Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Caring1]

I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.

Explain how Nuclear is cleaner overall, is that during the construction, implementation, or residual phases? (just messin with ya )

 

[twilyth]

your chart has an exponential scale btw

but yes, I agree, it is one possible approach: we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well), or we research it and give it to them for free, so we save money in the long run not having to fix the climate

Would you believe I meant log linear?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.

Solar panels are only okayish for peak power (if it is cloudy, it isn't of much use). Nuclear is excellent for base load. If you have 10 nuclear reactors, a solar power plant near a city may prevent you from needing an 11th but it cannot replace the necessity of those 10 nuclear reactors. The way grids are usually set up is like this:
Base (24/7): nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and increasingly natural gas with wind supplementing as available (natural gas fills in the gaps)
Peak (noon to 3 PM): natural gas and solar (natural gas fills in the gaps)

Solar isn't a threat to anything unless you're in a really remote place with low wind speeds (like space).


Also bare in mind that PV panels are deliberately dark in color.


The reason why nuclear fission is better than everything except nuclear fusion is because of physics. Uranium is extremely energy dense (3,359,167 times more dense than coal). When a coal plant and a nuclear plant are operating normally, the nuclear plant's only potential environmental emission is water vapor while coal vents that and much more. A single nuclear reactor can eliminate thousands of square miles worth of solar panels.

 

[twilyth]

If solar is cheap enough, all you have to do is split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen when there's no sun. That could also eliminate transmission losses. You would just pipe the hydrogen from wherever its made to where it would be burned.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you can't turn hydrogen into liquefied form, it is extremely dangerous to trap, never mind transport. Solar would never get ahead in that process and I'd argue it probably can't even get ahead producing electricity for the grid as well as breaking up water. Water is already precious in much of the world so using it for energy production away from bodies of water doesn't lead anywhere good. The only way to get ahead using hydrogen is by way of fusion.

 

[twilyth]

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive. Most current solar panels are less than 20% efficient. In fact it's probably not much better than 15% on the outside. So just doubling the efficiency w/o increasing the cost would probably make that economically feasible. In terms of transporting it, I'm sure we could find a way if there were an economic incentive.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I do believe there are about ~40% efficient panels available now. They don't change the calculus because there are severe limitations on space and time. Traditional power plants have neither of these shortfalls (or at least not to the same, massive extent).

Also bare in mind that most PV panels are black which means they provide positive feedback in terms of atmospheric warming (absorbs instead of repels). Thermo solar is greener in this regard because they are comprised of a mostly mirror surface but at a lower efficiency.

 

[Fourstaff]

Solar panels are only okayish for peak power (if it is cloudy, it isn't of much use). Nuclear is excellent for base load. If you have 10 nuclear reactors, a solar power plant near a city may prevent you from needing an 11th but it cannot replace the necessity of those 10 nuclear reactors. The way grids are usually set up is like this:
Base (24/7): nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and increasingly natural gas with wind supplementing as available (natural gas fills in the gaps)
Peak (noon to 3 PM): natural gas and solar (natural gas fills in the gaps)

Solar isn't a threat to anything unless you're in a really remote place with low wind speeds (like space).


Also bare in mind that PV panels are deliberately dark in color.


The reason why nuclear fission is better than everything except nuclear fusion is because of physics. Uranium is extremely energy dense (3,359,167 times more dense than coal). When a coal plant and a nuclear plant are operating normally, the nuclear plant's only potential environmental emission is water vapor while coal vents that and much more. A single nuclear reactor can eliminate thousands of square miles worth of solar panels.

Now then, if we make a nice band of solar cells running from Japan to Morocco we will not need to worry too much about base load, peak power, and the jazz.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[twilyth]

For cities, space might be an issue, but for most places it's not. Even at the low efficiency levels of most panels in use now, you can install enough to meet most of the needs of residence. Most of the cost comes from installing battery systems to capture excess power for later use. And the more efficient panels become, the fewer are needed. The fact that there are PV cells that exceed that level of efficiency is essentially irrelevant because they cost much more to produce - at least currently. However as the efficiency of mass produced panels reaches 25-30%, that will make a huge difference in what is possible.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

World's largest solar plant: http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project#.VN8HrDh0weM
377 MW occupying 3,500 acres

The smallest nuclear reactor that operated in the USA in 2009 was 478 MW Fort Calhoun, NE--the reactor that was surrounded by water a few years ago when the Missouri River flooded. It occupies 660 acres.

Fort Calhoun is 41 years old and should have been decommissioned a long time ago (it was retrofitted recently to fix deficiencies so it's going to be going for at least a decade more). Ivanpah, on the other hand, is brand spanking new.

Moreover, that 377 MW figure isn't in hours which doesn't figure in day cycles. NREL (company building it) claims 1,079,232 MWh/yr. Fort Calhoun, on the other hand, is good for 4,261,454 MWh/yr. More than four times the power generation per year in a five times smaller footprint. If Ivanpah weren't built in a desert and did not get a $1.6 billion federal grant, it never would have happened. Let us also not forget that Ivanpah will burn natural gas too.

Fort Calhoun can't hold a light to newer reactors.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Why is there so little mention of tidal energy ?

Renewable, clean and efficient.
Tidal lagoons are a brilliant way of storing capacity.
Sure not applicable everywhere, but none of the methods of production are.

The biggest nay sayers to this green resource strangely are the greens themselves citing resettlement of migratory birds and stupid shit like that.

The birds will move on.

We need massive govt backed incentives and innovation.
We all need to start thinking outside the box.

Oh. And dont forget cow farts. Not as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is the largest tidal generator in the world being constructed now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon_Tidal_Power_Station

This one number explains why there are so few:

The station is expected to generate up to 2.41 TWh of energy annually upon its completion in June 2017.

Compare that number (2,410,000 MWh/yr) to the two above. They're built as a seawall first and power generation is a bonus.

 

[twilyth]

World's largest solar plant: http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-project#.VN8HrDh0weM
377 MW occupying 3,500 acres

The smallest nuclear reactor that operated in the USA in 2009 was 478 MW Fort Calhoun, NE--the reactor that was surrounded by water a few years ago when the Missouri River flooded. It occupies 660 acres.

Fort Calhoun is 41 years old and should have been decommissioned a long time ago (it was retrofitted recently to fix deficiencies so it's going to be going for at least a decade more). Ivanpah, on the other hand, is brand spanking new.

Moreover, that 377 MW figure isn't in hours which doesn't figure in day cycles. NREL (company building it) claims 1,079,232 MWh/yr. Fort Calhoun, on the other hand, is good for 4,261,454 MWh/yr. More than four times the power generation per year in a five times smaller footprint. If Ivanpah weren't built in a desert and did not get a $1.6 billion federal grant, it never would have happened. Let us also not forget that Ivanpah will burn natural gas too.

Fort Calhoun can't hold a light to newer reactors.

That's a ridiculous comparison. I would hope you know the difference between PV solar and thermal solar.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Thermal has lower operational and construction costs. PV are not suitable for large scale production like you see at Ivanpah.

 

[twilyth]

Thermal has lower operational and construction costs. PV are not suitable for large scale production like you see at Ivanpah.

Yeah, and? You gave that project as an example of how much space is needed for solar. Now you're admitting that PV and thermal aren't comparable. You should try to make up your mind.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Name one grid solar power plant that uses PV then I can use that to generate a comparison. If you can't find one, my point has been adequately made.

 

[twilyth]

PSEG in my state has pv panels up on every telephone pole. I drive by hundreds of them every day. And these have been up for at least the past couple of years. There's also a multi-acre generation facility used by a local college. So I'm afraid you haven't made your point.

 

[RejZoR]

We have to use more eco approaches, but as far as I know, Earth goes through a reboot cycle regularly. It's sort of a time when things are craped and started over. On smaller or larger scale. Magentic poles shift, ice ages etc...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

PSEG in my state has pv panels up on every telephone pole. I drive by hundreds of them every day. And these have been up for at least the past couple of years. There's also a multi-acre generation facility used by a local college. So I'm afraid you haven't made your point.

I can use the multi-acre facility if you have a kWh figure for it.

 

[twilyth]

I can use the multi-acre facility if you have a kWh figure for it.

I have no idea but here is the fact page for PSEG - https://pseg.com/family/pseandg/solar4all/index.jsp

 

[FordGT90Concept]

125 MW https://pseg.com/info/media/pdf/solar4all_factsheet.pdf

They only estimate the total area of the pole panels as 140 acres which is inadequate to make broader assumptions.

Since Ivanpah is basically ideal conditions for solar energy, the ratio of MW to MWh should be about equal. I'm assuming the 125 MW figure itself already includes the efficiency improvements (if there are any). So...

Ivanpah = 3202 h/yr
PSEG = 400,309 MWh/yr

Yup, still a pittance by comparison, just more distributed which translates to less efficiency in DC -> AC conversion. Ivanpah is steam or natural gas -> AC. Which reminds me, these numbers may be way off because Ivanpah has natural gas included.


Since I did the least powerful nuclear reactor in the USA already, maybe we should take a look at the most which is at Palo Verde near Phoenix, AZ. Like Ivanpah, Palo Verde has three reactors where Ivanpah has three solar plants.
#1: 1,311 MW
#2: 1,314 MW
#3: 1,317 MW
Total capacity: 31,199,935 MWh/yr
Land: 4,000 acres

Both Ivanpah and Palo Verde are in the desert so this is a very 1:1 comparison. They even occupy about the same space (4000 vs 3500 acres). You would need 30 Ivanpahs to equal the output of this one nuclear generation facility (164 square miles). To put that into context, that is about the size of New Orleans, LA, covered in reflectors. Meanwhile, Palo Verde only occupies 6.25 square miles which is the size of a small city.

 

[twilyth]

I'm not sure what your point is. You originally invoked Ivanpah to claim that PV solar would take up too much land but much of the PSEG installation doesn't use any land since they install the panels on rooftops and on telephone poles. You can't install thermal solar that way so you can't compare the two.

How many millions of acres of roof tops do you think we have in the US? How much more electricity will be generated when the efficiency of mass produced panels goes from 10-15% to 30% or more?

Obviously nuclear has a higher energy density. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out but that was never an issue.

 

[xfia]

I put leaning no but not sure. whatever label they want to put on it makes no difference to me. 7 billion people, carbon emissions.. and all that affect the planet. the past 200 years did some damage.. nearly a blink of an eye in the life of the earth yet the future can be painted grim.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Solar is sad, unless you're in space. Doesn't matter if it comes from PV or thermal, the end numbers paint the same picture: you need a lot of surface area to generate a noteworthy amount of power.

You can't install thermal solar that way so you can't compare the two.

Actually, you can. Make a parabolic dish, stick a metal can on it with a pipe running two and fro with a pump and a simple steam turbine, generator, and conendsor set up and you got yourself a miniature solar thermal power plant. Not as practical as PV for that kind of application but it works.

How many millions of acres of roof tops do you think we have in the US? How much more electricity will be generated when the efficiency of mass produced panels goes from 10-15% to 30% or more?

Around here they'd either be covered in leaves, dust, or snow for half of the year. Their efficiency is also diminished for two reasons: 1) doesn't track the sun greatly diminishing their energy potential; 2) they have to use means of converting DC to AC that are far less efficient than that of solar thermal. I would also be doing a grave injustice if I failed to convey the fact you're talking about a lot of hidden construction and waste costs as well as the fact PV cells lose output capacity often before the initial investment is paid off. Or how about the fact that solar gets the largest subsidies in the world for energy in an effort to make it look like it costs less.

Even if they reached 70% efficiency at the panel (which will never happen anyway) and completely excluding the conversion deficits down the line to make it usable, you're still only working with a few hundred watts per meter squared at most. The only way to increase that is to put the panel in space and it still possesses very finite limitations.

The bottom line is it is a specialized source of energy for specialized uses. It isn't suitable for powering the masses. The proof is in the numbers: as of 2013, solar comprised of 0.23% of the total power produced in the USA. Geothermal is almost double that. Solar is a hype train with with a 1 cylinder moped engine. Yes, yes, the future! The future is fusion, not solar. Any dollar that is spent on solar that isn't going to fusion is a wasted dollar. Think Solyndra. Think those massive subsidies. Think Department of Energy hardly investing anything in fusion. It's backwards thinking just like the moratorium on fission was. Shooting ourselves in the foot once apparently wasn't enough.