Subtitle: Nuclear Cannot Compete
The Pilgrim nuclear power station in Massachusetts will shut down permanently in 2019, after 47 years of operation. see link "Plymouth’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station will shut down in 2019" It is also a testimony, once again, that nuclear power plants do not last for 60 years as the nuclear proponents insist they do. This one will shut its doors after just less than 47 years of troubled operation.
Unfavorable economics is listed as the reason, with nuclear power unable to compete with low-priced alternatives for electricity production.
Once again, as stated frequently here on SLB, nuclear power in the US shows it simply cannot compete. Leaving aside all issues of safety, health concerns, terrorist targets, excessive water use that harms the water ecosystems, and other non-economic issues, nuclear power is shown by the evidence that it simply is not economic. Pilgrim is not alone in shutting down, as several other US nuclear plants have either shut down or announced they will soon shut down.
Some of the nuclear plant owners are screaming for subsidy from the government in a futile attempt to revive a dead industry.
The list below shows 15 of the 98 US nuclear plants that have either closed, announced their imminent closure, or are in serious financial trouble.
Vermont Yankee in Vermont,
San Onofre in California,
Kewaunee in Wisconsin,
Crystal River in Florida,
Oyster Creek in New Jersey
.
Ginna, in New York
Indian Point, in New York
Fitzpatrick in New York,
Pilgrim in Massachusetts,
Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania,
Davis Besse in Ohio.
Clinton, Dresden, Quad Cities, Byron all have been losing money also, due to wind energy and low natural gas prices.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Buffet Buys Billions Worth of Wind Turbines - Again
Subtitle: Buffet Once Again Passes on Nuclear - Builds Wind Energy
"MidAmerican Energy Co. said Thursday that it is planning to build up to 2,000 additional megawatts of wind turbines with a goal of generating 85% of its power from wind." The project is to cost approximately US$3.6 billion. -- WSJ "MidAmerican Energy Makes Big Bet on Iowa Wind" see link
Wind Results in Lower Prices
"Iowa consumers pay about 10 cents a kilowatt-hour for power on average, compared with 12 cents nationwide, according to the Energy Department. Large commercial and industrial customers in the state pay about 5 cents to 8 cents a kilowatt-hour, on average, compared with 6 cents to 10 cents nationwide." -- WSJ article linked above.
MidAmerican Energy is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, of which the CEO and Chairman is Warren Buffet, renowned billionaire investor. As written before on SLB, Mr. Buffet is certainly capable of purchasing, or building, a nuclear power plant. However, he knows which technology is profitable and elects to spend his billions on wind-turbines.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
"MidAmerican Energy Co. said Thursday that it is planning to build up to 2,000 additional megawatts of wind turbines with a goal of generating 85% of its power from wind." The project is to cost approximately US$3.6 billion. -- WSJ "MidAmerican Energy Makes Big Bet on Iowa Wind" see link
Wind Results in Lower Prices
"Iowa consumers pay about 10 cents a kilowatt-hour for power on average, compared with 12 cents nationwide, according to the Energy Department. Large commercial and industrial customers in the state pay about 5 cents to 8 cents a kilowatt-hour, on average, compared with 6 cents to 10 cents nationwide." -- WSJ article linked above.
MidAmerican Energy is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, of which the CEO and Chairman is Warren Buffet, renowned billionaire investor. As written before on SLB, Mr. Buffet is certainly capable of purchasing, or building, a nuclear power plant. However, he knows which technology is profitable and elects to spend his billions on wind-turbines.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Renewable Energy Innovations in the Private Sector
Subtitle: An Open Letter to Secretary John Kerry re Renewable Energy Innovations
"Government can provide the structure, the incentives, the framework. But I know – and so do you – that it’s the private sector that will ultimately take us to the finish line. And it will be the private sector – innovation, entrepreneurial activity, maybe something we haven’t discovered yet – the breakthrough on battery storage, a breakthrough on a clean fuel burn – I don’t know what it is, but I trust in the ingenuity and the capacity of the American people and of our allocation of capital and our capacity to make this work." -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit, Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York City, April 5, 2016.
Dear Secretary Kerry,
There are already several important innovations in the private sector that meet or surpass the criteria you described at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit on April 5.. Among them are the following seven innovations:
1) the patented process to convert human waste to clean-burning synthetic methane, invented by University of California at Riverside professor Dr. Chan Park; see link
2) the patented process to convert landfill-clogging municipal solid waste to useful energy, invented by Peter A. Nick and his team of Southern California chemical engineers; see link
3) an improved method to create ethanol from cellulose through genetically modified lignin in fast-growing poplar trees, so that much more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees, discovered and published by Dr. Rebecca Van Acker, see link
4) offshore wind energy that stores the power, until it is needed, in underwater hydroelectric hollow spheres as invented by engineers at MIT; see link
5) much larger, 50 MW wind-turbines with blades that flex and fold to prevent damage, similar to the fronds on palm trees, as published by Sandia National Laboratory, see link,
6) the patent-pending, vastly enhanced battery that uses modified polyacetylene invented by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Alan Heeger, from University of California at Santa Barbara. see link and
7) renewable energy via river-mouth osmosis, in which fresh water produces hydroelectric power before passing through osmosis membranes, then mixing with ocean water, see link.
Each of these innovations would benefit from additional investment.
I would be pleased to provide more details on any of these, or introductions to Dr. Park, and Mr. Pete Nick.
Sincerely,
Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
Marina del Rey, California
email rsowell@resowell-law.com
UPDATE 1 - 4/11/2016: There may be a quibble about including an innovation from Sandia National Laboratory as a private sector item, but then, two of the items of this list are from public universities, which are state-supported. MIT is private, Pete Nick is not affiliated with government, and the river-mouth osmosis technology is decades old and patented.
Also, almost all of these innovations are related to chemical engineering, with the large wind turbine and the underwater storage spheres not.
All but one are sustainable, renewable, and have essentially zero adverse environmental impact. Dr Park's process uses organic solid material in a slurry form from waste treatment plants. With 7 billion people on the planet, plus billions more animals, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Park's process.
Pete Nick's process uses any organic waste material, from bio-medical hazardous wastes to organic wastes that would otherwise go into a landfill. With the millions of tons of waste thrown away each year around the planet, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Mr. Nick's process, either.
Dr. Van Acker's modified lignin process uses fast-growing poplar trees that can and do grow on hillsides and other marginal lands, so no valuable crop-producing lands are used. Trees are, of course, the very definition of sustainable and renewable.
Dr. Heeger's modified polyacetylene is a petrochemical, no doubt, but actylene is a byproduct of many chemical processes, one of which is ethylene production from steam cracking of ethane. There will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Heeger's battery.
The river-mouth osmosis process has some limitations with rivers near 300-foot deep ocean areas, but those are plentiful around the world. A river is also entirely sustainable and renewable, as long as the rain falls somewhere in the river drainage area.
The two that use wind-power are of course, forever renewable and sustainable.
-- end update 1
"Government can provide the structure, the incentives, the framework. But I know – and so do you – that it’s the private sector that will ultimately take us to the finish line. And it will be the private sector – innovation, entrepreneurial activity, maybe something we haven’t discovered yet – the breakthrough on battery storage, a breakthrough on a clean fuel burn – I don’t know what it is, but I trust in the ingenuity and the capacity of the American people and of our allocation of capital and our capacity to make this work." -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit, Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York City, April 5, 2016.
Dear Secretary Kerry,
There are already several important innovations in the private sector that meet or surpass the criteria you described at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Summit on April 5.. Among them are the following seven innovations:
1) the patented process to convert human waste to clean-burning synthetic methane, invented by University of California at Riverside professor Dr. Chan Park; see link
2) the patented process to convert landfill-clogging municipal solid waste to useful energy, invented by Peter A. Nick and his team of Southern California chemical engineers; see link
3) an improved method to create ethanol from cellulose through genetically modified lignin in fast-growing poplar trees, so that much more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees, discovered and published by Dr. Rebecca Van Acker, see link
4) offshore wind energy that stores the power, until it is needed, in underwater hydroelectric hollow spheres as invented by engineers at MIT; see link
5) much larger, 50 MW wind-turbines with blades that flex and fold to prevent damage, similar to the fronds on palm trees, as published by Sandia National Laboratory, see link,
6) the patent-pending, vastly enhanced battery that uses modified polyacetylene invented by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Alan Heeger, from University of California at Santa Barbara. see link and
7) renewable energy via river-mouth osmosis, in which fresh water produces hydroelectric power before passing through osmosis membranes, then mixing with ocean water, see link.
Each of these innovations would benefit from additional investment.
I would be pleased to provide more details on any of these, or introductions to Dr. Park, and Mr. Pete Nick.
Sincerely,
Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
Marina del Rey, California
email rsowell@resowell-law.com
UPDATE 1 - 4/11/2016: There may be a quibble about including an innovation from Sandia National Laboratory as a private sector item, but then, two of the items of this list are from public universities, which are state-supported. MIT is private, Pete Nick is not affiliated with government, and the river-mouth osmosis technology is decades old and patented.
Also, almost all of these innovations are related to chemical engineering, with the large wind turbine and the underwater storage spheres not.
All but one are sustainable, renewable, and have essentially zero adverse environmental impact. Dr Park's process uses organic solid material in a slurry form from waste treatment plants. With 7 billion people on the planet, plus billions more animals, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Park's process.
Pete Nick's process uses any organic waste material, from bio-medical hazardous wastes to organic wastes that would otherwise go into a landfill. With the millions of tons of waste thrown away each year around the planet, there will be no shortage of feedstock for Mr. Nick's process, either.
Dr. Van Acker's modified lignin process uses fast-growing poplar trees that can and do grow on hillsides and other marginal lands, so no valuable crop-producing lands are used. Trees are, of course, the very definition of sustainable and renewable.
Dr. Heeger's modified polyacetylene is a petrochemical, no doubt, but actylene is a byproduct of many chemical processes, one of which is ethylene production from steam cracking of ethane. There will be no shortage of feedstock for Dr. Heeger's battery.
The river-mouth osmosis process has some limitations with rivers near 300-foot deep ocean areas, but those are plentiful around the world. A river is also entirely sustainable and renewable, as long as the rain falls somewhere in the river drainage area.
The two that use wind-power are of course, forever renewable and sustainable.
-- end update 1
Nuclear Power Plants and Load Following
Subtitle: Military Nuclear Plants Cannot Compete as Commercial Power Plants
Earlier on SLB, I ran an article (see link) on US power plant capacity factors, in which one of many oft-repeated false statements by nuclear proponents was discussed. Nuclear cheerleaders claim 100 percent capacity factor for nuclear plants, which is blatantly false.
Then another blogging discussion brought up the question of nuclear plants as load-following versus baseload operation. One snide commenter (why are the nuclear cheerleaders always so snide, snarky, snarling.... I suspect it is perhaps they hugged a
nuclear plant and got their brains fried, just a little....) said that I am quite wrong about nuclear plants being unable to follow the load, because naval ships from several countries have nuclear power plants that can be easily varied.
My response was this.
"Of course a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier can have variable power output. And it is also true that the military nuclear power plants are not financially constrained as are land-based commercial electric power plants. The military Nimitz-class carriers presently have two reactors, each the small Westinghouse A4W design that have only 550 MWt output. For those not familiar with the terminology, that is 550 MW thermal, or heat output before any steam turbine splits the output into useful work and waste heat to a condenser. For comparison, a 1,100 MWe Westinghouse AP-1000 commercial nuclear power plant is approximately 6 times larger, at 3,400 MWt output.
"You might wonder, then, why electric utilities don't just order up a few thousand of the A4W nuclear plants, hook them up to generators, and vary the output as they follow the load. Great question. The answer is, of course, that the tiny A4W plants are far too expensive due to reverse economy of scale. They produce at maximum 200 MW of electricity. Utilities would have paid a premium for load-following ability, then must spread out the huge capital costs over a small electricity sales volume due to not running in baseload mode. Their customers would scream in outrage when the electricity bills arrive.
"Commercial nuclear plant operators realized early on that a 60 percent capacity factor was death to their industry. They had to run at much higher average output to have any hope of competing with natural gas or coal, and they had to forget about ever competing with hydroelectric. They were stunned when the Japanese built a pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant on the coast, using an artificial lake on the cliff and the ocean itself as the lower reservoir. That opens up the entire coastline world-wide, wherever a suitable elevation difference exists not too far from the shore, meaning only about 300 feet above sealevel. Now, all those natural-gas fired power plants that the baseload nuclear plants had forced to shut down or be throttled back each night could keep on running, pumping the seawater into the upper reservoir.
"So, then you ask about curtailing windturbine operation and spilling from solar plants. Two responses to those. First, excess power to a grid drives the prices down. Why anyone that buys electricity sees this as a problem is certainly curious. The market forces take advantage of low prices, and suitable demands for power occur. Just one example is off-peak power at low price, sometimes zero or even negative price, that is used to chill water or freeze the water into ice for use the next day as building cooling.
"Another use, as this article on a better battery discussed, is storage into a grid-scale battery for release later into the grid.
"The second, and even better result of zero or negative power prices is that commercial nuclear power plants cannot compete, and elect to shut down. There are several nuclear plants in the US today that have this problem. FitzPatrick in New York has this problem, and Quad Cities nuclear plant could not win a bid to supply electricity to the grid. There are quite a few others that cannot compete and are screaming for government subsidy to keep the nuclear plants running.
"So, there is one of the truths about nuclear power. Yes, they can follow the load with sufficient added costs, but they dare not in the US because they already cannot compete in the electricity market. Even running flat-out when they can, many of the older (and paid-for) plants cannot compete and sell their power. If they ran as load-following, their output must necessarily be less than maximum. That makes them even less competitive, and they know this." --- (end of response to the nuclear cheerleader).
A more complete response (which would have created howls of indignation for "hogging the blog space") would include a few more facts. First, the US Navy also has a slightly larger nuclear reactor for some of its ships, the A1B that yields 600 MW output, combined electrical and shaft power to the propellers. It, too has the variable output that a military ship requires. But, it also has a huge cost and would be uneconomical in commercial electrical power service.
The US Navy also is considering converting more of the fleet to nuclear power, and performed a cost-benefit analysis that was published by the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. see link This link is to the 28-page report: The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships, May, 2011. One rather interesting conclusion is that building a ship with nuclear reactor power adds approximately $1 billion per ship. Note that the base case uses oil-fired propulsion to turn both the propeller shafts and generators for ship power.
Here is a quote from the CBO report: "Each of the Navy’s current aircraft carriers (with the exception of U.S.S. Enterprise) uses two nuclear reactors of a design known as the A4W. The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, will also use two reactors of a new design, designated the A1B. An LH(X) amphibious ship, which is slightly less than half the size of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, could accommodate one of the A1B reactors to be used in the Gerald R. Ford. However, outfitting a destroyer or an LSD(X) amphibious ship with an A1B-sized reactor would require a significant increase in the size of those ships to accommodate the reactor and its cooling and other support systems. Nor could those ships be outfitted with the nuclear reactors that the Navy currently installs in its Virginia class submarines, because those reactors would be too small to adequately power a destroyer or an LSD(X). CBO assumed that the Navy would instead design a new reactor for its destroyers and LSD(X) ships." -- footnote 7 from CBO report.
And another quote, noting that nuclear propulsion adds approximately $1 billion to the cost of each ship: "In CBO’s estimation, the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear versus a conventional ship would average about $1 billion per hull, but it would vary by the class of ship. The initial fuel core for a modern reactor lasts for the life of the ship, and the U.S. government already owns enough nuclear material to supply all of the ships considered in this analysis. Moreover, unlike the case with aircraft carriers, which the Navy expects to serve in the fleet for 50 years, the ships that CBO considered would require no additional outlays for midlife refueling. Thus, CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear ship would be about $1.1 billion per destroyer, $0.8 billion per LSD(X), and $0.9 billion per LH(X). . ." -- p. 18 from CBO report.
Yet another interesting conclusion in the CBO report is the relative cost-effectiveness of nuclear vs oil-powered ships. The destroyer class ships represents 70 percent of the new ships over the period in question, (39 destroyers of 56 total), and the price of oil for which nuclear-powered destroyers breaks even is $223 per barrel, in 2011 dollars. That must be increased by any inflation over the years, so approximately $260 in 2016 dollars. Compared to today's oil price of approximately $40 per barrel, and no prospects of oil prices increasing in the next few decades, the future of nuclear-powered navy ships appears dim.
In conclusion, yes a nuclear power plant can be designed to vary its output. Navy ships do this, and no one can dispute that. But, commercial power production is entirely different. Economy of scale dictates much larger power plants for land-based commercial power, and costs to construct are in the $10,000 per kW range. To have any chance of selling their power at attractive prices, nuclear power plants run as baseload. If nuclear plants run as load-following, their output must decline and they either lose money, or increase the price of their power sold. In the US, with natural gas, wind, and solar as their competition, nuclear plants cannot hope to compete as load-followers. They are having difficulty competing as it is, with baseload operation.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Earlier on SLB, I ran an article (see link) on US power plant capacity factors, in which one of many oft-repeated false statements by nuclear proponents was discussed. Nuclear cheerleaders claim 100 percent capacity factor for nuclear plants, which is blatantly false.
Then another blogging discussion brought up the question of nuclear plants as load-following versus baseload operation. One snide commenter (why are the nuclear cheerleaders always so snide, snarky, snarling.... I suspect it is perhaps they hugged a
 |
| US Navy ships - CBO Report May 2011 |
My response was this.
"Of course a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier can have variable power output. And it is also true that the military nuclear power plants are not financially constrained as are land-based commercial electric power plants. The military Nimitz-class carriers presently have two reactors, each the small Westinghouse A4W design that have only 550 MWt output. For those not familiar with the terminology, that is 550 MW thermal, or heat output before any steam turbine splits the output into useful work and waste heat to a condenser. For comparison, a 1,100 MWe Westinghouse AP-1000 commercial nuclear power plant is approximately 6 times larger, at 3,400 MWt output.
"You might wonder, then, why electric utilities don't just order up a few thousand of the A4W nuclear plants, hook them up to generators, and vary the output as they follow the load. Great question. The answer is, of course, that the tiny A4W plants are far too expensive due to reverse economy of scale. They produce at maximum 200 MW of electricity. Utilities would have paid a premium for load-following ability, then must spread out the huge capital costs over a small electricity sales volume due to not running in baseload mode. Their customers would scream in outrage when the electricity bills arrive.
"Commercial nuclear plant operators realized early on that a 60 percent capacity factor was death to their industry. They had to run at much higher average output to have any hope of competing with natural gas or coal, and they had to forget about ever competing with hydroelectric. They were stunned when the Japanese built a pumped-storage hydroelectric power plant on the coast, using an artificial lake on the cliff and the ocean itself as the lower reservoir. That opens up the entire coastline world-wide, wherever a suitable elevation difference exists not too far from the shore, meaning only about 300 feet above sealevel. Now, all those natural-gas fired power plants that the baseload nuclear plants had forced to shut down or be throttled back each night could keep on running, pumping the seawater into the upper reservoir.
"So, then you ask about curtailing windturbine operation and spilling from solar plants. Two responses to those. First, excess power to a grid drives the prices down. Why anyone that buys electricity sees this as a problem is certainly curious. The market forces take advantage of low prices, and suitable demands for power occur. Just one example is off-peak power at low price, sometimes zero or even negative price, that is used to chill water or freeze the water into ice for use the next day as building cooling.
"Another use, as this article on a better battery discussed, is storage into a grid-scale battery for release later into the grid.
"The second, and even better result of zero or negative power prices is that commercial nuclear power plants cannot compete, and elect to shut down. There are several nuclear plants in the US today that have this problem. FitzPatrick in New York has this problem, and Quad Cities nuclear plant could not win a bid to supply electricity to the grid. There are quite a few others that cannot compete and are screaming for government subsidy to keep the nuclear plants running.
"So, there is one of the truths about nuclear power. Yes, they can follow the load with sufficient added costs, but they dare not in the US because they already cannot compete in the electricity market. Even running flat-out when they can, many of the older (and paid-for) plants cannot compete and sell their power. If they ran as load-following, their output must necessarily be less than maximum. That makes them even less competitive, and they know this." --- (end of response to the nuclear cheerleader).
A more complete response (which would have created howls of indignation for "hogging the blog space") would include a few more facts. First, the US Navy also has a slightly larger nuclear reactor for some of its ships, the A1B that yields 600 MW output, combined electrical and shaft power to the propellers. It, too has the variable output that a military ship requires. But, it also has a huge cost and would be uneconomical in commercial electrical power service.
The US Navy also is considering converting more of the fleet to nuclear power, and performed a cost-benefit analysis that was published by the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. see link This link is to the 28-page report: The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships, May, 2011. One rather interesting conclusion is that building a ship with nuclear reactor power adds approximately $1 billion per ship. Note that the base case uses oil-fired propulsion to turn both the propeller shafts and generators for ship power.
Here is a quote from the CBO report: "Each of the Navy’s current aircraft carriers (with the exception of U.S.S. Enterprise) uses two nuclear reactors of a design known as the A4W. The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, will also use two reactors of a new design, designated the A1B. An LH(X) amphibious ship, which is slightly less than half the size of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, could accommodate one of the A1B reactors to be used in the Gerald R. Ford. However, outfitting a destroyer or an LSD(X) amphibious ship with an A1B-sized reactor would require a significant increase in the size of those ships to accommodate the reactor and its cooling and other support systems. Nor could those ships be outfitted with the nuclear reactors that the Navy currently installs in its Virginia class submarines, because those reactors would be too small to adequately power a destroyer or an LSD(X). CBO assumed that the Navy would instead design a new reactor for its destroyers and LSD(X) ships." -- footnote 7 from CBO report.
And another quote, noting that nuclear propulsion adds approximately $1 billion to the cost of each ship: "In CBO’s estimation, the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear versus a conventional ship would average about $1 billion per hull, but it would vary by the class of ship. The initial fuel core for a modern reactor lasts for the life of the ship, and the U.S. government already owns enough nuclear material to supply all of the ships considered in this analysis. Moreover, unlike the case with aircraft carriers, which the Navy expects to serve in the fleet for 50 years, the ships that CBO considered would require no additional outlays for midlife refueling. Thus, CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear ship would be about $1.1 billion per destroyer, $0.8 billion per LSD(X), and $0.9 billion per LH(X). . ." -- p. 18 from CBO report.
Yet another interesting conclusion in the CBO report is the relative cost-effectiveness of nuclear vs oil-powered ships. The destroyer class ships represents 70 percent of the new ships over the period in question, (39 destroyers of 56 total), and the price of oil for which nuclear-powered destroyers breaks even is $223 per barrel, in 2011 dollars. That must be increased by any inflation over the years, so approximately $260 in 2016 dollars. Compared to today's oil price of approximately $40 per barrel, and no prospects of oil prices increasing in the next few decades, the future of nuclear-powered navy ships appears dim.
In conclusion, yes a nuclear power plant can be designed to vary its output. Navy ships do this, and no one can dispute that. But, commercial power production is entirely different. Economy of scale dictates much larger power plants for land-based commercial power, and costs to construct are in the $10,000 per kW range. To have any chance of selling their power at attractive prices, nuclear power plants run as baseload. If nuclear plants run as load-following, their output must decline and they either lose money, or increase the price of their power sold. In the US, with natural gas, wind, and solar as their competition, nuclear plants cannot hope to compete as load-followers. They are having difficulty competing as it is, with baseload operation.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Methane From Aliso Canyon a Tiny Blip Globally
Subtitle: No Noticeable Increase In Global Methane
Much has been written on the natural gas leak that occurred in late 2015 and into the first two months of 2016 from the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility near Los Angeles, California. SLB has articles on this.
This article puts the quantity of methane emitted into perspective. Rather than take the hysterical approach as many writers have done and will continue to do, it is important to view the amount of methane released in context of the total annual methane emissions world-wide. In short, it was a tiny blip on the radar. A tiny, almost inconsequential amount. Three units out of almost 7,000 units. On a percentage basis, that is 0.04 percent.
Published data on world-wide methane emissions, and their global-warming potential or CO2-equivalent (stated as CO2e), show that approximately 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e are emitted from all sources, annually. see link For perspective, the Aliso Canyon
leak sent out approximately 3 million metric tonnes CO2e. That is 3 out of 7,000.
The world is not going to overheat overnight and we all wake up to temperatures like Death Valley, California on a hot August day.
As can be seen from the chart at right, and recognizing that 100 percent represents 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e, the Aliso Canyon leak was 100 times smaller or less than the amount from Agriculture Manure.
Or, to put the situation in the same light as would nuclear proponents when a nuclear plant spews radiation across the landscape and into the atmosphere, the methane was diluted by natural air currents to a level so low as to be almost undetectable (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Dai-Ichi at 3 reactors). The methane dissipated into the natural background.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Much has been written on the natural gas leak that occurred in late 2015 and into the first two months of 2016 from the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility near Los Angeles, California. SLB has articles on this.
This article puts the quantity of methane emitted into perspective. Rather than take the hysterical approach as many writers have done and will continue to do, it is important to view the amount of methane released in context of the total annual methane emissions world-wide. In short, it was a tiny blip on the radar. A tiny, almost inconsequential amount. Three units out of almost 7,000 units. On a percentage basis, that is 0.04 percent.
Published data on world-wide methane emissions, and their global-warming potential or CO2-equivalent (stated as CO2e), show that approximately 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e are emitted from all sources, annually. see link For perspective, the Aliso Canyon
 |
| source: EPA Report 430-R-06-003 |
The world is not going to overheat overnight and we all wake up to temperatures like Death Valley, California on a hot August day.
As can be seen from the chart at right, and recognizing that 100 percent represents 7,000 million metric tonnes CO2e, the Aliso Canyon leak was 100 times smaller or less than the amount from Agriculture Manure.
Or, to put the situation in the same light as would nuclear proponents when a nuclear plant spews radiation across the landscape and into the atmosphere, the methane was diluted by natural air currents to a level so low as to be almost undetectable (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Dai-Ichi at 3 reactors). The methane dissipated into the natural background.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Redesign and Delay Urged for Hinkley Point C Nuclear Plant
Subtitle: Engineers See Trouble Ahead for Hinkley Point
The proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in UK faces yet more trouble. Now, per a 29 March, 2016 article in the Financial Times, a group of senior engineers call for a 2 year delay, and a massive redesign of the reactor (presumably to make it smaller and safer). see link
A 2 year delay, though, puts the start up of the first reactor in 2027, which is 2 years after the government mandates the last coal-fired power plant be shut down. It is unclear how the UK grid will obtain power for the 2 years after shutting down the last coal plant.
The financial arrangements are also is question, with the Chinese co-owner wanting the French EDF co-owner to take on a larger share of any cost over-runs.
The sad saga of new nuclear power plants just gets better and better. There are years-long delays and massive cost over-runs with the same reactor design (1600 MW EPR) in Finland and France (Olkiluoto and Flamanville, respectively), questionable steel quality in the reactor vessels, and now a hurry-up-and-build-it attitude in the UK for Hinkley Point C.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
The proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in UK faces yet more trouble. Now, per a 29 March, 2016 article in the Financial Times, a group of senior engineers call for a 2 year delay, and a massive redesign of the reactor (presumably to make it smaller and safer). see link
A 2 year delay, though, puts the start up of the first reactor in 2027, which is 2 years after the government mandates the last coal-fired power plant be shut down. It is unclear how the UK grid will obtain power for the 2 years after shutting down the last coal plant.
The financial arrangements are also is question, with the Chinese co-owner wanting the French EDF co-owner to take on a larger share of any cost over-runs.
The sad saga of new nuclear power plants just gets better and better. There are years-long delays and massive cost over-runs with the same reactor design (1600 MW EPR) in Finland and France (Olkiluoto and Flamanville, respectively), questionable steel quality in the reactor vessels, and now a hurry-up-and-build-it attitude in the UK for Hinkley Point C.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Ahead of Pace in 2015
Subtitle: Gas and Renewables Replace the Coal Power
There are multiple reasons behind the shutdowns of almost 14,000 MW of coal-fired power plants in 2015 in the US, with air pollution regulations among those reasons. The MATS, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, are listed as one reason. The US Energy Information Agency, EIA, recently published a summary of power plant shutdowns in 2015 (see link) that shows the coal-fired plants shutdown made up 80 percent of all the power shutdown
(measured in MW). Second place at approximately 3,000 MW was natural gas plants.
This is entirely consistent with what I wrote in December, 2015, see link, "No new coal-fired plants to be built in the next 20 years, and aging existing plants are retired on-schedule or a bit earlier." The coal plant shut-downs were older and smaller than average, per EIA. The combined capacity deleted is also higher than usual on an annual basis.
Meanwhile, EIA reports the US added approximately 19,000 MW of new power plant capacity, with the majority from wind (8,000 MW), natural gas (6,000 MW). then solar (5,000 MW). Zero coal-fired power plants are reported. see link.
This article will be a regular annual contribution to SLB, as the slow march continues to eliminating coal-fired power plants in the US. There is a severe shortage of coal looming in the next 20 years, however, that time frame could and likely will be extended a bit as coal-consuming plants are retired and few, if any, new plants are started up.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
There are multiple reasons behind the shutdowns of almost 14,000 MW of coal-fired power plants in 2015 in the US, with air pollution regulations among those reasons. The MATS, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, are listed as one reason. The US Energy Information Agency, EIA, recently published a summary of power plant shutdowns in 2015 (see link) that shows the coal-fired plants shutdown made up 80 percent of all the power shutdown
 |
| US Power Plants Retired in 2015 - source: EIA |
This is entirely consistent with what I wrote in December, 2015, see link, "No new coal-fired plants to be built in the next 20 years, and aging existing plants are retired on-schedule or a bit earlier." The coal plant shut-downs were older and smaller than average, per EIA. The combined capacity deleted is also higher than usual on an annual basis.
Meanwhile, EIA reports the US added approximately 19,000 MW of new power plant capacity, with the majority from wind (8,000 MW), natural gas (6,000 MW). then solar (5,000 MW). Zero coal-fired power plants are reported. see link.
This article will be a regular annual contribution to SLB, as the slow march continues to eliminating coal-fired power plants in the US. There is a severe shortage of coal looming in the next 20 years, however, that time frame could and likely will be extended a bit as coal-consuming plants are retired and few, if any, new plants are started up.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
