Comments advancednano has made

Uprates http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps.html Approved and most already added Total MWt 17179.2 Total MWe 5726 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/approved-applications.html pending approval by end of 2010 probably Total MWt 2752 Total MWe 917 Expected 2010-2012 6227 MWt 2075 MWe http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/expected-applications.html France : In the light of operating experience, EdF uprated its four Chooz and Civaux N4 reactors from 1455 to 1500 MWe each in 2003. Over 2008-10 EdF plans to uprate five of its 900 MWe reactors by 3%. Then in 2007 EdF announced that the twenty 1300 MWe reactors would be uprated some 7% from 2015, within existing licence limits, and adding about 15 TWh/yr to output. France has also targetted raising operating capacity (nuclear availability) from 75-78% up to 85% Spain has performed and will perform uprates South Korea is uprating. Ukraine is raising capacity factor Japan is working on capacity factor It is easier and cheaper and usually better to get your capacity factor up and then uprate. Capacity factor has gone up a from 50% ranges up to 90-95% in the best practice areas. There must also be electricity demand from the customers that your plant actually serves. If my nuclear plant is serving an area with no growth then there would have to be a lot of political and public support to expand just to replace a working coal plant or natural gas.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 4 days, 7 hours ago 197 Responses
For the future: Adding more clean electricity. How can nuclear power contribute the most the fastest going forward? Make better Uprates of existing nuclear. conventional uprates can increase power by 20% (by upgrading the steam generators and other components and otherwise optimizing the plant. 12-18 month of downtime which would overlap a refueling outage.About 90% of the current US reactors have not been fully uprated. There are technologies almost in hand for more uprates which can even make plants safer. MIT annular fuel which is also called dual cooled fuel (being developed in Korea for pre-2020 deployment) Instead of a rod you have a cylinder and some fuel spheres and particles. More surface area and more cooling allows more power to be generated. Can uprate Pressure water reactors by 20-100%. There is a clover leaf like cross section type fuel for boiler water reactors that could allow 30+% uprates. Advanced thermoelectrics/or advanted generators or micron gap photovoltaic variants could convert more heat to electricity. 20% boost to US nuclear would be +160 TWH. 40% boost to US nuclear would be +320 TWH. 40% boost to existing world nuclear would be + 1040 TWH === cogenerate use the waste heat to enhance biofuel production or desal. Needs to be a big cogen application to make economics work === develop factory mass produced deep burn reactors. go to higher temperatures for higher conversion efficiency and easier cogeneration applications (industrial) smaller factory mass produced reactors for more energy niches ==If we are still keeping the coal and natural gas those plants can be upgraded to 65% conversion efficiency of heat to electricity. Natural gas pulse power type generators being developed at GE. Coal would have to convert to IGCC-fuel cell, but can get to about 50-55% by going ultra-supercritical temperatures.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 4 days, 8 hours ago 197 Responses
Coffey: Note that recently in the US, wind power is adding roughly 45% of new generation capacity, coal, about 8%, and nuclear is virtually zero. Do you know the name-plate capacity development world-wide for different technologies? Name plate capacity is meaningless. what matters is TWh (billion KWH) When our utility bill arrives are you paying for KW or KWH ? http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnucleargeneratingstatistics/ 1984 US Nuclear 324 TWH 1989 US nuclear 529 TWH (205 TWH more power versus 1984) 1994 US nuclear 640 TWH (111 TWH more power versus 1989 1999 US nuclear 728 TWH (88 TWH more power versus 1994 2008 US nuclear 806 TWH (78 TWH more power since 1999) Between 2000-2005 US nuclear fluctuated between 753 and 788 TWH Say the average was 770 TWH. Then 2008 was an increase of 36 TWH over that period. Actual 2005 was 782 TWH. (26 TWH less than 2008) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table3.html 2005 USA wind 17.8 TWH 2006 USA wind 26.6 TWH 2007 USA wind 34 TWH 2008 US wind 52 TWH (an increase of 26 TWH over 2006 and 34 TWH over 2005) Less than the US nuclear increase since 1999 no matter how it is sliced US got comparable increase from nuclear over 2005. In 2006, worldwide wind power generated 152 TWH http://www.iea.org/Papers/2008/Wind_Brochure.pdf http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/global-wind-pow.html According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2008, global electricity generation in 2007 was 19,894.8 TWh; the 2008 wind-generated production would represent 1.31% of that. 260 TWH. re: baseload When you flip on your light or TV do you want to wait until there are gusts of wind or do you want your light or TV to come on then ? How about the medical electronics at the hospital ?On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 4 days, 10 hours ago 197 Responses
Coffey: Note that recently in the US, wind power is adding roughly 45% of new generation capacity, coal, about 8%, and nuclear is virtually zero. Do you know the name-plate capacity development world-wide for different technologies? Name plate capacity is meaningless. what matters is TWh (billion KWH) When our utility bill arrives are you paying for KW or KWH ? http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnucleargeneratingstatistics/ 1984 US Nuclear 324 TWH 1989 US nuclear 529 TWH (205 TWH more power versus 1984) 1994 US nuclear 640 TWH (111 TWH more power versus 1989 1999 US nuclear 728 TWH (88 TWH more power versus 1994 2008 US nuclear 806 TWH (78 TWH more power since 1999) Between 2000-2005 US nuclear fluctuated between 753 and 788 TWH Say the average was 770 TWH. Then 2008 was an increase of 36 TWH over that period. Actual 2005 was 782 TWH. (26 TWH less than 2008) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table3.html 2005 USA wind 17.8 TWH 2006 USA wind 26.6 TWH 2007 USA wind 34 TWH 2008 US wind 52 TWH (an increase of 26 TWH over 2006 and 34 TWH over 2005) Less than the US nuclear increase since 1999 no matter how it is sliced US got comparable increase from nuclear over 2005. In 2006, worldwide wind power generated 152 TWH http://www.iea.org/Papers/2008/Wind_Brochure.pdf http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/global-wind-pow.html According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2008, global electricity generation in 2007 was 19,894.8 TWh; the 2008 wind-generated production would represent 1.31% of that. 260 TWH. re: baseload When you flip on your light or TV do you want to wait until there are gusts of wind or do you want your light or TV to come on then ? How about the medical electronics at the hospital ?On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 4 days, 10 hours ago 197 Responses
There are several possible projects that could achieve near term nuclear fusion success (commercial reactor possibilities pre-2020.) Several Privately (tri-alpha energy VC money, General Fusion - Canada gov and VC money, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (private)) IEC fusion (US navy funded), Japan Muon fusion (japan government) Tri-alpha energy has been funded for over $40 million. They are targetting pre-2020 for commercial reactors http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/06/tri-alpha-energy-raises-40-million-in.html TriAlpha is the brainchild of Norman Rostoker, a senior fusion researcher. He had previously collaborated with another researcher, Maglitch, on the MIGMA approach to advanced fuels. This approach involved shooting two counter-circulating beams of ions at each other in a confining magnetic field. It was not very workable, as the ion densities would always be very low. Rostoker combined this idea with another device, the Field Reversed Configuration, sending the beams into the FRC. The FRC is essentially a large-scale plasmoid centimeters rather microns across, with much lower densities and magnetic fields than with the DPF. It does not benefit from the magnetic field effect as its field are far too low. Scientifically, TriAlpha’s results so far are very modest compared with focus fusion’s. The average ion energy, a measure of plasma temperature is a few 10’s of eV. This is a factor of 10,000 short of what is required for pB11 fusion. Of course, we have already achieved the needed ion energies (100keV) with focus fusion, so in this sense are way ahead. In addition, it is by no means guaranteed that their confinement will remain stable if they can reach higher temperatures. General fusion has been funded for over $20 million and has a promising magnetized target fusion variant which they believe can be commercialized by 2018. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/general-fusion-will-leverage-computer.html General Fusion is using the MTF (Magnetized Target Fusion) approach but with a new, patent pending and cost-effective compression system to collapse the plasma. They describe the injectors at the top and bottom of the above image in the new research paper. The goal is to build small fusion reactors that can produce around 100 megawatts of power. The company claims plants would cost around US$50 million, allowing them to generate electricity at about four cents per kilowatt hour. In 2010-2011 for completion of the tests and work for an almost full scale version (2 meters instead of 3 meter diameter). The third phase for General Fusion was to raise $50 million for a net energy gain device with a target date of 2013 if the second/third phase are roughly on schedule. [The canadian government funding and private funding could take General Fusion all the way through the third phase] $300-500 million for commercialization, the first commercial scale unit could be 2016-2018. Dense Plasma Focus fusion has $1.2 million for experiments in 2009 and 2010 to prove viability. They have achieved the first of 8 goals with a ssuccesful magnetic pinch http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/eight-objectives-of-lawrenceville.html Japan continues work on Muon catalyzed fusion http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/japan-working-on-muon-catalyzed-fusion.html IEC (Inertial Electrostatic fusion) could have proven commercialization by 2011. From an interview on my website with the project lead of IEC which has over $8 million in funding. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/dr-richard-nebel-we-will-know-if-iec.html 18-24 months : Verification if this approach is commercially viable [boom or bust for Polywell] 6 years: a full-scale demo of IEC fusion By 2020: A first commercial IEC Fusion plant, with an estimated cost of 2-5 cents per kilowatt hour. As noted the hybrid fusion-fission systems would enable fusion to make fission into a closed fuel cycle http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/non-electric-uses-for-nuclear-fusion.html Fast Breeders are not the only funded path to deep fission fuel burn. Dittmar as usual has a biased picture. China has bought two of the Russion BN-800 (880 MWe) reactors. China is still proceeding with its own fast breeder. Russia has other fast breeder technology funded. A 100 MWe reactor that is to be factory mass produced has been covered on the Oildrum. Pebble bed TRISO fuel has been developed with 19% burnup and is heading higher and could achieve 65% burnup. There is plenty of research on fission fuel transitions http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/nuclear-fuel-transitions-higher-burnup.html there are the proposed Liquid Fluoride thorium Reactors (research work and related designs in Japan, Europe and Canada http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/aim-high-plan-for-factory-mass-produced.htmlOn Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 5 days, 2 hours ago 197 Responses
I applaud anyone who wants to buy distributed renewables. I also do not care if Germany and Spain and other countries have billions in feed in tariffs to promote solar and wind. I think the level of feedintariffs is inefficient currently and it is making things more expensive for people and companies in those countries but whatever (I don't live there or pay it], minor waste relative to trillions that are spent poorly. China's energy plan has lot of steps for more industrial and building and transportation efficiency. This is good and was also part of energy plans that I have put out on my own blog. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/responding-to-al-gores-clean-energy.html I am for nuclear powered container ships. 6000 container ships using bunker fuel cause as much pollution as over 100 million cars. There have been over 500 nuclear powered military ships (US and Russian navies). commercial shipping would be faster and larger security crews would deter piracy. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/nuclear-power-for-commercial-shipping.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/high-speed-nuclear-commercial-shipping.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/commercial-shipping-uses-9-of-world-oil.html The plan would be to have more nuclear power generation - the buses would be electric and plug into the grid for a recharge. I am also in favor of giving away at less the $1000 per (perhaps initially $2000) electric folding bikes/trikes/light scooters with better safety gear for safe movement at 45 mph. Cheaper than hybrid car tax credits of $5000-6000 per person. Legislate at municipalities and highways that only those vehicles would be usable for business commuting. Suck up half of the lanes for these vehicles. Regular vehicles still legal but with higher tolls and paid passes. Folding bikes able to be taken onto public transportation. China already has over 100 million electric bikes. Possibly could have 500 million (the number currently using unpowered bikes). nextbigfuture.comOn Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 5 days, 8 hours ago 197 Responses
China leadership (premier, vice premier and the rest of China's communist party leadership) are looking at adopting a low carbon energy plan that would have 30% nuclear power by 2050. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/china-could-adopt-low-carbon-energy.htmlOn Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 5 days, 21 hours ago 197 Responses
The dates provided were for first nuclear bomb versus first commercial nuclear reactor. Highly enriched uranium does not require a reactor, you can get it with centrifuges. Which is what Pakistan did and what Iran is doing. You can make a specialized reactor for making plutonium but that it would very inefficient to try to get plutonium via commercial nuclear reactors. Also, note in terms of actual deaths. since 1945, 200 million deaths from conventional weapons and warfare versus less than 200,000 from the nuclear bombs. Plus during world war 2, the fire bombing of tokyo for three days killed about 100,000 people. comparable to one of the nuclear bombs. During vietnam if operation rolling thunder had been used to fire bomb cities then you could have the equivalent of 100 tokyo firebombings. With air superiority, conventional weapons can be just as lethal as nuclear bombs. Plus one could implement the Stalin scorched earth policy on enemy territory. Poisoning water and food and crops, destroying medical facilities, bridges etc... Near total exterminate of a country of region could be achieved in weeks. === Outdoor air pollution has killed 3 million people per year. total those daaths up and it is also about 150 million deaths since 1950s when commercial nuclear power became available. World Health Organization stats. Early heart attacks and cancer, asthma attacks and other illness that remove 1-2 decades off of a persons life and kill babies too. Understand the actual risks and existing damage and deaths. It is not like having a crappy plan that does not replace coal and oil as fast as possible does not have a high cost.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 197 Responses
Proliferation is more a matter of key knowledge. The key knowledge was proliferated by Pakistan's AQ Khan back in the seventies through the nineties. Knowledge of bombs and centrifuges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Nuclear_Proliferation_and_Rise_to_Fame The belief that there is nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons is wrong. Countries get nuclear weapons firstly and directly. USA bombs first. (Hiroshima, Nagasaki - pre nuclear power). 1957 first reactor USSR bombs first. 1949 first bomb. first nuclear reactor June 27, 1954 United Kingdom first nuclear weapon 1952, first reactor 1956 France tested its first nuclear weapon in 1960, first reactor 1963 China first nuclear weapon in 1964, reactor 1991 India 1974, first reactor 1969 (exception to the bomb first) Pakistan 1998, karachi 1972 (exception to the bomb first) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ Achieved with secret enrichment, centrifuges North Korea 2005 bomb, no commercial reactor Israel late 1960s, bombs no commercial reactor ====== Waste for coal, billions of tons of particulates, smog, CO2 spewed and tens of thousands of tons of uranium and thorium mixed in with the particulates. Mercury, arsenic and toxic metals. Nuclear power displaced would have been more coal and gas power ===== Nuclear waste - unburned fuel a basketball court of material per year. Each nuclear power plant is on one or more square miles of space. ===== 10% is reprocessed in France, Russia, Japan, UK === there are deep burn reactors in development to handle the waste.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 197 Responses
From page 10 of Amory - four Myths
Photovoltaics’ business case, unlike nuclear’s, needn’t depend on government subsidies or support. Global installed PV capacity reached 15.2 GW in 2008, adding 5.95 GW (110% annual growth) of sales and 6.85 GW of manufacturing (the rest was in the pipeline). That’s more added capacity than the world nuclear industry has added in any year since 1996, and more added annual output than the world nuclear industry has added in any year since 2004. About 90% of the world’s PV capacity is grid-tied. Its operators think it works just fine
From Greentech media which quotes the solarbuzz report which generated those stats. the added solar is mostly going to Spain and Germany which are using massive feed in tariffs. About 42 cents per kwh. Spain numbers could be fraudulent. The 15.2 GW is about 16 TWh. In 1996, nuclear power plants generated 2 312 TWh, which accounted for 17 per cent of the electricity produced world-wide. from page 10. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/climate.pdf In 2006, nuclear power generation was 2650 TWh and was 2600 TWh in 2008 (Japan had some reactors off in 2007, 2008 which have since been turned back on and their were some German reactors shutoff.) 300 TWh added from 1996 to 2006, is an average addition of 30 TWh per year. Double all global solar power up to 2008. Solar report review http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-global-solar-industry-raked-in-371b-in-2008-5899/ Spain solar fraud http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-fraud-could-eliminate-spanish-market-5380/ Europe remains the world's largest market, accounting for 82 percent of the demand, Solarbuzz said. The United States is the third largest market (360 megawatts) in 2008, following Spain (2.46 gigawatts) and Germany (1.86 gigawatts). South Korea ranked No. 4 (280 megawatts), making it the largest market in Asia. The ranking of the top four markets echoed the findings by Displaybank, whose report said Spain installed 2.28 gigawatts, Germany 1.53 gigawatts, the United States 333 megawatts and South Korea 274 megawatts in 2008 (see Report: Korea's Solar Industry on the Rise). Displaybank said Japan ranked No. 5, followed by Italy. Solarbuzz said Italy was a larger market than Japan in 2008. GTM Research also saw Spain making the most gains in solar-panel installations in 2008. The country's feed-in tariff program, in which the government sets high rates for solar electricity and requires utilities to buy all the solar power available on the market, boosted Spain's installations by 258 percent to reach 1.7 gigawatts last year. Germany installed nearly 1.54 gigawatts while the United States installed 313 megawatts last year, according to GTM Research. Japan came in fourth at 235 megawatts, followed by Italy at 175 megawatts and South Korea at 95 megawatts. The amount of solar power installed in Spain has been hotly disputed, given the problems the country faced in carrying out its feed-in program. A rush to take advantage of the feed-in tariffs last year spurred allegations of fraud. A government investigation has been launched to see if some developers claimed to have installed the systems and connected them to the grid by a deadline when they didn't How many billion kilowatt hours is the total solar power ? In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. 15.2 GW generates about 16 TWh (terawatt hours) So solar is getting feed in tariffs for most of its growth in Europe and Canada. And in the US it is getting state and federal tax credits and rebates. In China, it is mostly the non-private money building it.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 197 Responses
19% of world electricity is being supplied by nuclear power now using about 66000 tons of Uranium. the current reactors only burn about 5% of that uranium. Deeper burn reactors are being developed. Thus all of the actinides will be burned. Uranium can be economically obtained from coal ash as is being proved now. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-coal-ash-and-seawater.html Japan is developing large scale extraction of uranium from seawater. there is 3.5 billion tons of uranium in seawater and more gets put into seawater from river runoff. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-seawater-on-large-scale.html duration of power from nuclear fission http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/revisiting-duration-of-nuclear-power.html The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be approximately 40 trillion tonnes. The Rossing mine in Nambia mines Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the Ore concentration, shales and phosphates, with a Uranium abundance of 10 - 20 ppm, could be mined with an energy gain of 16 - 32. If deep burn reactors are developed and used where all of the nuclear fuel is used then 20 times more power would be generated from the same amount of metal. If all of the 2 ppm fuel was able to be mined for higher energy return then the energy cost of mining then about 20 trillion tons is accessible. And then about quadruple that by including thorium. The earth's crust has 6 ppm of Thorium and 2 ppm of Uranium. Some deep burn reactor approaches such as fusion/fission hybrids do not require any enrichment. Any uranium is usable not just uranium 235. 80 trillion tons times 950 gigawatt days/ton times 24 billion watt/hours per GWd. 1750 billion trillion kilowatthours. World net electricity generation nearly doubles in the IEO2008 reference case, from about 17.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2005 to 24.4 trillion kilowatts in 2015 and 33.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2030. 100 times current world electricity usage for 1 billion years. Advanced nuclear (deep burn 99.9% usage of fuel) can last for billions of years at 100 times the energy usage rate we have now.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 197 Responses
US Energy subsidies, Management Information Service analysis of US energy funding of all kinds from 1950-2006 http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09/us-energy-subsidies-updated.html Feed in Tariff support of renewables around the world http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/feed-in-tariffs-support-for-renewable.html Energy costs with externalities http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-externalities.html Coal is way more deadly and dangerous nuclear energy http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/coal-is-more-deadly-and-dangerous-than.html Coal power and coal waste details http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/coal-power-and-waste-details.html Newly Identified Persistent Free Radicals (from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas) Scientists have long known that free radicals exist in the atmosphere. These atoms, molecules, and fragments of molecules are highly reactive and damage cells in the body. Free radicals form during the burning of fuels or in photochemical processes like those that form ozone. Most of these previously identified atmospheric free radicals form as gases, exist for less than one second, and disappear. In contrast, the newly detected molecules — which Dellinger terms persistent free radicals (PFRs) — form on airborne nanoparticles and other fine particle residues as gases cool in smokestacks, automotive exhaust pipes and household chimneys. Particles that contain metals, such as copper and iron, are the most likely to persist, he said. Unlike other atmospheric free radicals, PFRs can linger in the air and travel great distances. Once PFRs are inhaled, Dellinger suspects they are absorbed into the lungs and other tissues where they contribute to DNA and other cellular damage. Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution, he says. About 10 to 15 percent of lung cancers are diagnosed in nonsmokers, according to the American Cancer Society. However, Dellinger stresses additional research is necessary before scientists can definitely link airborne PFRs to these diseases. Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year. The mortality in cities with high levels of pollution exceeds that observed in relatively cleaner cities by 15–20%. Even in the EU, average life expectancy is 8.6 months lower due to exposure to PM2.5 produced by human activities. Deaths per TWH for different energy sources http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). If the rooftop solar is part of the shingle so you do not put the roof up more than once and do not increase maintenance then that is ok too. Or if you had a robotic system of installation. World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh. In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh. In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh. Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996 Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/another-amory-lovins-big-lie-nuclear.html The lie is not that nuclear power costs large amounts of money. The big lies ignore these truths: 1. Other forms of power also cost a lot money 2. Government money massively subsidizes and supports all forms of energy - public money is needed to prop up all of the private energy companies and industries 3. Other forms of energy are risky to develop as well Most thin film solar companies fail. Out of hundreds of companies only one or two companies have brought products to market in any scale. The reality, according to Neal Dikeman, partner with VC firm Jane Capital Partners, is that only one or two thin-film projects have brought product to market in 30 years, and it's a US $100M-$200M dollar up-front investment "just to play the game and see if your product really works." Silicon Valley investors have mistakenly bet on "really great teams" while the technology is still at a science experiment stage, he argues — investors are beginning to realize this, he thinks, and that the industry is sitting on the back end of about 5-10 years of US $100M bets. "We're going to see a bunch of write-offs coming up," he warns. The challenge that has caught startups in this sector time and time again, Dikeman explained, is underestimating the engineering scale-up and production on a tens-of-megawatts (MW) scale. "People always assumed that if the technology worked and the team was good, that the rest was just engineering...and so far, that has never proven to be the case," he observed, noting that there have been several hundred (thin film) companies that have tried and only two succeeded. "The challenge has been that the engineering scale-up has been much harder than the science experiment." Citing the "black art" aspect to thin-film projects, he observed that for factories in the 30-40 MW range, what matters is getting the same yields, distributions and performance out of the second plant as was achieved in the first. New energy costs money to develop. Tens of billions spent on wind and solar over decades to get them to this point and they are still not certain in scaling up. Any hope of scaling up is only with massive government support. Governments are involved all over energy. It is not "all just private companies". Jerome Paris is and investor and developer of wind energy projects. In an Oil Drum article he is asking Obama for constant high levels of government subsidies. He notes that three times the wind energy industry was wiped out because of periods of insufficient of subsidies. Solar and wind are likely to be getting $20 billion from a clean energy bill, probably going along with tens of billions more in whatever 800-1500 billion stimulus packages get passed. The long-term extension of the renewable energy production tax credits, which would cost the government $13.1 billion over 10 years. Plus 30% tax credits for instant subsidy. Worldwide it is about $2 trillion per year for energy spending. Hundreds of billions on subsidies and research and development. Energy costs BIG money. Why does anyone think otherwise ? All the investments are big and multi-year and often decades long. Just because you can chunk up some aspects of it into small pieces is meaningless. Yes, one set of solar panels does not take long to make but you need millions of houses with solar panels on roofs to equal one nuclear plant. It takes time to make the factories to make the panels. Doing the research and development takes time. As noted only a small percentage of the thin film solar power companies make it. The solar companies are often betting on competing specific technologies. It takes time to scale up the supply chains. Wind power takes 5,000 large wind turbines to equal one nuclear power plant. Again it takes timed to scale up the wind factory and the component supply chain and it takes ten times as much concrete and more steel for enough wind turbines to generate comparable amounts of power. The solar and wind factories and supply chain cost a lot of money and take years to scale up. $100-200 million for each solar thin film company to make a serious play and they take a decade or so to get their R&D and then make scaled factories and try to deploy. Plus each one is competing with a hundred other variants. So which is the riskier long term investment ? The US energy grid is going to take well over a trillion to upgrade over the next decade or two. Same for Europe's energy grid. Renewable like solar and wind need a better energy grid to have deeper penetration. What is this "all private" BS ? By that standard you would be telling wind power developers like Jerome Paris - make it "all private" which he as a developer of wind, lack of wind subsidies wipes out the wind industry. Coal gets and natural gas and oil get their credits too and the biggest gift to coal is not having them pay for their waste or handle it. (the CO2, smog, particulates which would more than double the cost of coal power, it would also add 30% to natural gas)On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 197 Responses
Nuclear reactors are being added into operation in the USA. One in 2007 and another expected in 2013 (under construction now) http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/brownsferry.htm The $1.9 billion Tennessee Valley Authority project (Brown Ferry 1) to restart Unit 1 completed in 2007 as scheduled, the payback period had dropped to about two and a half years of operation due to the rising costs of power across the nation. After a year of operation, it has saved our customers nearly $800 million in avoided power purchases. (Spot natural gas purchases) Operating licenses for Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 were renewed in May 2006, which will allow continued operation of the units until 2033, 2034, and 2036. http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar.htm The $2.5 billion project to complete Unit 2 will put an existing asset to work for TVA customers by 2013 and add 1,180 megawatts to the TVA power system. Plenty of cost analysis that shows that nuclear power is economical. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/11/energy-cost-analysis-2008_18.html Here is a rebuttal of cost arguments by Florida Light and Power that explains the complex analysis that utilities make when choosing nuclear and other power sources. Flexibility across a range of scenarios is important http://www.psc.state.fl.us/library/filings/09/08267-09/08267-09.pdfOn Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 197 Responses
The Beloyarsk 4 - BN 800 will generate 880 MWe and should be completed in 2012. China has just signed a deal two buybuild two BN-800 fast neutron reactors. India: Plans for two more fast breeder reactors at the nuclear power complex in Kalpakkam near here are proceeding fast, even as India’s first 500 MW fast breeder nuclear reactor plant is fast coming up at the complex. The fast breeder reactor operating company Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (Bhavini) will soon start pre project activities for the construction of two more reactors at Kalpakkam, 80 km from this Tamil Nadu capital. The government has sanctioned construction of four more 500 MW fast reactors of which two will be housed inside the existing nuclear island at Kalpakkam and expected to be ready by 2020. RUSSIA Besides BN 600 and BN800 Russia has experimented with several lead-cooled reactor designs, and has used lead-bismuth cooling for 40 years in reactors for its Alfa class submarines. Pb-208 (54% of naturally-occurring lead) is transparent to neutrons. A significant new Russian design from NIKIET is the BREST fast neutron reactor, of 300 MWe or more with lead as the primary coolant, at 540°C, and supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe and uses a U+Pu nitride fuel. No weapons-grade plutonium can be produced (since there is no uranium blanket), and spent fuel can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site facilities. A pilot unit is planned at Beloyarsk and 1200 MWe units are proposed. A smaller and newer Russian design is the Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor (SVBR) of 75-100 MWe. This is an integral design, with the steam generators sitting in the same Pb-Bi pool at 400-480°C as the reactor core, which could use a wide variety of fuels. The unit would be factory-made and shipped as a 4.5m diameter, 7.5m high module, then installed in a tank of water which gives passive heat removal and shielding. A power station with 16 such modules is expected to supply electricity at lower cost than any other new Russian technology as well as achieving inherent safety and high proliferation resistance. (Russia built 7 Alfa-class submarines, each powered by a compact 155 MWt Pb-Bi cooled reactor, and 70 reactor-years operational experience was acquired with these.) In 2008 Rosatom and the Russian Machines Co put together a joint venture to build a prototype 100 MWe SVBR reactor. Rosatom has put forward two fast reactor implementation options for government decision in relation to the Advanced Nuclear Technologies Federal Program 2010-2020. The first focuses on a lead-cooled fast reactor such as BREST with its fuel cycle, and assumes concentration of all resources on this project with a total funding of about RUR 140 billion (about $3.1 billion). The second scenario assumes parallel development of fast reactors with lead, sodium and lead-bismuth coolants and their associated fuel cycles. It would cost about RUR 165 billion ($4.7 billion). The second scenario is viewed as the most favoured, since it is believed to involve lower risks than the first one. If implemented it would result in technical designs of the Generation IV reactor and associated closed fuel cycles technologies by 2013, and a technological basis of the future innovative nuclear energy system featuring the Generation IV reactors working in closed fuel cycles by 2020. ======= china's pebble bed reactor will also have higher burn rates. the 200 MW unit should start construction this year.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 197 Responses
Safety Hypocracy, nuclear power economics work
There is the usual BS and hand wringing about near misses which kill no one.
Yet coal supplies 50% of electricity and is the dominant and still fastest growing electrical energy source.
Nuclear and anything not coal power displaces coal power.
Coal pollution kills 30,000 people per year in the USA, 200,000 per year in Europe and about 750,000 to one million in China. Fossil fuel air pollution kills 3 million per year, not including indoor air pollution in the developing world.
So the near misses ignores the massive number of deaths from the current situation. No more nuclear power means more coal power until solar, wind, geothermal etc... scale up so that no new coal power is built and after that allows for the retiring of old coal power plants.
Wind power scale up is being slowed.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2009/gb2 ...
Wind Power in the USA is about 53 billion kwh.
Nuclear Power in the USA is 800 billion kwh. 2600 billion kwh worldwide.
75% of new nuclear power is being added outside the OECD.
China is pressing ahead and accelerating nuclear power build
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/plenty-of-money-for-ener ...
China has a nuclear plant cost of about $1565/kw. About half the US cost. China's plants are on schedule and budget.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/chinas-cheap-1565-per-ki ...
There will be plenty of large steel forging capacity.
China is planning to mass produce its meltdown proof high temperature reactor.
China is ordering 100 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors that they want to have built or being built by 2020.
China completed an AP1000 module factory last year and other AP1000 module factories are being built in China and around the world.
Italy, UK, Brazil are joining China, Russia, India, South Korea and Japan with large nuclear building programs.
Energy cost analysis for June 2008 by Lazard
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/11/energy-cost-analysis-200 ...
The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor had been refurbished and completed at a cost of about $2 billion Dollars. During the first year the Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor was in operation, it saved TVA $800 million. That was the amount that TVA would have had to pay for spot natural gas power. The Browns Ferry reactor will pay for its rebuilding in 2 1/2 years. It will pay for its rebuilding and interest in a little more than 3 years. TVA is completing Watts Bar Unit 2 [2013 target operation]. TVA has filed to reinstate license for partially built reactors, Bellefonte 1 and 2. TVA has filed for COL licenses for two new more reactors at the same spot.
In 2012, GE is completing a laser uranium enrichment facility which will reduce the cost of enrichment by up to three times and thus reduce plant operating costs. On Responding to Heritage's staggeringly confused 'rebuttal' posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 30 Responses
the info on material usage
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/current-information-on-w ...
Per Peterson, Prof at Berkeley provides information on construction material for energy. 95% of construction inputs are steel and concrete.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/per-peterson-information ...
Nuclear 40 tons of steel per MW, 190 cubic meters of concrete
Wind 460 tons of steel per MW, 870 cubic meters of concrete.
There is updated info at the links for different reactor models and newer wind turbines.
Only 65,000 tons of uranium is needed per year for 390 GW of reactors. 150 tons of uranium per year. Say 100 times more material is moved based on uranium concentrations (steel also is not pure in the ground).
So the 1,100,000 tons of extra material for one GW of wind is used up over 73 years.
All modern energy sources need mining and material.
On A choice of primary energies: nuclear power takes the silver posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses
Nuclear can deliver faster benefits
Existing Nuclear power can be uprated.
Over 2008-10 EdF (France) plans to uprate five of its 900 MWe reactors by 3% [135Mwe, 1.1TWh/yr]. Then in 2007 EdF announced that the twenty 1300 MWe reactors would be uprated some 7% from 2015 [1820MWe], within existing licence limits, and adding about 15 TWh/yr to output.
Spain has a program to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%.
The USA will be adding about 2 GW of power via uprates over the next 4 years.
MIT annular fuel technology can uprate existing reactors by 50%. Westinghouse is working on commercialization and this can be deployed before 2020.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
3 more nuclear reactors are starting up in 2008
7 reactors in 2009 (5200MW)
7 reactors in 2010 (5200MW)
7 reactors in 2011 (6600MW)
9 reactors in 2012 (9075MW)
16 reactors in 2013 (17120 MW)
This includes Watts Bar 2, 1180 MWe reactor is expected to come on line in 2013
47+ GW added by 2013.
350+ TWh
China's new nuclear power generation target for 2020 is 70GW an increase from 40GW two years ago and 60GW last year. [up from 8.6GW now]
200+ GW by 2020
1500+ TWh
If the 50% power uprate comes through, that is 1500-2000 TWh more
The time limit arguments do not hold up because there is no credible plan that adds alterntiave power on a faster timeline. People talk about how fast it is to assemble wind turbines, but this ignores the time needed to build the factories for components and the time needed to build all of the components.
http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/test2/gwec-08-upd ...
The 2007 Global wind energy report (72 pages) It was published March 2008.
By 2020, the overall German onshore capacity could be at 45,000 MW, assuming an optimal use of sites and no general height restrictions for turbines [ie everything goes the wind industry way], with an additional 10,000MW offshore. This would account for about 25% of German
electricity consumption, or about 150 TWh/year.
The EU wind target for 2020 is 477 TWh/year
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/With_Ambitious_EU_Legis ...
Multiply this by 3 times to add possible USA, Canada, and China wind power.
So nuclear power is on track based on existing projects to be adding more TWh than optimistic wind assumptions and targets by 2020.
=====
Everything needs mining. Coal the 50% of electricity needs mining. So does wind which uses ten times as much concrete and steel per MWH.On A choice of primary energies: nuclear power takes the silver posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses
Indian Point worst case not credible
getting control of a plane is not as easy as before 9-11, the response of passengers and crew is different
The nuclear containment dome is a smaller and tougher target.
Radiation leak will not happen based on tests.
Mitigation for Indian Point and plants by cities like New York just to put this to rest.
1. ten-fifteen story batting cage like fencing for less than ten million to ensure that any plane explodes and fragments before hitting the containment dome.
2. New anti-radiation drugs 5000 times more effective than current pills being tested now on humans by James Tour Rice university.
3. Other changes that can be made in terms of protection of radiation and war.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/progress-in-radiation-pr ...
Re-inventing civil defense which also protects against earthquake damage and hurricanes so overall insured and uninsured damage is reduced, thus offsetting costs.
simple things like better nails and building materialsOn How much of a subsidy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses
China has new 2020 nuclear power target 70GW
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/05/content_8967 ...
5% of power by 2020 (70GW)
16% of power by 2030 (about 1400 TWh, 200+GW)
A projected total generation of 8472 TWh and an installed capacity of 1775 GW by 2030 means that China will equal the current levels of production and capacity in the USA and the European Union combined.
http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/320910/17/ARTCL/ ...On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses
USA will make some reactors mostly following
The EIA forecast is 86 Quad BTU being added to the world 2010-2020.[reference case 2008]
Currently about 480 Quad BTU in use in the world.
The US uses 100 Quad BTU.
OECD countries (including the USA) will be adding 25% of the world new power build. Will there be an actual programs to shift the already installed power mix in the OECD ? (ie will existing coal plants be retired ?) I will believe it when they start to get shut down.
China is forecast to add 33.3 Quad BTU. 110GW of hydroelectric being added by China 2010-2020. 50+GW of nuclear power is being added by 2020. So about 6 Quad from hydro and 4+ quad from nuclear.
As noted, China is talking about 100 AP1000 (1.25 GW-1.7GW) instead of 40 built or being built by 2020. China completed a 71000 square meter factory to mass produce assembled sections of the AP1000. The factory was made in 11 months and can make two AP1000's per year. More AP1000 factories will likely be added in China for the goal of having 100 AP1000 built or under construction by 2020.
China has committed to the mass production of high temperature reactors.
Russia is adding 40GW of nuclear and India and other countries have firm nuclear power plans. So it looks like 10+ quads based on current plans from nuclear.
The US has some new nuclear power plants with license applications. But the US will be following China, Russia and other countries with more aggressive build. Russia already has a working breeder (600MW since 1980s). They are completing an 800MW version and are in talks with Japan, S Korea and China for resale of breeder reactors and breeder tech.
At the end of 2006 the US had 11.6GW of wind. This had generated 0.258 quads of energy in 2006. So almost one hundred times that amount to displace coal usage. 1TW of wind power. Also, coal used for industrial processes probably could not be displaced by wind. High temperature nuclear reactors could supply the right thermal energy for those industrial processes.
Even McCain's plans for 45 new nuclear reactors and then 100 is a fraction of the nuclear reactor build that China is definitely going to make.
75% of the contribution that nuclear energy will definitely make is in countries where there is no doubt that it will be built.
Btw: here is technology for rendering nuclear bombs over 10 times less deadly.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/simple-and-affordable-de ...
Included are new anti-radiation drugs that are 5000 times more effective than current drugs. They are just completing a 9 month human study.
The drug is based on single-walled carbon nanotubes, hollow cylinders of pure carbon that are about as wide as a strand of DNA. To form NTH, Rice scientists coat nanotubes with two common food preservatives -- the antioxidant compounds butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) -- and derivatives of those compounds.
"The same properties that make BHA and BHT good food preservatives, namely their ability to scavenge free radicals, also make them good candidates for mitigating the biological affects that are induced through the initial ionizing radiation event," James Tour (Rice University) said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128084415 ...
Assuming success, wide distribution of that drug or other new anti-radiation drugs and gene therapy would render worst case nuclear plant accidents harmless.On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses
VC fund Altira group funded nuclear power
Hyperion Power Generation which is trying to make Uranium Hydride reactors was privately funded.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news.html
April 16, 2008 - Altira Group LLC - the pioneer and leader in venture capital and private equity funding for energy technology companies - announced today an investment in Hyperion Power Generation, Inc. (HPG), of Santa Fe, New Mexico. HPG is developing a new type of small, self-contained, transportable nuclear power reactor to produce heat, steam and electricity for a variety of commercial applications that require reliable power independent of the common grid.
Altira's investment in HPG was made out of the recently closed Altira Technology Fund V -- a $176 Million fund focused on venture capital for energy technologies.
Hyperion Power Generation (www.hyperionpowergeneration.com) has licensed technology from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Under the Technology Transfer Program, HPG has the commercialization rights to introduce, license, manufacture, market and distribute the reactor invented at LANL.
About 4,000 units of the initial design will be manufactured at a new U.S. site yet to be determined. The initial rector will be a compact, self-regulating, self-contained design with no moving parts and about the size of a hot tub. Sealed at the factory, the module is not opened until it is time for the unit to be refueled -- at the factory -- approximately every five years or so. This helps guard against tampering.
Since it is portable, the reactor can be deployed virtually anywhere power is needed -- remote industrial operations such as the Alberta oil sands, military installations or communities looking to supplement grid-supplied power. Once deployed, the Hyperion module delivers approximately 70 megawatts (MW) of heat (thermal energy) and 25 megawatts (MW) of electrical power via steam turbineOn Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses
steel and concrete stats source
UC Berkeley. Per F. Peterson Professor. Department of Nuclear Engineering was the source of the steel and concrete stats for different energy sources.
He has stats for each of the different kinds of nuclear reactor models as well.
Kitegen would use less steel and concrete.
China is using a fair bit of standardization but they are building about ten different kinds of reactors, but they will be getting a lot of consistency because they are building so many.
The most common will likely be the AP1000 (100+) and the High Temp Reactor (200MW, might make thousands).
They will also make fast breeders, and some Candu heavy water reactors and some of the other models too.
China is also making a lot of wind, solar and hydro. On Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
China wants 100 AP1000 (built/building) by 2020
China wants to have 100 of Westinghouse Electric Co.'s nuclear reactors in operation or under construction by 2020 -- more than double what was anticipated. The Westinghouse AP1000 are being scaled up to 1700 MW and some of the ones already being built for China are 1250MW designs, which will be followed by 1400MW designs and then the 1700MW versions. If China follows through on these and other nuclear plans they should have 200GW of nuclear power completed by 2025. This would be double what the USA has now.
Recent Redbook on uranium reserves up 17% to 5.5 million tons.
I have researched and written about the deaths per twh from different energy sources
The stats show that nuclear is safe.
Solar will have a problem with falls from rooftop installs. Thus CSP from coolearth and sunrgi is better.
Uranium mining is mostly insitu leaching. there is almost no risks to the workers in this process. No one goes underground. It is pipes feeding acid.
Nuclear waste is unburned fuel. Thus the need for high temperature reactors able to burn the "waste" of existing reactors. Molten salt reactors can bun 99% of the uranium and plutonium from the fuel. What is left has 30 year half lives or less. Uranium hydride reactors can burn 50-60% of the fuel. thus the strategy would be to leave the "waste fuel" in barrels that can hold it for a few more decades like the ones used and proven already then develop the next generation reactors (some versions of which were built in the sixties and seventies) and burn all the waste fuel and increase uranium and thorium usage efficiency. On Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
almost no retirement of existing nuclear plants
The nuclear plants have and will continue to have operating extensions. Half of the plants in the USA have already been extended to 60 years of operation. The rest will be as well. Japan is extending to 70 years. Idaho National Labs is researching extending to 80 years.
Advanced uprate 50% more power from existing reactors. Proven in pilot reactor.
Advanced thermoelectric up to 50% more power from existing and new reactors. (Depends upon the temperature of operations.
Both can be developed and implemented over the next ten years.
With those advances just need to double the reactors and total nuclear power would be increased 4 times.
High temperature reactors can achieve 55% thermal efficiency compared to about 33% for current reactors. This is just using proven Brayton cycle with a steam cycle tacked on the output of the Brayton cycle. Advanced thermoelectric which will bring heat conversion close to the Carnot limit will do even better.
The US built ten reactors per year in the seventies. The world built 24 reactors per year in the eighties. It is possible to build at that rate because it was already done. Plus scaling based on increased GDP it is possible to double that build rate. The nuclear supply chain is already being restored. There design and engineering alternatives to deal with the temporary constraint on large steel forgings.
Operating costs are coming down and EROI is increasing with new laser enrichment (GE) which will reduce costs by three times or more. On Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
Why renewables will not be the main power source
As David Schlageter pointed out in the important forum EnergyPulse (2008), "Renewable energy sources only supplement the electric grid with intermittent power that rarely matches the daily electrical demand." He continues by saying that "In order for an electric system to remain stable, it needs large generators running 24/7 to create voltage stability. Wind and solar generation are not on-line when needed to meet energy demand, and therefore to help decrease system losses." In the promised land of wind energy, Denmark, voltage stability is attained by drawing on the energy resources of Sweden and Germany (and perhaps Norway). The Danes pay for the imported electricity, but not for the stability - which they would do in the great world of economic theory.
the International Energy Agency (IEA) has calculated that for France - the country with the largest production of nuclear energy (as a per cent of the total output of electric power) - the average person is responsible for 6.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which e.g. is one-third of the U.S. average.
Nuclear is a substantial part of the McKinsey plan.
My own energy plan is here Nuclear is a big part of it.
Any plan should build what we have for the next few years but accelerate the development of better technologies.
The better ones being
Factory Mass produced nuclear power.
- China High temperature reactors starting in 2009.
- Uranium hydride reactors
-Fuji molten salt reactor
The previously mentioned 50% power uprates from annular fuel.
Better thermoelectrics for cars and power sources.
Kitegen for wind
Coolearth and SunRGI for concentrated solar.
Inflatable electric cars (XP vehicles)
ultracapacitor/battery combos
Electric bikes/scooters (china 30 million per year already)
High risk/high return research needs to be pursued as well - IEC fusion (from emc2 fusion), focus fusion, tri-alpha energy, blacklight power, arata cold fusionOn Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
the McKinsey plan is far better
A summary of the McKinsey plan for reducing green house gases
The pdf of that reoprt
Note: McKinsey goes to the trouble of determining the economics of what they propose and how much greenhouse gas reduction comes from each item as well as the cost.
Based on the spreadsheets the capacity factor is addressed by Plan B using the same capacity factor as what is currently installed. However, the Plan B summary graphics are misleading. Plan B shows zero oil and coal usage without clarifying it is only for electricity. They do not address the intermittent nature of wind and solar. They do not look at costs and timelines. They just say that all rail will be electrified and all effort to change out all cars if from 'mobilization'. Yet they claim that nuclear power is not increased because it is not economic. The entire Plan B is insanely uneconomic so what is this bizarre biased standard of using economics in only one part of the plan. The economics that they refer to is an Amory Lovins report against nuclear. Amory Lovins who has claimed since 1976 that the nuclear industry is dieing yet nuclear power generation has increased over 400% since then. Amory Lovins whose micropower plan is to support mostly more diesel, natural gas, some coal and then hope for 30% from wind and solar and small hydro.
The mobilization called for by Plan B is also a prescription for every nation. China, USA, India, Russia etc... all to follow economic insanity to arrive at an intermittent power generation using far less power than is currently used.
The Plan B has no transition plan because the project timelines do not work out even in a mobilized effort. The end result does not work even if it could be arrived at.On Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
ignores existing trends, supply chains etc...
$4.5 trillion for the wind turbines alone. This does not count the production of new factories and does not count the build out of grid. It also does not address intermittent power. The supply chain build up is the bigger cost and strain. Also, taking the necessary steel and concrete allocation. Also, the biomass increase will still contribute to air pollution.
3000GW of wind in Plan B but wind has only 20-40% capacity factor. The european avg is 25% load factor over the course of a year (European average). US avg is 30%. The US wind capacity produced 31 billion kWh per year from 16.8GW)2007. American wind farms will generate an estimated 48TWh from 24GW. So 3000GW would produce 5500 TWh. So Plan B is not even in proper units that take into account capacity factor.
Nuclear already generates 2600 TWh. the base reference case is for an increase to 3290 TWh in 2020. 690 more TWh with no mobilization. They turn there nose up at what people are already going to build with a dismissive it costs too much, when the plan is for upwards of $10 trillion in extra spending.
Spend a few billion on assisting and accelerating the development and $500 billion for deployment of the MIT annular fuel system for 50% power uprates to existing reactors. This would allow for 1600 more TWh to the reactors that exist now and are planned to be built anyway.
$2 trillion per year in energy infrastructure spending is already the default projection for 2015.
In the IEO2008 reference case, the world's installed nuclear capacity grows from 374 gigawatts in 2005 to 498 gigawatts in 2030. The IEO2008 projection for nuclear electricity
generation in 2025 is 31 percent higher than the
projection published in IEO2003 only 5 years ago.On Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 42 Responses
Renewables with hydro and biomass > nuclear
that is interesting to include all biomass to get to a figure that is more than nuclear. Most of the biomass is wood (trees) and crops
Though biomass is a renewable fuel, and is sometimes called a "carbon neutral" fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites. When biomass is used as a fuel, as a replacement for fossil fuels, it still puts the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
biofuel crops worsen global warming
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080 ...
Buring biomass in developing countries kills hundreds of thousands of people per year from indoor air pollution
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9479/abstract.html
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/indoorair/indoorair/en/inde ...
Biomass burned outdoors also has air pollution. Particulates and Nox.
Lovins promotes Diesel and natural has and "anybody" promotes indoor air pollution.
On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses
Renewables with hydro and biomass > nuclear
that is interesting to include all biomass to get to a figure that is more than nuclear. Most of the biomass is wood (trees) and crops
Though biomass is a renewable fuel, and is sometimes called a "carbon neutral" fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites. When biomass is used as a fuel, as a replacement for fossil fuels, it still puts the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
biofuel crops worsen global warming
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080 ...
Buring biomass in developing countries kills hundreds of thousands of people per year from indoor air pollution
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9479/abstract.html
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/indoorair/indoorair/en/inde ...
Biomass burned outdoors also has air pollution. Particulates and Nox.
Lovins promotes Diesel and natural has and "anybody" promotes indoor air pollution.
On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses
micropower = diesel (oil), natural gas and biomass

The "micropower" is mostly diesel, biomass and natural gas of small and big sizes. The diesel (oil) portion is 35 deaths per TWH. The biomass about 10 deaths per TWH (35,000 deaths per year if diesel was the main source). Natural gas has 4 deaths per TWH (Externe source). So 2500 Twh (to displace nuclear power) would be 10,000 deaths per year.
The blended rate of deaths per TWH from micropower is over 12 deaths per TWH. Far higher than the 0.65 deaths per TWH calculated by Externe for nuclear power. Even if the micropower deaths per TWH was cut in half for lower distribution losses the number is still far higher. Diesel and natural gas are not renewable. Over 75% of the power that Lovins is talking about is diesel, natural gas and biomass.On Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses
Link to the chart of world nuclear power increase
Link to the chart of nuclear power TWH increaseOn Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses
Where is this decades long collapse of nuclear ?
The nuclear illusion looks at the data from 2000 forward but claims a decades (plural at least two decades and Lovins has been claiming nuclear collapse since the 1970s) long collapse.
Since 1980, nuclear power TWH has increased by over 400%.
<img src="http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/neprod.gif">
The charts that Lovins uses are only looking at 2000 forward or look at "new additions" when the bulk of nuclear power generation increases was from operating improvement and uprates to existing reactors.
The "micropower" is mostly natural gas of small and big sizes. Natural gas has 4 deaths per TWH (Externe source). So 2500 Twh (to displace nuclear power) would be 10,000 deaths per year.
Natural gas is not renewable. So is Lovins advocating an increase of more than double the US military deaths of the 5+ years of the Iraq war every year from more natural gas air pollution and other causes ?
All energy build costs went up with the increase in commodity prices (steel, concrete, oil)
There are wind turbine shortages and backorders for several years for the large efficient turbines.
Nuclear operating costs are on track for improvement.
Laser uranium enrichment 3-10 times cheaper and more efficient
Existing nuclear power plants are getting 20 year extensions and power uprates.
MIT/Westinghouse commercializing new 50% power uprates for annular fuel.
On Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses
sources re nuclear plant construction
The global list of nuclear plants under construction
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Under construction
7 in China
7 in Russia
6 in India
3 in South Korea
2 in Japan
2 in Slovakia
2 in Canada
1 in Finland
1 in France
1 in Iran
1 in Pakistan
1 in Argentia
Plant
Lingao-2 (units 3 & 4)
2x1080
Started: 12/05, 5/06
Expected operation: 10/10, 2011
Qinshan 4(units 6 & 7)
2x650
Started: 4/06, 1/07
expected operation: 2011, 2012
Hongyanhe 1 (units 1-4)
4x1080
Start: 8/07, 4/08, 3/09, 7/10
Expected operation:10/12, 2014
Yangjiang 1(units 1-2)
2x1080
Will start: 9/08, 2/09
Expected: 5/13, 2015
Ningde 1 (units 1-2)
2x1080
Start: 2/08, 9/08,
Expected operation: 12/12-2013
Sanmen 1 (units 1 & 2)
2x1100
Will Start: 3/2009
Operation: 8/13, 2014
Haiyang (units 1 & 2)
2x1100
AP1000
Will Start: 9/2009
Expected operation: 2014-15
Taishan 1     Guangdong
2x1700
Will start: 8/09, 1/10
Expected operation: 11/13, 2015
Shidaowan     Shandong
200
    HTR-PM     China Huaneng
early 2009
    2013
Fangjiashan (Qinshan 5)
2x1000/1080
Will Start: 6/2009
Expected operation: 2013 & 14
total 21     22,260 MWe
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Another 14 in the 11th economic plan starting operation in 2013-2016.
Yangjiang 2 (Units 3&4)
Ningde 2 (units 3 & 4)
Honshiding Rushan 1
Fuqing 1
Bailong 1
Russian list
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html
Rostov /Volgodonsk 2 being built: operation 2009
Kursk 5 2010 or 2011 operation
Severodvinsk (2) 2010 operation
Kalinin 4 2011 operation
Beloyarsk 4 2012 operation
Novovoronezh II -1 2012 operation
India's six are coming online 2008-2010
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html
South Korea's three
Shin Kori 1     started June 2006
expected operation12/2010
Shin Kori 2 started June 2007
expected operation 12/2011
Shin Wolsong 1     started Nov 2007
expected 3/2012
Japan
Tomari-3 started : 2003
expected operation : 2009
Shimane 3 started December 2005
expected operation: 12/2011
The US plants are being licensed, we will see how long those take to get built, but I do not see delays for China, India, Russia, S Korea,or Japan where most of the 96 plants will get built.On Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 23 Responses
nuclear plants getting extended operation
Greentiger.
the current nuclear plants will not be going offline soon. They are getting 20 year operating extensions to 60 years of operation. Over half have been extended already and the next half have not yet needed to apply for extensions. There is no reason to expect that most will not be granted the extensions. Other nuclear plants around the world are also getting operating extensions.
Japan is extending there nuclear plants to 70 years of operation. The USA is researching extensions to 80 years of operation.
==General criticsm of the Lovins article 36 nuclear reactors are under construction now. 93 more are in advanced project preparation and should be started and completed by 2016.
15 reactors in the USA have had initiated license applications. Another 12 are expected by the end of 2008. Watts Bar Unit 2 in not included in those figures, which had a construction restart. It should be operating in 2013.
Power uprates will be increasing nuclear power in the USA by an average of 400 MWe each year. France is also uprating all of its nuclear reactors.
Nuclear is not a declining industry, since power supplied from nuclear has been increasing many times since the 1970's when Lovins first said the nuclear industry was "dieing". Nuclear power supplied is still increasing. =====
ExternE calculates deaths from natural gas at about 4 deaths per TWh.
So 2000 Twh would be 8000 deaths per year.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-e ...
Biomass deaths are higher per TWh.
====
Costs have gone up for Wind, hydro, natural gas and all the renewable projects as well. Steel and concrete and other costs have gone up. Nuclear is not alone in cost increases.
There are supply chain and labor supply issues for the renewable side as well. (Natural gas even for smaller projects is not renewable power if the gas is coming from mined sources). Wind turbine supply issues. Building up new solar supply chain.
On Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 23 Responses
so the other big energy sources are cutoff ?
Coal, natural gas ? Those that are more than 10% of grid sources.
Coal, natural gas and oil still have big subsidies.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-extern ...
So the cutoff at 10% is just an arbitrary rule, since it has not been applied to coal or natural gas.
Some info on feed in tariffs. although renewablews are still less than 10%. I guess the more than 10% rule is to support the underdogs that are not actually delivering that much yet.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/feed-in-tariffs-support- ...On No more subsidies for nuclear power, McCain et al posted 1 year, 6 months ago 34 Responses
Other forging makers, new capacity and options
Japan Steel is doubling forging capacity in the next two years
Japan Steel caters to all nuclear reactor makers except in Russia, which makes its own heavy forgings. Plus not needed for Candu reactors as noted. Areva, the world's biggest reactor builder, is considering modifying its newest design to be able to make the central reactor-vessel part from a 350-ton ingot instead of more than 500 tons as required today. Another alternative is to turn back the technological clock and weld together two smaller forgings, said John Fees, CEO of McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox Co., which built the Three Mile Island reactor. That technique was used over the past 40 years in the U.S. and France and is still applied in China.
Other makers of large forgings, including South Korean's Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co. and Japan Casting & Forgings Corp., are spending big to expand their capacity.
Doosan will have the capability to make forgings in late 2009 or 2010.
China First Heavy Industries Company Ltd. recently said it is investing $2.3 billion to increase its capacity to supply 600 tonne ingots for ultra-large forgings.
British company Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd. said last month it will seeking financing to build a massive press for ultra-large forging - by 2011 it is hoped.On Industry bottlenecks will delay any reactors for years, maybe longer posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses
Nuclear will do better
Even without new climate change legislation which will increase utility preference for nuclear over coal. Nuclear plants can be built at far higher rate globally. Plus there is a lot more that can be done with power uprating (50% uprates possible within 10 years) So with no new reactors new uprates would take 369GW now and turn it to 500GW. Plants are getting extended to 60 years and 80 years is possible with some effort. Thus almost no replacements of decommissioned reactors in the 2030-2050 timeframe. With some reasonable effort Nuclear power could be 2-4 wedges.
current nuclear power build.
In the USA: There are Combined license applications for 15 nuclear plantsthat have been received by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
34 plants from 23 applications are expected by 2010
Almost all current US plants will be extended to 60 years of operation. Half have already been extended.
Current new build by country in order of amount of power added
China 6 reactors, 5520 MW
Russia 7 reactors, 4920 MW
S Korea 3 reactors, 3000 MW
India 6 reactors, 2976 MW
Japan 2 reactors, 2285 MW
France 1 reactor, 1630 MW
Finland 1 reactor, 1600MW
Canada 2 reactors, 1500 MW
Iran 1, 915MW
Slovakia 2 reactors, 840MW
Argentina 1 reactor, 692MW
Pakistan 1 reactor, 300 MW
35 reactors, 28798 MW (most should be completed by 2012/2013)
91 reactors 99095 MW
with approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years (by 2016)
China 60 GW by 2020.
India 20 GW by 2020.
Russia released a plan to build 42 nuclear power plants by 2020.
Japan generates 47.5GW from 55 reactors now and is building 18GW of more nuclear power. So Japan should be getting 66GW from nuclear power in 2020.
France uprating almost all of its reactors
EdF uprated its four Chooz and Civaux N4 reactors from 1455 to 1500 MWe each in 2003. Over 2008-10 EdF plans to uprate five of its 900 MWe reactors by 3%. Then in 2007 EdF announced that the twenty 1300 MWe reactors would be uprated some 7% from 2015, within existing licence limits, and adding about 15 TWh/yr to output. Plus giving them 10 year extensions.
Idaho national labs has a strategic plan for Light water reactors The US alone could get back to 10 new reactors per year. The historical record of plant construction shows that the United States by itself built: 12 nuclear plants were completed in 1974, 10 in 1973, 8 in 1972.
The world completed 24 nuclear reactors in one year in the 1980s. So 17 per year + build for replacement is easily doable.
Stretch Goals:
1. Life extension of the current fleet beyond 60 years (e.g., what would it
take to extend all lives to ~80 years?); and
2. Strong, sustained expansion of ALWRs throughout this century (e.g., what
would it take to proceed uninterrupted from first new plant deployments in
~2015 to sustained build-rates approaching 10+/year?).
Big power uprate of existing reactors by using new fuel geometry and coatings.
Annular fuel details for 50% uprate
All of this is even without getting new reactor types running. Factory mass produceable. Hyperion Power generation uranium hydride reactor (target 2012).
More conservative design that is under development. International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS) is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. Construction time target of the first IRIS unit is three years, with subsequent reduction to only two years. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade (2015), but you are projecting out 30-50 years.
Modular Helium Reactor (MHR , formerly the GT-MHR), will be built as modules of up to 600 MWt. In its electrical application each would directly drive a gas turbine at 47% thermal efficiency, giving 280 MWe. It can also be used for hydrogen production (100,000 t/yr claimed) and other high temperature process heat applications.
Molten salt reactors.
Thermoelectric improvements either with higher temperatures or with new thermoelectrics which could achieve near Carnot limit efficiencies. Freedomcar has funding of this and already some smaller scale uses (beer fridges and car seat warmers.) 2010-2013 for deployment in first cars and trucks.On The 14 wedges needed to stabilize emissions posted 1 year, 7 months ago 28 Responses
the PETA prize is meaningless
1. It is not an expensive hamburger because the prize is for fried chicken substitute. Must pass a taste test with fried chicken recipe
2. Prize winner must be selling retail in 10 states to win with competitive price.
If one could do those things then the 1 million prize is chump change. KFC chain sells $12.2 billion of which most is fried chicken. (fries, sides and sodas too). 5-10 minutes for $1 million in fried chicken sales. Even single store average is $1 million in sales per year.
Chicken is one of the cheaper meats, which is why the industry is going for ground beef and pork first. Easier to sub out ground meat and they are more expensive per pound than chicken. On PETA offers $1 million for commercially viable test-tube meat posted 1 year, 7 months ago 16 Responses
Nuke proliferation has killed no one
Nuclear proliferation has killed no one but fear of nuclear power has meant coal has not been displaced which kills millions
Mostly adding nuclear power in places that have both nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. What is the incremental risk ? Compare the risk with actual deaths from coal and oil pollution.
Scaling up:
The world is completing about 2 coal reactors every week. Coal reactors can take almost as long to build as a nuclear reactor. So the scale of construction is feasible.
Research shows we can safely up power all water based reactors by 50%. Donut shaped fuel and nanoparticles in the water for higher temperatures for boiling. (MIT study)
So the reactors would produce a lot more power.
Also, historically, the US completed 12 reactors in 1974,10 in 1973, 8 in 1972. There were years in the eighties with 8 completed. Before 1968 only small reactors were built. Only two had over 400MW, but most were less than 100MW. 1969, 1970, 1971 had 3-4 each year, then in 1972 the 8 reactors. So from a relative standing start the scale up was rapid to the peak of 12/year of the last build cycle. We are in a better position now because US rebuilt a new nuclear plant and is switching on Browns Ferry 1 this year.
Overall, renewable energy (1993 to 2005) in the United States has increased at a rate of 1,000 thousand megawatt-hours/per year. The nuclear energy figure is 16,203 thousand megawatt-hours per year for nuclear even without building a new plant. This is from operating efficiency gains.
There are now 286 nuclear reactors in the world construction pipeline. Up 20 from last month and up from 219 in February.
http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm
On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses
Companes spend money lobbying and donating
Companies and groups give out information and spend money lobbying and donating. The nuclear industry numbers that you quote are far less than many other industries.
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=252
Agribusiness
$159,711,080 Contributions, 2001-2006
28% Democrats     71% Republican
$448,002,616 Lobbying 2001-2005
Oil&Gas
$73,036,301 contributions 2001-2006
19% Democrats     81% Republicans
$282,566,199 Lobbying 2001-2005
Mining
$14,991,593
17% Dems 83% Republicans
$56,032,688 Lobbying
Electric Utilities
$58,240,891
32% Democrats    68% Republicans
$458,981,375 Lobbying 2001-2005
Environmental Policy
$5,530,261
87% Dems 13% Republicans
$43,105,323 Lobbying
Auto Manufacturers
$7,633,671     Contributions
33%     67%
$177,081,511 Lobbying 2001-2005
Contribution totals include money to candidates, party committees and leadership PACs.
2005-2006 totals based on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election Commission on February 20, 2007.
The figures below are from open secrets for one year only.
Coal industry
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E1210 ...
American Wind Energy Assn $330,000 (2006 only)
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indusclient.asp?code ...
Clean Energy Group (2006 only) $990,000
I think money is spent and some people are paid to say things. So what. We can still filter down to what the truth is.
I support nuclear energy and no one pays me to do it. I also support conservation, efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal and anything not coal. Once we get rid of coal then we can focus on the less dangerous power sources, next on the list would be oil. I independently researched the energy issues and arrived at my own conclusions.
I think using nuclear will help and that its downsides are overblown.
Nuclear "waste" == Mostly Unburned fuel. 8% is reprocessed by France, UK, Japan (Over 5000 tons/year out of the total 66000 tons/year)
We can make higher burn reactors.
Nuclear proliferation has not killed anyone. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by the US who were not proliferated to. Meanwhile conventional war killed 200 million in the 20th century.
The danger of nuclear power plant accidents is trivial compared to the millions that die every year from air pollution. On Maddening posted 2 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses
The energy industry is subsidized..so what
Perform your proportion of subsidies based on the kwH that are generated.
The larger subsidy for Fossil Fuel energy is the fact that the do not have to pay for the health and environmental damage that they cause.
The $50 billion in revenue coal industry in the US does not have to pay for the 30000-60000 premature deaths caused each year in the US.
Perhaps you read the death numbers to quickly. Those numbers are like a Hiroshima every 1-2 years in the US alone.
Worldwide 3 million die prematurely from outdoor air pollution. Over 40% of that is from coal.(world health organization stat). This is why the statement that coal is more dangerous than nuclear is a correct statement. Fossil fuel pollution kills 50 Hiroshima's every year.
US air pollution costs at $145 to 530 billion. Extract the $18 to $140 billion estimate for greenhouse gases. Still $127 billion to $390 billion.
Coal is 40% of those air pollution costs.
Coal also costs billions because of the wear and tear on the transportion system. 40% of rail freight is to move 1.2 billion tons of coal in the US.
On Using high gas prices to push for a rebirth posted 2 years, 6 months ago 74 Responses
Accelerating nuclear plant orders and China hydro
Tracking
nuclear power plant construction and plans
In May 2007, 266 reactors that are being built (30), planned (74) or proposed (162).
In Feb 2007, up from February, 2007 when 219 were in the construction pipeline, Since February, 2007 of 3 more are being built, 12 more planned and 32 more proposed.
Those do not include the 10 new ones proposed in the UK or 10 more proposed in India. Increasing plans from South Africa and Russia.
China is also working on adding 155 GW of hydro power between 2006 and 2020. 1.2 times the amount of power from the Three Gorges project every two years.
With the Three Gorges partially coming online the 2007 hydro generation in China is at least 124.8GW. Yet this is just over 20% of the 600GW total national power generating capacity, which the China Electricity Council (CEC) says was reached in December 2006. Of the 80GW of new power brought on stream during 2006, 52.8GW was provided by coal fired plants, in comparison with just 6.9GW by the hydro sector.
China is targeting 10% power from renewables in 2020.
On wind and solar. A small windmill or a one house solar electric system can be installed in a few days or weeks. However, building 1000 forty tall (what it takes for 3MW wind generators to equal one 1GW nuclear plant taking into account load factor) wind generation systems, ocean anchoring, power lines, property rights etc... also are multi-year projects.
Total peak power of installed PV was around 1,700 MW as of the end of 2005. By the end of 2006, nearly 6,000 MW of power have been installed worldwide. However the load factor means that this is equal to the power generation of a single 2.2 GW nuclear plant. There have been silicon supply problems since 2004.On Using high gas prices to push for a rebirth posted 2 years, 6 months ago 74 Responses

Comments advancednano has made

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print