Daily Kos

Various Rants on Energy Happenings

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:19:52 PM PDT

Various Rants on Energy Happenings.

I usually don't rant, but I feel like ranting, for the good, the bad and the ugly:

#The Chinese broke ground on their first ever Generation III Nuclear Power Plant. They expect the new Westinghouse (A JAPANESE COMPANY FOLKS!) AP1000 to come in around $2500/KW installed. It'll be the 1200 MWs model. Of course they have to build tons more to effectively slow down coal production...but this will be worth about 3 coal plants the WON'T build (the Chinese build smaller 400 MWs coal plants it seems, but scads of them).

The US has about 4 AP1000s in the planning stage. Of course it takes the NRC to go almost 3 ½ years to get through all the stupid paper work even AFTER they approved the design AND the site for the plants.

BTW...the Japanese and Koreans brought in their 3 ABWRs for under budget and on schedule. The answer to why they were able to do it is because these were the first non-French built modularly designed and manufactured nuclear power plants and Greenpeace and other "nuclear-is-worse-than-coal" fundentalists are fortunatly very weak there.

#They started building Nevada Solar One. $266 million dollars for 64 MWs. That's about $4100/KW installed for nameplate capacity. You'all know what "Name plate capacity" is don't ya'? It means the amount of power it could produce if everything was perfect, the planets were aligned and God looked sweetly down on his Creation. That's what "name plate capacity" is. In other words, for about 6 hours a day, assuming the weather is good, no clouds, in the middle of the summer, you might get 64 MWs. Maybe.

So we're not getting 64 MW HOURS, we're getting a "definite maybe". If you work out the costs for getting actual 64 MW/hrs, it's like something closer to $17,000 KW installed. Yoouuzzaaa! About the same, maybe less, unofficially, that the larger Spanish solar thermal plant cost. But this is supposed to better than nuclear. OK, next....

#HVDC. We see this thrown around a lot. As if it's gonna save wind and solar's butts. People really don't know what it is, but is sounds good. Say it: "H-V-D-C". They are actually building the very first HVDC line across the street from the power plant where I work in San Francisco's south side. The so-called environmentalists are pushing it because it means they can shutdown the fossil plants in San Francisco and bring in other fossil generated power from the East Bay. That's "OK" because it's not in our back yard. Get it?

HVDC is touted as the way to bring wind power and solar power from the remote areas of the US to the area of the actual load. What people don't know is that for anything under about 50 miles, it's not worth it. Plus, you still have to connect to it at a central hub where the expensive part of the whole HVDC set up is installed: the rectifier which takes the AC and turns into DC. At the end of the cable you need another one, an inverter, to take the power from DC and turn it into usable AC. This is bucko bucks. But for cross-regional wheeling of thousands of MWs it makes total sense. For example, a cluster of 4 EPR nukes, at 1600 MWs each, can be built in bum-f*ck nowhere, like central Utah, and wheeled across the US.

In fact, there is a utility consortium that is building an Extra High Voltage line from Virginia into Ohio for purposes of moving vast amounts of power this way and that, overlaid over the existing regional grid. Cool huh? This actually makes a more centralized power generating BETTER than the current fancy of "decentralized" power touted but you-know-who.

--END OF RANT--

Tags: nuclear energy, nuclear, solar, HVDC, Greenpeace, anti-nuclear pro-fossil toads (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 42 comments

    •  Insult Opposing Viewpoints Much? (0+ / 0-)

      You seem like a smart guy. Just a bad communicator.

      "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -Abbie Hoffman

      by Uthaclena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:26:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you elaborate on jargon? (0+ / 0-)

      What is a generation III nuclear plant?

      What is HVDC?

      Thanks!

      •  No, not really (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Stranded Wind

        I hardly ever insult opposing viewpoints. Really I insult the situation. If you post here in opposition to what I say, you get a discussion. But the diary itself is usually stronger than what I would say usually in conversation. Did I mention this was a RANT?

        HVDC stands for High Voltage Direct Current. Our system works on Alternating Current as supported by John Westhinghouse in a battle against Direct Current supported by Thomas Edison back at the turn of the century. DC is cheapter because it only requires two lins, whereas AC requires 3 lines. That is very simplistic but that is where to start.

        Generation III plants are the lastest and greatest nucelar power plants. Generation I plants were the 1st commercial plants from the mid-50s into the late 60s. Generation II plants are what makes up our fleet of 104 nuclear plants. Generation III are evolutionary designs that are 100s of times safer, work on "passive" safety paradigms (instead of operator initiated procedures, eliminating human error), use less pumps and materials, built modularly and are cheaper to build.

        David

      •  HVDC is (0+ / 0-)

        high voltage direct current power transmission.  

        The standard for many years was AC power, same as runs through the power lines in your neighborhood but at high voltages and currents.  

        It's convenient to use AC   because it's easy to change voltage levels using just a passive transformer.  And you want to change voltage levels for long distance transmission, or where you have a lot of power to shuffle about.  This is because conductors offer resistance to the flow of electric current, creating a waste of power. The loss is proportional the the conductor's resistance multiplied by the square of the current, the resistance is inversely proportional to the conductor's cross section.  Power carried is proportional to voltage multiplied by current, double the voltage and half the current means you carry the same amount of power but at 1/4 the loss.

        With AC on long lines or high currents another effect comes into play.  Conductors have inductance, a resistance to changing the level of current flow.  And in the US, AC power changes current flow at a frequency of 60 cycles per second. This adds to power transmission losses, becoming important on long distance transmission lines.

        DC power doesn't have that problem, but requires extra equipment to convert AC to DC for transmission and back to AC at the other end. There are losses in the conversions, but the savings on transmission lines carrying large amounts of power long distances are enough that overall efficiency goes up.

        In the US we need long distance power transmission.  Much of the renewable sources are not near the population centers.  On top of that most renewable sources are diffuse, a great deal of collection area is needed to get a megawatt of power, and urban areas don't have a lot of usable space.  Multifamily dwellings and office building both consume much more power than can be collected in the area they occupy,  power must be brough in from elsewhere.

    •  I saw a NIMBY eating a BANANA (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Neon Vincent

       And he got it from some kind soul living in a place where they built every single bit of renewables available just as fast as they could. The NIMBY, he was homeless, out on the street after his visually pleasing yet unsustainable home turf collapse under the weight of soaring energy costs.

      A microrant, of sorts :-)

    •  David, did you mean "touted by you-know-who? (0+ / 0-)

      "touted but you-know-who" doesn't make much sense to me .  And, since I am not "educated" on the subject, please spell out who "you know who" is.

    •  bucko bucks? (0+ / 0-)

      Are those anything like Buckaroo Banzai bucks?

      "beaucoup"

      We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

      by dconrad on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:16:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's a tip for you. (0+ / 0-)

      Make sure NNadir is online when you post your next diary and get him to post in your comments.  You could probably use his support.

      "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

      by Neon Vincent on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:06:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about the Florida Blackout..... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SnowCountry

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

    by murrayewv on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:46:08 PM PDT

    •  What about it? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BachFan, Stranded Wind

      It wasn't caused by nuclear power plants, it was caused by a transmission line failure. The plants did what they were supposed to do, which is to trip off line to protect itself from low voltage surges. ALL power plants trip off line when the system becomes unbalanced. You WANT the blackouts to protect the generators. It had nothing to do with the 'nuclear' aspect of the generation.

      David

  •  Actually it is UHVDC (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    BachFan, Stranded Wind

    as overviewed here (PDF).

    Looks like 880 KV UHVDC lines can half power losses on long lines for no more cost than current common 'bulk' transmission lines.  They've got a small, lower cosy tap for dropping power off a line at some intermediary point, so they don't have to be just point-to-point lines.

    BruceMcF has been promoting railroad electrification, and sharing the rail right-of-way with power transmission lines as a way of exporting "stranded power" from the Plains (wind) or Southwest (solar) to the urban areas where it is needed.

    •  Good overview. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Stranded Wind

      I recommend it. UHV stuff that I was informed of doesn't run quite that high. Wiki and the article you posted do say it's plus 800KV...the recent power gen article has it about 756.

      However those "power taps" still need inverters and they can be costly. The idea is that they tie into major tranmission substations where the inverters are located.

      David

      •  full up/down conversion is costly (0+ / 0-)

        both in equipment and land area.  The taps are noticeably cheaper, and solve the problem of dropping off a small percentage of power were it is needed.  A line from the Dakotas to the Chicago area would have full conversion stations at each end, rated at a GW or more.  A tap would let you drop off power for Thief River Falls at a much more affordable cost than building a full station.  Taps would also be needed for that rail electrification scheme.

        •  By "taps"you mean step down transformers (0+ / 0-)

          and inverters don't you? I think they would still tie into the main transmission subtations. They are designed in the first place to wheel large amounts of power from one place to another and this means "tapping" into local transmission substations which would invert the power back to AC and step it down to either area transmission voltages or distribution voltages.

          David

          •  right now this is all I can give you (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            bryfry

            VI. HVDC TAPPING
            Tapping of bulk transmission HVDC has been seen as quite costly. The reason is that using tapping stations of the same type as the main transmission inverter will cost almost the same as the full size inverter. Feeding into networks without own generation will require synchronous machines.
            However, by using Voltage Source Converters in the tapping stations much smaller stations can be built and the influence on the main transmission will be very small. There is no need of generation in the network as VSC converters create their own voltage.

            It's too late for me to be finding a upload service to stick this and more tech papers up at, but I think the point is there.

            If we ever get out of the candidate wars I've some stuff I plan to post, distribution and grids is part of that.

            •  Fascinating (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              wondering if

              I know a very narrow focus of transmission and distribution because of my job. This VSC sounds interestg. Obviously it is cheapter than a full inverter. I wonder if it works both ways? Tap INTO the DC line...make it better for smaller or larger generating stations, centralized or distributed.

              David

              •  I'm wondering the same (0+ / 0-)

                and need to do more reading - sigh

                Well, if I ever get around to writing those diaries that's one thing I'd address. But that means getting a new computer so I can collect enough documentation, and living expenses outstrip income.

  •  school me, oh great one! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wondering if, Neon Vincent

     I wish to know more about how to determine a substation's feed line characteristics via visual examination. I recently did a story on power generation in a small town ...

    http://strandedwind.org/...

     But I would very much like to be able to analyze our regional distribution system.

     I hear there are insulators, one for each 17kvolts, on the feed lines ... any truth to this?

    •  Ah sorry (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Stranded Wind

      got Bruce linked in but missed you  :-(

      Not understanding you question there.

      •  detail information on trunks & distribution (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Neon Vincent

        I wish to understand at a detailed level the power network in my area. Part of this involves being able to eyeball a substation and know what its characteristics are. There are apparently ways to look at insulators & transformers, thusly learning the voltage of the station, and perhaps there are other things to count to get an overall idea of total wattage going through a given facility.

        •  Good luck with eyeballing a xfmr to (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Neon Vincent

          determine voltage. Generally speaking...
          city substations are both transmission (115kv and above) and distribution 20 or 12kv and below. I've seen big-ass 115kv transformers that are larger than newer 350 tranformers. I've seen oil circuit breakers than are clad that appear to BE transformers but are not.

          I would talk with the utility folks at the substation and just ask.

          I can tell you the voltage (high and low sides) for every transformer where I work at, but if I go to the substation a mile away I might as well be electrically illiterate.

          David

  •  Your bit on ABWRs has many inaccuracies (0+ / 0-)

    It's puzzling that you wrote how the "Japanese and Koreans" brought their ABWRs (Advanced Boiling Water Reactors) in on time, because Korea has none of them. It's all pressurized reactors in that country, right?

    Nor did you note that the first two of those Japanese ABWRs have been shut down for nearly eight months now, with no restart date yet announced - making them far more expensive than a simple measure of construction cost indicates.

    You also overlooked that of the planned projects for ABWRs in Japan yet to start construction, several (most, even?) have been cancelled, delayed or changed to other designs.

    And finally, you made no mention of ABWRs that have not stayed on time nor on budget, like the one that was started in 1997 and is not going to be operational until 2009.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      The Koreans brought CANDUs on line under budget and at schedule, the Japanese did it the same with the two ABWRs. Sorry for the mistake. The irony is that the CANDUs are Canadian and they never brought their in close to budget.

      The two that were shutdown was because of the earthquake. Waiting for Japanese buraucracy to clear OK for start up since damange was minimal. In the mean time, tons of carbon put into the air because of the use of oil and gas. Interestingly, when they start up the two ABWRs LESS carbon will be shot into the air...can you figure out why this might be? The others that were cancelled were done so because of the general slow down of nuclear building. Nothing to write home about.

      The Japanese are going to the more advanced ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor)which evolved out of the ABWR design. And...the ABWR will be built in the US in at least two locations based on it's proven track record.

      Delays in the Japan on building nukes have to do less with the design issues than financing projects. The big delay in ALL generations in Japan was due to the collapse of the Japanese economy in...1997.

      David

    •  Hmmm.... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BachFan

      Good catch on the Koreans. You are correct there.

      Nor did you note that the first two of those Japanese ABWRs have been shut down for nearly eight months now, with no restart date yet announced - making them far more expensive than a simple measure of construction cost indicates.

      Well, those Japanese ABWR's survived a quake that leveled hundreds of homes and businesses and killed about nine people (all away from the nuclear plant). I guess you could say that those buildings that were leveled were "far more expensive than a simple measure of construction cost indicates." The additional cost comes from living in an area that is prone to earthquakes, not from the coincidence that the plant happened to have a couple of ABWR's. Let's stay honest and keep things straight.

      In fact, it is impressive that the nuclear plant weathered the quake as well as it did. What other form of generation do you think would have done a better job? Perhaps you think it would have been better if electricity had been coming from solar panels installed on the roofs of those hundreds of buildings that collapsed. Somehow, I don't think those hypothetical solar panels would be up and running eight months later.

      You also overlooked that of the planned projects for ABWRs in Japan yet to start construction, several (most, even?) have been cancelled, delayed or changed to other designs.

      So? Plans change all the time. Projects get canceled, particularly when long-term planning is involved. This phenomenon is not specific to either the ABWR or the nuclear industry (cf. coal plants, ethanol plants, wind farms, etc. -- typically only natural gas companies benefit from these changes in plans).

      The ABWR's began coming online over a decade ago. Since then, new designs have been introduced. The reactor selling business is a competitive one (e.g., four designs were bid for the new nuclear plant that is being constructed in Finland), so it's not surprising if the Japanese want to switch to a different design before construction begins.

      I fail to see your point.

      And finally, you made no mention of ABWRs that have not stayed on time nor on budget, like the one that was started in 1997 and is not going to be operational until 2009.

      Yeah, politics is a bitch, ain't it? Nevertheless, this was not in Japan, nor does this delay have anything specific to do with the ABWR. Sometimes projects get muddled up in politics and plans get delayed. Again, this is not specific to nuclear projects (can anyone say Cape Wind?).

      So, "many inaccuracies" is itself an inaccurate statement. I count one genuine mistake and a couple of trivial side points, which may or may not have anything to do with the point that the diarist is trying to make.

      Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
      -- George Eliot

      by bryfry on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So I guess this makes you a big Obama supporter? (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.counterpunch.org/...

    Another thing.  Instead of going all ballistic on anyone who dislikes nuclear power (for various legitimate reasons) why don't you simply educate people about the necessity of a base of conventional power generation (oil, gas, coal, and nuclear)since wind and solar are too intermittent to power a grid.  Most studies have found that using more than around 13% of wind on a gird actually uses more fossil or nuclear fuel since fluctuations cause traditional plants to run so much less efficiently.  Unless we have a quantum leap in battery technology we are seriously screwed and as it is peak everything (clean water, fertile soil, sea food, oil, gas, coal, AND uranium)leave us just regularly screwed anyway.

    Vent your anger on gardening activities and raising meat rabbits -- you will be healthier and happier in the long run.

    Republican't Leadership is a dangerous combination of cut-backs and incompetence.

    by casamurphy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:57:45 PM PDT

    •  Not exactly... (0+ / 0-)

      They are trying to 'smear' Obama with the pro-nuke label. Probably true...more like a slightly less anti-Nuke Clinton, I suppose. Since the US will have go nuclear to keep Democrats pledge to lower carbon emissions then Obama is trying to sneak in with vague statements about including nuclear "in the mix" as we hear from many politicians.

      I've not seen a study, honestly, that says anything more than 13% is inefficient. I've seen studies that say anything more than 20% is economically nuts because of backup power that has to be built incase the wind dies and the sun, which is available "full load" for only about 1/4 of the day, can't be cheaply stored.

      David

    •  don't need batteries (0+ / 0-)

      pumped storage, compressed air, possibly flywheels for campus size load leveling, and others all can be used to store power.  With solar there are several thermal and chemical methods of storing power, at least handling the diurnal cycle.

      As for batteries, the vanadium flow batteries look good but the plant cost may be too high.  But their ability to increase capacity by adding storage tanks, and their good handling of surge loads of many seconds duration do make them attractive.

  •  waste? (0+ / 0-)

    so where do you suggest the waste from these proposed plants spends it's halflife?

    •  My understanding is (0+ / 0-)

      Each plant would store its waste on its site. It can be reprocessed in CANDU reactors, or, once we have fusion reactors, it should be possible to process it into a much less problematic form as isotopes with much shorter half-lives. It doesn't make sense to bury it in Nevada. But I'm not an expert, and I'm still trying to learn more about the specific isotopes and reprocessing options. For instance, there's another type of reactor I've seen mentioned, but I'm not sure if it's the same as CANDU, and I've seen the term "actinide burning" used, but I'm not sure if that's different from the other methods of reprocessing I've seen discussed. It's a complex topic.

      We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

      by dconrad on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:25:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fusion is unproven (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dconrad

        so I wouldn't talk about it as a 'possibility'. Liquid Flouride Thorium Fueled Reactors are proven but are out of favor with the military-uranium industrial complext that the old AEC fossilized in place in the 1970s.

        With thorium liquid salt reactors could run on about 1 ton of natural thorium a year, produce it's own fuel and waste would be safe within 300 years...also only 1 ton of waste. Alas...

        DAvid

    •  it is important to note (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      bryfry

      that in the US roughly 95% of nuclear waste is fuel, because the US does not recycle spent fuel.  Recycle the fuel and the 5% you're left with is mostly isotopes with much shorter halflifes than the plutonium that the US currently plans to bury.

      Some fission reactors can "burn" those isotopes to stable ones(*); there is also a method using particle accelerators that I don't know the energy efficiency of - how much of the reactor's output would be needed to run the accelerator.

      * many elements commonly though of as non-radioactive have been discovered to actually be unstable - radioactive. Potassium and non-fossil carbon are well known, but there are others such as the indium in LCD displays, LEDs, and CIGS photovoltaics (Nanosolar), and the bismuth in non-lead shot and fishing weights as well as that pink stomach medicine.

      •  What you state is true. (0+ / 0-)

        The point, the distilled point anyway, is that pro-nuclear activists have solutions to the spent fuel problem.

        1. It can be burnt up in CANDUs (we'd have to build about 50 of them to do it). CANDUs can even burn up DU. Versitle little F'ers they are!
        1. We can reprocess the spent fuel about 3 or 4 times to get about half the fissionable U235 out...I suspect it would be to costly to go more than this many times on reprocessing (of course the remainder can go to point 1 above).
        1. We can use fast-breeders that can reduce the waste to almost zero and make new fuel. But fast reactors have their own set of problems that make them not good for this issue.
        1. MSR/Molten Salt Reactors of the Thorium variety. The amount of "waste" produced in one would be .1% of that of light water reactors. Instead of 300 tons of waste a year, which isn't that much anyway, LFTR would produce 1 tons a year. We can easily live with that. See: energyfromthroirum.com

        David

  •  disposing of old solar panels (0+ / 0-)

    may have its environmental problems too, if we will have billions of square feet of them.

    I think that the first generation of post-carbon energy generation has to be mostly nuclear. Electricity is a huge part of economy, and it will be bigger if we want to substitute with electricity many application of hydrocarbons like heating and transportation.  It is hard to see how we can afford to replace most of the current coal/natual gas plants with technologies that many times more expensive.  Nuclear plants can right now be cheaper than natural gas, and they should be cheaper than coal if we want to tackle global warming.

    Solar power at this moment is much more expensive and there is just not enough of the most efficient wind capacity.

    I would also advise everybody to read about havoc wrecked by biofuels, starting with the food budgets of the poor people in Asia, but also deforestation etc.

    •  One of the questions (0+ / 0-)

      that remain unanswered about solar panels is how long they will last. They are coming out with cheaper ones all the time, thin film ones, extra-efficient, etc etc. If they stop producing in 10 years...then their costs double every 10 years. this could be a problem.

      I suspect there are parts of a solar cell that can be recycled, such as the structural underlay and the frames. The actual 'cell' part are getting thinner and I suspect they will not be a big land fill problem. I also know they won't because they will never make enough of them to really dent the electrical grid enough to make a difference.

      David

  •  Amid many problems ... (0+ / 0-)

    for example ... your last paragraph, want to mention that this line is being built expressly for moving around coal-fired electricity and not, for example, nuclear power?

    •  No, its any power...anything on the market or (0+ / 0-)

      schedule to be wheeled...not necessarily coal power.

      The idea is to be able to wheel power with less line loss than is currently done with the existing HV lines. It can be used to wheel vast amounts of power up to 1500 KM cheaper than anything outthere.

      David

      •  Couple points .. (0+ / 0-)

        If we are talking about the same line, this line is specifically hooking up NVA markets with Ohio areas which are coal-fired electricity plants.

        Secondly, do you have citations re the greater efficiency of movement of power?  Again, if speaking about the same power line, I do not believe that I have ever seen Dominion Power ever mention efficiency in regards to line loss as part of their argument as to why the new transmission capacity is required.

Permalink | 42 comments