tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post734932028995476595..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: French nuclear power pricing, and solar power pricingEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17594827002846336912015-11-07T07:12:01.001-05:002015-11-07T07:12:01.001-05:00The Guardian view on solar power: put in the shade...The Guardian view on solar power: put in the shade just when it needs the sun ... Solar power to light the way for Africa as low-carbon campaign launches.<a href="http://energyinstalls.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">www.energyinstalls.co.uk</a>Richard C. Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14766504022599651016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40203657111899599192012-09-17T15:45:10.037-04:002012-09-17T15:45:10.037-04:00If you go back to the original paper from which Ro...If you go back to the original paper from which Romm drew his chart (http://engensa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/French-nuclear-negative-learning-by-doing.pdf , figure 13) take a close look at figure 3, which shows what's really driving the rise in French NPP capital costs: it's construction time, which roughly doubled between 1983 and 1998, as capital costs roughly doubled during the same period. Then there's that one outlier in 1999.KAPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11189506171267750391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83080000199947945372011-11-12T02:47:14.922-05:002011-11-12T02:47:14.922-05:00Solar energy is the biggest source of energy. It c...Solar energy is the biggest source of energy. It can save lot money for us.Solar power for homeshttp://www.cleave-energy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18878599247875489602011-10-18T03:51:47.444-04:002011-10-18T03:51:47.444-04:00The perfect solution of energy problem is only usi...The perfect solution of energy problem is only using solar energy.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.zenhomeenergy.com.au/" rel="nofollow">solar power</a>Edward Robinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02486319552373215998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11857902409614798712011-09-30T02:10:13.381-04:002011-09-30T02:10:13.381-04:00Forget I mentioned something as silly as "atm...Forget I mentioned something as silly as "atmospheric tranparencies" how's about a table of average solar insolation for a wide range of places around the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45486610022032000012011-09-29T10:48:49.974-04:002011-09-29T10:48:49.974-04:00You can see disparities of the magnitude of 400% c...You can see disparities of the magnitude of 400% can arise if you look at the max output of solar plants and then their annual output.<br /><br />The Japanese Power Utility, TEPCO, of Fukushima Dai-ichi fame has recently inaugurated a Solar Plant at Ukishima. It has a max output of 7MW, and an expected annual output of 7,400MWh. To convert this annual output to the average power production level you just divide by 8160 - the number of hours in a year (365 days). You get:<br /><br />0.85MW - around an eighth of the maximum output.<br /><br />Now the caveat is that this is Japan, and other sites around the world will probably get better ratings - but given the effect of night, morning and evening I doubt they'd more than double that value. Anyone got a table of global atmospheric transparencies - something to confirm or refute my suspicions?*<br /><br />And as an aside I was in Tokyo Station last week, early afternoon. They have a display of the outputs of their solar panels in the Shinkansen waiting area - they were getting .23kW per M3, and the power output was displayed in terms of households powered. The output varied from 4 to 6 households - in a display of 26 households, so at noon in late summer they were getting around 25% of the total capacity. Weather was fair, not too cloudy. Power was fluctuating 50% from minimum over a period of minutes. I doesn't appear that solar is the panacea it is made out to be - though it obviously has a role in the future power sector.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76288491689808592892011-09-29T01:09:59.215-04:002011-09-29T01:09:59.215-04:00John: if both trend lines are correct - nukes gett...John: if both trend lines are correct - nukes getting more expensive, solar getting cheaper - then the absolute values are somewhat less important. Eventually they cross. If OTOH the absolute values are off by 400% as you suggest, then the analysis is so bad that there's not much point wasting time to figure out if the trend lines are accurate.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40860300461894077312011-09-28T21:16:16.727-04:002011-09-28T21:16:16.727-04:00coal is the shiznet. And I say that as someone wi...coal is the shiznet. And I say that as someone with way more technical and econimic ersonal rationale for supporint either nukes or solar.<br /><br />I'm just a fucking honest man.TCOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15906292632614730872011-09-28T18:07:44.201-04:002011-09-28T18:07:44.201-04:00quokka,
You mentioned in passing what Germany is...quokka, <br /><br />You mentioned in passing what Germany is doing. Germany is phasing out nuclear power in Germany. So where is Germany going to get electric power? They're buying it from France, which gets electricity from their own nuclear power plants!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575837647825433144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29716667419815289152011-09-28T17:15:11.642-04:002011-09-28T17:15:11.642-04:00GaAs works, but there is a thinning limit which is...GaAs works, but there is a thinning limit which is not much below 1 micron, because as it gets thinner, you lose absorption of the sun light at the longer wavelengths. At that point you are decreasing efficiency while decreasing costs.<br /><br />and Ga is rare.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32751713359745859132011-09-28T15:30:24.598-04:002011-09-28T15:30:24.598-04:00Brian, your figures purport to show that the cost ...Brian, your figures purport to show that the cost of photovoltaic solar power will be comparable to nuclear power in a few years.<br />Burton Richter (Nobel-prize winning physicists at SLAC) has a book, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, in which he gives figures for the cost. Richter says that nuclear power is comparable to fossil fuels, while photovoltaic is about 4 times more expensive. <br /><br />These are not precise numbers, because for fossil fuels, the cost of fuel is a large fraction of the total cost, while for nuclear power, it's the up-front capital cost (not fuel costs) that dominates the total costs. (What is the interest rate on the loan? How long does it take to build the plant? etc.)<br /><br />The cost of photovoltaic includes not just the solar panels, but "balance of system" (everything else) which is sometimes overlooked. <br /><br />Don't forget: at night, solar photovoltaic produces zero power. You can store the energy during the day, and get some of it back at night, but this process is about 50% efficient. So solar energy, stored during the day and released at night, is now 8 times more expensive then nuclear. <br /><br />IMHO, the present big three power sources (coal, oil, natural gas) will be replaced by solar, wind, and nuclear power. Nuclear provides baseline power (available 24 hours/day) which wind and solar can't always provide.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575837647825433144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35337635506661263302011-09-28T14:04:48.358-04:002011-09-28T14:04:48.358-04:00I don't think this is a good analogy.
1) Peopl...I don't think this is a good analogy.<br />1) People use GaAs, it works.<br /><br />2) The issue is the level of rarity, and again, see p.12 of <a href="http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/RhzKSDNNeWGjGjHW9sosoA/Lewis_symposium.10.2.2008.pdf" rel="nofollow">Nate Lewis' talk</a>.<br />His chart may or may not be right, but certainly Ga and As look less rare than, say, Cd and Te (i.e., First Solar). Of course, for really huge deployments, we want the elements at upper left, which is what Nate's arguing for.<br /><br />3) Some of the same techniques help Si cells, just not as much. But, if somebody can ship $Bs of low-cost cells, that will put mroe pressure on BoS costs.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27463389038053516382011-09-28T11:20:21.076-04:002011-09-28T11:20:21.076-04:00AFAEIK GaAnything is the condensed matter version ...AFAEIK GaAnything is the condensed matter version of fusion energy. . in the next 30 years, etc. It is REALLY rare.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89618176942943879112011-09-28T10:32:50.676-04:002011-09-28T10:32:50.676-04:00Availability: That's one reason why I would no...Availability: That's one reason why I would normally run in fear from GaAs ... but Eli says they are at 1 micron thick now, think they can get it down to 10% of that, i.e., 100nm, assuming no surprises in what they are seeing with epitaxial liftoff. hence, tiny amounts of material go a long way.<br /><br />Over long term, I hope more for Nate Lewis's Caltech, MIT efforts to do nanostructured Si, i.e., to use hugely-available elements, see p.12 of <a href="http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/RhzKSDNNeWGjGjHW9sosoA/Lewis_symposium.10.2.2008.pdf" rel="nofollow">his GCEP talk</a>, which also goes straight to H2 and O2.<br /><br />Still, as per <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/r2-d2-and-other-lessons-from-bell-labs/" rel="nofollow">R2-D2</a>, I would label Nate's that as R1/R2, whereas Alta Devices is more like ~D2, i.e., a few steps further along. I.e., one is in research/applied research, the other is into Advanced Development.<br /><br /><br />As I was seeing this talk, I was thinking: I wonder what if my NEA friends think of this, thinking I should alert them ... but of course, Yablonovitch would have worked for Arno Penzias at BTL, and this is the kind of thing (an old boss of mine) Forest Baskett looks for ... and by end of the talk, Eli had noted that NEA and Kleiner-Perkins had already invested. (Between them and others there is already $72M.)<br /><br />Folks like NEA & K-P do not fund research and do not fund things unless they think they can be grown big. (For those not into VC-land, NEA and K-P are 2 of the top Silicon valley VCs. That does not guarantee success, but it's a hint that very serious folks take this quite seriously. Disclosure: I'm an LP (investor) in one of the NEA funds, although not this particular one, so I have no financial interest.)John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39737402633333450752011-09-28T00:25:18.924-04:002011-09-28T00:25:18.924-04:00Not enough Ga (or In) in the world to make GaAs us...Not enough Ga (or In) in the world to make GaAs useful for such applicationsEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50097127162232314832011-09-27T23:58:40.406-04:002011-09-27T23:58:40.406-04:00Till = IFR.
Meanwhile, I heard a good PV solar t...Till = IFR.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I heard a good <a href="http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/369" rel="nofollow">PV solar talk</a>, for which <a href="http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-story-behind-solar-startup-alta-devices-innovation/" rel="nofollow">this</a> has more background.<br /><br />Normally, I would run in fear from GaAs, but Eli Yablonovitch was sharp (besides having been a Bell Labs research Director, not a job filled by dummies.) The video will be up sometime, and meanwhile, there is a link to a paper, although one may want a bit of physics background to go in there.<br /><br />IF this works, potential = very low material cost (~ First Solar's thin film, which gets 11% efficiency), but efficiency @ 28% now, likely gets above 30%, not too far from SQ limit for single-junction, at much lower cost than Sunpower's 22%.<br /><br />He showed a sample tested by NREL, in flexible piece of plastic.<br /><br />Of course, reducing material cost does not itself help BoS costs, but this might be a real step function (as opposed to the slow, relentless cost/volume curves).John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47344117381761701672011-09-27T12:17:29.816-04:002011-09-27T12:17:29.816-04:00Cost isn't the right question, costs will reac...Cost isn't the right question, costs will reach parity, more or less. Capacity; scale. Those are the things to look at. And when you do, it's obvious that renewables + conservation alone has zero chance of providing the capacity to displace fossil fuels. Intentional or not, anti-nuclear is pro-coal. Period.<br /><br />"...it became obvious to us that one could put a total reactor concept together that would at the same time give you safety of a kind that reactors today don't have, that would allow complete recycling of the fuel, and thus extension of the ability to produce energy (very roughly, by a factor of 100), and also a waste product that did not contain the most dangerous elements. So with one concept you attack all of the principal real issues that there are for the use of nuclear energy."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html" rel="nofollow">Dr. Charles Till | Nuclear Reaction | FRONTLINE | PBS</a>seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04299590041498402002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88160399068248156902011-09-26T20:43:35.117-04:002011-09-26T20:43:35.117-04:00The problem is that comparing Solar to Nuclear usi...The problem is that comparing Solar to Nuclear using kW is not very instructive - as Solar's availability is much lower. Graphs comparing GWhr delivered per year would be much more illuminating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48090646168278913732011-09-26T17:24:22.254-04:002011-09-26T17:24:22.254-04:00The thing that stands out in that chart is that th...The thing that stands out in that chart is that there is a very obvious inflection point in 1985...Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68275995890010669222011-09-26T11:33:18.264-04:002011-09-26T11:33:18.264-04:00quokka: no problem. I've been on Rottnest, so ...quokka: no problem. I've been on Rottnest, so I'm fond of quokkas.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10093747704409677202011-09-25T23:57:45.852-04:002011-09-25T23:57:45.852-04:00@John Mashey
Sorry, I didn't see your comment...@John Mashey<br /><br />Sorry, I didn't see your comment. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have posted.quokkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63566747457298932011-09-25T23:55:38.647-04:002011-09-25T23:55:38.647-04:00What is entirely missing here is a recognition tha...What is entirely missing here is a recognition that LCOE from PV under the very best circumstances and even with ambitious projections for decrease is very much not the be all and end all. A very questionable assertion about optimal LCOE for solar vs nuclear is being used for purposes for which it is unfit. One thing that is entirely missing is sensitivity analysis.<br /><br />Refer to the Section 6.2.4 Construction costs and lead times of the IEA Projected Costs of Electricity Generation. LCOE of PV is the most sensitive to both construction delays and cost escalation. Substantially more so than nuclear.<br /><br />Of much more and probably critical importance is Section 6.2.5 - sensitivity to load factor. LCOE of PV and wind are highly sensitive to load factor - far more than nuclear.<br /><br />At small penetration in an obliging grid where the operators are forced to take intermittent generation and the generators can run at their full load factor, not so much of a problem. But consider the case of PV in Germany.<br /><br />Germany has about 18 GW of PV capacity. On a good day in mid-summer, output may peak at perhaps 14-15 GW. On a poor day in winter, it is next to useless. PV currently supplies no more than 3% of Germany's electricity.<br /><br />If PV in Germany were expanded to meet say 10% of Germany's electricity demand, then for some period on the best days in summer, every other generator on the grid - including wind - would have to yield to PV if PV is to achieve it's maximum load factor. The capacity factor of PV in Germany is already poor at around 10-12%. Further growth of PV and the situation grows progressively worse.<br /><br />Then, there is storage. But storage is a very uncertain matter at this time even to the extent of what is likely to be the dominant technology or technologies. At the moment, it's pretty much pumped hydro or nothing. What is absolutely certain is that it will cost money and must inevitably increase the LCOE.<br /><br />Attempts to close off the nuclear option based on extremely flimsy arguments resemble anti-nuke activism far more than genuine analysis or even concern about climate change. Shutting down nuclear is a risky business indeed. If the results of the German experiment turn out to be less than hoped for, which is entirely possible, what then? A nuclear industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap and we are in for real trouble and no way out.<br /><br />Sobering facts: Today nuclear produces 21% of OECD electricity. Wind, solar, geothermal and other about 4%. After how long?quokkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27022378157890272382011-09-25T22:39:11.784-04:002011-09-25T22:39:11.784-04:00Graham Palmer has a useful essay:
http://bravenewc...Graham Palmer has a useful essay:<br />http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/25/coal-dependence-and-the-renewables-paradox/David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10722658959512433932011-09-25T22:14:23.759-04:002011-09-25T22:14:23.759-04:00quokka: I don't understand your comment. Did y...quokka: I don't understand your comment. Did you not see the comment posted a few minutes before yours? I've visited Argonne & Fermilab, etc out there, and I was the first in this thread to mention IFR, and at least one of my links notes that people thought it was one of the most promising. That's why I brought it up, having been asked about MSR.<br /><br />Steve Kirsch is an old friend, see <a href="http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>. Of course, there were the comments starting <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/29/a-sketch-plan-for-a-zero-carbon-australia/#comment-5886" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />I wrote:<br />"Realistically, conditions vary geographically, whether or not one it more of the Gen IV technologies works is still unknown, although my sense, talking to serious people, is that at least one of them can be made to work within the next decade or two."<br /><br />Serious people = folks like Richter and Bouchard. Maybe I misinterpreted them ... but they've spent their careers doing advanced R&D, and such people tend to know that not all good-sounding things can be made to work well .. which is why GIF is pursuing multiple routes, exactly as they should. Some will drop out.<br /><br />Maybe Burt will have more to say in 2 weeks, in his <a href="http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/GCEP_Symposium_Agenda_for_Web_92311.pdf" rel="nofollow">GCEP talk</a>, "Perspectives on Nuclear Energy."John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4052688494888683192011-09-25T20:03:34.369-04:002011-09-25T20:03:34.369-04:00To set the history straight, the first nulcear wea...To set the history straight, the first nulcear weapons exploded in 1945 and it wasn't until several years later for the first demonstration of nuclear generated electic power, enough to light one ligt bulb. The first serious use of nuclear power was for submarine propulsion; the current PWR/BWR designs are all based on that.<br /><br />Unfortunately as it may seem to some, of the scalable, low carbon power genration technologies available now, only nuclear can meet the requirementss for a reliable, on-demand power supply at utility scale and for reasonable cost..David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.com