there is a tile fed creek. Tiles drain onto this property from 3 adjacent landowner’s properties. I used to catch baby bullheads in my minnow trap in this creek on this property, but the nearest body of water big enough to support bullheads is miles away downstream. This creek is often dry in the pasture when the tiles quit running so the only way I can see for bullheads to get here is by air transport through blue herons or some other bird bringing eggs from ponds or rivers.
Mike, personally I have never had a problem with a 100 year old dam. I see plenty of problems with the unresolved nuclear waste issue though and a far bigger threat to our environment. These dams should be producing power again rather than being removed.
Asian Grass carp are good eating if you know how to prepare them. Therein is the problem. It takes a lot more work to get them ready to eat than to just filet a walleye. That said, if you have ever been in the south especially on the Mississippi and had some fish sandwiches, you probably ate carp. Carp are used and have been used for centuries in China to clean waterways of noxious weeds and to also clean water sources. You can kind of get their importance by seeing how aquatic tanks are cleaned by Siamese Algae Eater, a member of the carp family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGPq9LSjEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
A little more on the subject.
Our own Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson attempted to push through legislation that would allow small independent power producers to “wheel” their power to whoever would pay them the most. This would have overrode the local utility’s ability to squash independent power producers. Sadly they couldn’t get it done and I’ll bet that lots of the money used to unseat Senator Daschle came from big energy.
“Wheeling” power is something that the big power company’s do between themselves all the time. Missouri River Energy out of Sioux Falls which has most of its customers in northeast So Dak has just put hydro turbines in the Des Moines river Red Rocks dam in south east Iowa. How do you suppose they are going to get that power to their customers?
A HVDC line has been put up across Iowa so that wind energy can be transported to the Great Lakes without the line losses usually associated with AC transport. Its not uncommon to loose 50% of generated AC power through line loss. If we had “wheeling” legislation in place any small scale renewable power producer could tie into that line and economically ship renewable power to the lucrative big city eastern market. Remember folks, they are willing to pay a premium for it.
Welcome to LOSERVILLE, Jason. The assertion that changing the way temperatures are measured makes global warming false was rated PANTS ON FIRE!!
~ Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller)exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.
By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years.
The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw data.
~ We rate the claim PANTS ON FIRE!!
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/
Jerry, way back before the Asian carp invasion we used to go to a small restaurant that offered carp occasionally. They were the relatively innocent carp that were brought into this country in the 1800’s along with a few native Buffalo carp I’m sure. They picked the right size of fish and prepared it correctly and they were excellent eating. The Asian’s eat the fish that we now have and I imagine when we are hungry enough we will eat them as well.
Clyde, that is something that would even be more important now. With community based electrical supply and control, that could now mean supplying internet service as well. Not so many years ago, there was a competitor that got started in Rapid City against Mid Continent (Comcast). One of the things that came up was the fact that the competitor used existing power poles and the infrastructure to deliver service to clients. I think what turned out was that the poles and infrastructure were public domain. That would mean to me then, that the local power could use the existing poles for delivery. What do you think?
Politifact? lol.
Politifact won a Pulitzer Prize for honest journalism. It’s a highly decorated and valid source.
The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results
Who were these experts?
I always get a good laugh when someone cites politifact.
If you reject the validity of Politifact our debate must conclude. Educating you isn’t in my “needs” column.
I’ll conclude with this statement from NASA.
Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Porter,
You are the one rejecting scientific fact.
Jerry, you may be right about the power poles but I’ll bet that an independent producer would have a fight on their hands.
Jason. When you were posting here under your “newest” real name we had a discussion about Roncalli’s inability to instill in you the tools needed for lifelong learning. My assessment still stands.
You have what’s called “PeeWee Herman Logic” aka “I know you are but what am I?”
Clyde,
Fusion is always 30 years away. But it would still generate radioactive waste…just not uranium or plutonium-based.
We should move ahead and deal with nuclear waste and extract the energy it still contains, and also critical elements of use to renewables and energy storage…but near-term we may put it into new temporary storage.
With regard to Denmark…
“In 2017, the share of electricity coming from wind and solar was 53 percent in Denmark, 26 percent in Germany, and 23 percent in California. Denmark and Germany have the first and second most expensive electricity in Europe.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/
Part of that expense is paying other nations to take their renewable energy when their own demand isn’t enough.
https://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-37/issue-2/cover-story/pumped-storage-keeping-it-part-of-the-energy-storage-discussion.html
Pumped storage is better at bulk storage, but not the intermediary or fast response, perhaps better suited for baseload use. Most of the emphasis has been on distributed energy configurations: Batteries can be used anywhere, and hydro is often site-specific.
“…when policy makers seek information on energy storage technologies, various resources often fail to include pumped storage when presenting the technologies and tend to focus only on newer energy storage resources (i.e., batteries).”
And costs/licensing may also be a factor.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower
“Pumped storage is the most likely form of large new hydro asset expansions in the United States; however, justifying investments in new pumped storage plants remains very challenging with current electricity market economics. Even over a wide range of possible energy futures, up to 2020, no energy future was found to bring quantifiable revenues sufficient to cover estimated costs of plant construction. “
Thought I responded to Roberts latest but apparently it was lost in the vapor
Anyway, Denmark and Germany are democratic country’s and if the cost of their power were that much of a concern they would do something about it. They prefer to pay a bit more now rather than have the expense down the road of dealing with the unknown cost’s of nuclear.
Rather than expensive pumped storage projects right now perhaps it would be cheaper to put the old municipal hydro plants back in operation. Their water impoundment would work nicely to buffer the peaks and troughs of other renewable’s. I would love to lead the fight for a small Iowa town that still has a intact dam. I am betting that I could get them power for less than they are now paying. Solar, wind, and hydro could do the trick.
Robert, you’re the expert….tell me more about the claims that instead of the dismal 20% or so energy that is currently derived from the nuclear fuel its possible to get 95% of the energy out. Seems like that would mean far less nuclear waste. Probably more unstable and hazardous I would imagine.
Clyde, there is still one that could be put back on line that Homestake Mining used to use for Spearfish, I believe. Where is the power generated that comes from Oahe going? Maybe by opening those dams on the Missouri up for power instead of holding silt, would be another good step with what we have.
Clyde, here is Denmark’s autonomous archipelago, The Faroe Islands. Of course they could have gone all nukey, but instead went all green. 100% by 2030!https://visitfaroeislands.com/meetings/why-the-faroe-islands/our-distinctions/green-energy/
These folks shamed google maps into coming there by placing video cameras on sheep. Google map saw the hits this was getting and relented https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-x-WgEGRI
Even as nuclear power plants have shut down, they have still been able to generate about 20% of our electricity regardless through upgrades. So engineers are hard at work!
The reason you cannot just dump spent fuel back into today’s reactors is that the other elements in the waste that are neither uranium nor plutonium are often not fission-friendly. Many will eat neutrons and spit out gamma rays, instead of releasing more neutrons or simply bouncing the neutrons off.
So you either have to build a special reactor to handle that waste product, or you have to do some thermochemical processing to separate the isotopes out. One would have to make an investment, but one would also reduce the amount of mining that is necessary and the number of Yucca Mountains one has to build.
The new reactors will have some of this accommodation built-in to reduce wastes, but today’s reactors were not designed that way…different chemistry in the waste. I think my preference is to build a new reactor that will consume today’s spent fuel to reduce our legacy wastes.
France and Japan and others have successfully pursued reprocessing, but we would have to spend money to do that here. Areva (the French nuclear company) has said that they would be interested in doing that in the U.S.
The thing with going 100% renewable is that they never say where the excess is going, or what happens when they do not have enough energy.
It may indeed be possible to generate the same amount of energy that you consume during an entire year. But that doesn’t mean that during the year the supply and demand match up perfectly. They have to push the excess onto somebody else, and use fossil fuels when renewables are not enough…like California.
“100% green” should mean being sustainable too. As I have said before, we do a much better job at recycling lead batteries and coal fly ash than we do solar panels or wind turbine blades today.
The latter is also why nuclear can help renewables. Extraction processes in said renewable recycling can be energy intensive, and you might as well do that carbon-free.
NICE (…it’s an acronym)
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/it-s-time-world-recognize-nuclear-clean-energy-source
US, Canada and Japan are teaming up to promote the following uses of nuclear energy that are energy-intensive. Far from bypassing renewables, they serve to boost renewables.
Desalination
Industrial process heat
Integrated nuclear-renewable systems
Flexible electricity grids
Hydrogen production
Energy storage (thermal, electrical, or chemical).
One of the worst features of both wind and solar energy is that they are terrible for the environment. Land-based wind turbines are bad enough, but offshore installations are a fiasco waiting to happen
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/green-energy-an-environmental-disaster.php
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/18/eastern-states-promote-offshore-wind-systems-but-offshore-systems-are-expensive-and-high-risk/
Jason, terrible sorta like Fukushima or Chernoble?
I’m not a fan of giant wind turbines cluttering up the landscape. If small independents could get payed the same rate as the giant wind farms the country would be full of small unobtrusive turbines.
Clyde,
Stay away from the reactor buildings themselves and you are fine.
“It would seem that – despite popular assumption – the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl has had a limited impact on the wildlife in the region, and some species may have even benefitted from it.”
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/this-is-what-happened-to-the-wildlife-in-the-area-after-the-chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-explosion/page-2/
#4Science
It is more expensive to build off-shore than it is on-shore.
Electricity has further to travel, so there efficiencies drop.
You have to replace wind turbines more often because of the elements. Thus long-term an off-shore wind farm costs more.
And we are still not recycling the turbines when you decommission them.
We will max out what we can get from big on-shore wind in the next decade or two. Solar has room to grow, but more solar only means the intermittent peaks and valleys grow larger too. It may be easier to 3-d print everything for a small wind assembly (enough for a home, school, or farm) and stack them as needed.
Correction…
It is not just Japan and Canada that are teaming up with the US on nuclear as clean energy in NICE, it is also Poland, Argentina, Romania, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and…..Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear/u-s-and-partners-form-international-alliance-to-push-nuclear-power-idUSKCN1IP1PO
“Nuclear-renewable systems could link emission-free nuclear power plants with variable renewables like solar or wind farms and could allow nuclear power to backstop intermittent generation”
Carbon farming and carbon collection will mean that we can live with fossil fuel burning and still lower our carbon footprint without nukeys. https://www.upi.com/Statoil-Shell-and-Total-to-store-CO2-offshore-Norway/6561506941998/
…if it works. Carbon capture and storage would be a boon for coal to be sure, but it currently is on the list with commercial energy storage and fusion power for things that are always a few decades away.
Anti-nukeys are worried about the long-term effects of storing radioactive nuclear waste, but not about any future release of carbon from its captured state due to pressure, temperature, diffusion, and chemistry.
Furthermore, carbon is a resource. After all, if you bury the carbon, it cannot be used in wind turbine blades or an energy storage device or a future electric car.
Speaking of Sturgis, in a round-a-bout manner- https://chicago.suntimes.com/business/harley-davidson-workers-plant-closure-tax-cut/
HD was aware of the tax windfall and closed the plant anyway. Might I suggest workers are not feeling that kindly toward HD?
Pittsburgh’s city council has set a goal of reducing energy use by 50% and the city becoming 100% renewable. Essentially a combo of solar, hydro, combined heat and power, and waste to energy…no wind.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pittsburgh-energy-reduction-revised-climate-plan/524322/
The only energy storage in the plan appears to come from the electric vehicles they want to power.
The issue I have with these 100% plans is not their noble intention, it is their actual effect. Maybe the total power generated over a year is equivalent to the demand, but inevitably the natural gas and coal needed to match supply with demand on a daily basis never gets counted in said plans. If they are not generating the carbon…don’t blame them.
The Trump administration is moving to stop the premature shutdown of working coal and nuclear plants in the name of national security.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/coal-stocks-pop-as-trump-moves-to-stop-coal-nuclear-plant-retirements.html
We’ll see if measures to help them become more competitive in the renewable landscape occur in parallel…such as using nuclear plants more flexibly with advanced forecasting of renewable output (i.e. ramp up the nuclear when renewables are not going to be available or enough, ramp them down when they are).
Robert, lets get real.
Nuclear is a lousy way to try and adjust output according to peaks. It is best as a main supplier that doesn’t have to very its output. What you and Trump are saying is that renewable’s should have to take the hit when there is excess capacity! Perhaps your nuclear should take the hit first!
Lets say that all of a sudden there is too much generation from solar panels. Logic tells me that you would adjust the rate that is payed to the solar provider down when excess capacity hit and you would similarly adjust the rate you charge for electricity during those peak’s. Perfect opportunity for the consumer to find a use for all that very cheap power oooor to figure out how they could store it. Lots of ways…..electrolysis into hydrogen….compressed air….pumped hydro…and on and on…..
Last thing this country needs is the government stepping in to help big coal, big nuclear and the power monopolies that use them.
Drumpf sounds like he is picking favorite coal producers to be winners in this unnecessary debacle.
https://boingboing.net/2018/06/02/defense-production-act.html
Leaked document says Americans will be forced to pay 311 million to 1.8 billion bucks a year to keep unprofitable coal and nukular facilities open.
While we are being real :^)…politically the move by the Trump Administration has more to do with coal and the support of its constituency than it does with the environmental benefits of carbon-free nuclear energy or a desire for clean air.
Just because nuclear has been used substantially in a baseload capacity, and has worked well in that capacity, does not mean nuclear cannot be used flexibly. France has already shown that it can be done. The US Navy has already shown that it can be done. And current market conditions mean that flexible use is desired if existing power plants are to generate income.
The argument that nuclear power plants cannot be competitive goes away if you allow them to compete!
Nuclear will help deliver the power we need when renewables/storage cannot satisfy the demand and provide the energy for the assembly of renewable/storage infrastructure and its recycling. Plus nuclear safety protocols will help renewables become more safe as well.
By the way, a hydrogen economy would be great for nuclear. You could use small nuclear plants to generate heat for that energy-intensive process. If energy storage works, that would also be great for nuclear. As you have said, nuclear does great at baseload, so the rest could be stored.
Mike,
I would compare that cost with what is needed to build a new power plant, and then see if maintenance and using existing infrastructure differently is a better deal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/05/21/the-rush-to-gas-will-cost-billions-in-stranded-assets-as-renewables-get-cheaper-institute-says/
On one hand, this article estimates that $520 billion will be necessary to replace all the existing power plants with natural gas by 2030.
So if it is $1 billion per year for the Trump enforcement of coal and nuclear, over the next 12 years that is $12 billion. Not $520 billion. Thus cost-wise it makes sense to run existing and operational nuclear plants in an optimal manner while accruing benefits from their zero-emission energy.
Coal recycles half of its coal fly ash today. Renewables have a lot of work to do in this regard, and they are supposed to be green!!!
Let’s say you wanted to get rid of all the non-renewable electricity and replace it with solar. And for the moment let’s suppose that intermittency doesn’t have to be dealt with, and the amount of solar energy is the only issue.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Today we generate about 4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity. 83% of this comes from something that is non-renewable (i.e. something other than solar, wind, hydro, etc.). So let’s keep the existing 17% and generate another 3.32 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity from solar.
Over one year, a 1 MW solar farm (or wind farm)…if operating at 100% capacity…would generate 8760 MegaWatt-hours of electricity. If the capacity is 25%, a 1 MW solar farm produces .25 MW-hour of electricity each hour (before any transmission losses or storage losses). Thus you need a minimum of 1.5 million 1-MW solar farms.
At $1 million for each MW, you then need a minimum of 1.5 trillion dollars. Which will grow as you build something else to fill in the demand when necessary, or add on extra energy to displace fossil fuel in transportation.
A 2 MW wind turbine costs somewhere between $3 and $4 million to install, so this estimate increases with more wind in the mix.
For comparison with nuclear, if you spend $10 billion to build a 1200 MW power plant (like those in Georgia), that is $8 million per MW in construction costs.
However, nuclear’s capacity factor is closer to 90% than 25%, so the relative cost is cut by that factor. Once built, operational costs are lower. And you build one nuclear plant instead of replacing the solar or wind farm several times over the next century.
Put it all together and nuclear is quite competitive with the gas/renewable combo over several decades while emitting no carbon. But short-term it is more expensive.
The steel and aluminum tariffs will have a disproportionate effect on solar and wind.
Solar -> 1600 tons of steel per MW.
Wind -> 400 tons of steel per MW.
Nuclear -> 40 tons of steel per MW.
Gas -> 4 tons of steel per MW.
Ironically, this Trump policy will impact red states more due to their increasing reliance on wind energy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/06/02/the-effects-of-trumps-steel-tariffs-on-red-state-energy/
OK, Robert, lets discuss cost’s! Wham, first thing we do is put the cost of nuclear waste on the nuclear power plants…past and into the future!
Yes, Trump’s tariff on solar panels is 30%, I believe, along with the tariff’s on steel and aluminum but we are going to shore up coal and nuclear!!!!!!!!!!!
Ummm…they integrated nuclear waste costs already. They just haven’t spent the money. But I think recently they stopped collecting that money and started assessing penalties on the federal government for not following through (note…we are paying penalties for something we should have been doing already).
Does solar or wind assess a fee for disposal or recycling into their cost structure?
Buh-Bam!
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/04/its-time-to-plan-for-solar-panel-recycling-in-the-united-states/
“Who is responsible for it? In the U.S., nobody is,” he said of solar panel recycling guidelines. “It is important for the industry to step up to address it. Solar is supposed to be renewable and clean energy, but there is this dirty side to it. There is a waste stream after time that hasn’t been addressed.”
Part of the argument for the coal and nuclear support is that we distribute natural gas via pipelines that are more subject to disruption than coal or nuclear with supplies kept on-site. Delivery of on-time power by wind and solar is threatened by disruptions to the same gas pipeline network.
I had forgotten about the other solar panel tariff…boy, solar is really going to get hit. But most of the growth in renewables at the moment is with wind at the utility scale.
The article above surmises that solar recycling will have to be mandated, so it is unclear which state is going to accept solar wastes and process them.
Here are some sobering statistics regarding the potential levels of renewable wastes going forward…if we do not get our recycling act together.
https://cen.acs.org/energy/renewables/Recycling-renewables/96/i15
“Getting the good stuff back out is like unscrambling an egg.”
By 2025, 600,000 metric tons of battery waste from electric vehicles.
By 2050, 78 million metric tons of solar panel waste.
In two decades, 300,000 metric tons of decommissioned turbine blades per year in Europe alone.
Nuclear: Not quite 80,000 metric tons produced over more than 50 years (commercial only).
Could not agree more with the link, thanks doc. Yes, recycle everything. In many places, plastic grocery bags will stop being given for free to encourage bringing your own just like we used to do. Plastic straws, bye bye. Plastic forks, spoons and knives, so long. The article is correct, we have to think about the recycle of everything including nukes.
Here are some current today sobering statistics. ” a single liter of bottled water can contain thousands of microplastic particles.
Exclusive tests on more than 250 bottles from 11 leading brands worldwide reveal widespread contamination with plastic debris including polypropylene, nylon, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Plastic was identified in 93 percent of the samples.”
So good news doc, today when someone calls you a plastic person, they are correct! So we have that going for us, which is a pretty good thing I guess.
Only 93% of the samples? You’d think someone would go after those eddys/islands of plastic refuse in the pacific and deal with them.
We need to have recycling in mind when any form of energy is produced from the get-go. I’m afraid that the near-term solution will be to bury what wastes we have now, and just do better later…and then later never gets here.
Robert, still saying that if the US government hadn’t agreed to accept ALL nuclear waste at the dawn of the nuclear age not ONE nuclear power plant would have ever been built!!!
I agree 100% and am in favor of recycling but lets get real with some of your statistics. Lets take a wind turbine for example. They are made of steel,
copper and fiberglass. Soooo, you are telling me that recycling copper and steel are a problem? Seems like there are lots of places I can take copper and steel for recycling. As to fiberglass turbine blades they are glass fiber reinforced polyester. The polyester burns very easily. Seems like a power generating incinerator would work just fine for that.
You know that if I were to come up with some nuclear waste, I can’t think of anywhere I could take that to recycle it!
Imagine that we could bury it in Nevada but seems they don’t even want it!
You could theoretically take your waste to France, since they actively reprocess their wastes. But you would have some issues in trying to transport it there :^).
And if it is so easy to recycle those things from solar and wind farms…why are we not doing it? Because often those things are all mixed up with other things, and the egg does not unscramble itself for free.
There are a lot of critical elements in nuclear waste that are needed by wind, solar, and energy storage (nuclear reactors are the only place where NEW rare earth metals are being produced). But it is difficult to get those things out for the same reasons.
That sort of task is energy intensive, particularly if you are separating metals by melting things at higher temperatures and fostering chemical reactions. That is where the process heat from small nuclear reactors would be beneficial to help renewables.
Burning polymers may reduce the amount of waste that you have and generate some extra energy, but then you cannot use what you have burned to produce a new wind turbine blade.
Moreover…you emit carbon when you burn polymers and now have issues with soot in your machinery to deal with. So you just increased the carbon footprint of the wind energy life cycle!
#Backfire
With regard to Yucca…
There are likely several locations in the U.S. where we could store spent nuclear fuel, either on a temporary basis or a permanent basis. And engineering could make those locations even better.
But without any recycling at all, we will need to build another repository. And we will have to mine more uranium than we actually need to. If we bury what we have now to save money, I hope we come back and reduce those wastes later.
If the argument against Yucca is that other states, particularly those that generate nuclear power, should share some of the burden….then that may indeed be possible with the deposition in deep shale with oil/gas drilling methods.
But ultimately a consent-based solution has two parts. The first is informed consent, and the other is that there is actually a solution.
By the way, the nuclear guy, Michael Shellenberger (D), finished 10th out of 18 candidates in the California governor primary, and 6th out of the 11 Democrats.
Nobody below 7th place got 1% of the vote.