Thanks to Fukushima the Germans are Returning to Coal

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Germany was going green.  Between renewables and nuclear power they were really shrinking their carbon footprint.  But then along came Fukushima.  And the melting of the core in a nuclear power plant.  Sending shockwaves throughout the world.  Causing the Germans to shut down their nuclear reactors.  Of course, that created an energy shortage in Germany.  And how did they fill it?  By building more new wind farms?  No (see Germany Is Relocating Entire Towns To Dig Up More Sweet, Sweet Coal by Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan posted 2/14/2014 on Gizmodo).

Most of us think of Germany as one of the most energy-progressive countries in the world. But in recent years, it’s also increased its dependence on a form of energy that’s anything but clean: coal. And it’s demolishing or relocating entire towns to get at it.

While Germany has some of the largest brown coal deposits on Earth, a valuable chunk of it resides underneath towns that date back to the Middle Ages. Most of these are located in the old East Germany, and in the 1930s and 40s, dozens of them were destroyed to make way for mining. The practice ended when Germany established its clear energy initiatives. But now, dirty brown coal reemerging as a cheaper option than clean energy. And the cities are in the way again.

Sunshine and wind are free.  They may be unreliable but they are free.  But to capture that energy requires an enormous and costly infrastructure.  That could still fail to produce the electric power they need when the wind doesn’t blow.  Leaving them but one option to replace those efficient nuclear power plants.  Efficient coal-fired power plants.  Which is the only option they have.  Because renewables can never provide baseload power.  The power that is always there and can be relied upon.  Like nuclear power plants.  And those big, beautiful coal-fired power plants.  Rain or shine. Night or day.  Wind or calm.  Coal is always there for us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Cairo Speech, Treaty of Rapallo, German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, and Operation Barbarossa

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2014

History 101

President Obama’s Cairo Speech of Islamist Appeasement Emboldened our Enemies

Candidate Barack Obama said during the 2008 presidential campaign that he would talk to our enemies.  Without preconditions.  He would discontinue the gunboat diplomacy of George W. Bush.  Instead he would open a dialogue with the people who wanted to kill us.  Find out why they wanted to kill us. And then resolve those issues that caused our enemies to want to kill us.  Which was the core of his foreign policy.  Being nice to our enemies to get them to like us.  And once they did they would stop killing us.

Some say this started with the Obama apology tour.  With his message of appeasement in Cairo in June 2009.  Where he told our militant Islamist foes, those people who have a tendency to kill Americans, we only want to live together in peace.  And that there is a level of conservative Islamism that was acceptable to the United States.  When the Arab Spring began in Iran (a sponsor of anti-American/Western terrorism) in June of 2009 (after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won reelection despite reported irregularities) President Obama did nothing to support the Iranian protestors.  And the enemies of the United States took notice.  The Cairo speech of appeasement.  Not condemning the Iranian election results and telling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he had to go (as he would tell Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak).  The message was clear.  America’s enemies could do whatever they wanted.  Even become a rogue nuclear power (see Iran: US and others ‘surrendered before the great Iranian nation’ in nuclear deal by Alexander Smith posted 1/14/2014 on NBC News).

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said world powers including the United States “surrendered before the great Iranian nation” in agreeing an interim nuclear deal with his country, state media reported Tuesday.

Iran reached the deal with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the U.S., Canada, Britain, China, and Russia– and non-member Germany…

Speaking to a crowd gathered in the oil-rich province of Khuzestan on Tuesday, Rouhani said: “Do you know what the Geneva agreement means? It means the big powers have surrendered before the great Iranian nation.”

Apparently appeasing our enemies only makes our enemies bolder.  And stronger.  Which is probably not a good thing.  North Korea is a rogue nuclear state.  But their need for food and energy make it unlikely that they will launch a nuclear weapon.  They have so far used the threat of doing so just to get what they desperately needed.  Food and energy.  Militant Islamists, though, want to rid the world of anyone who is not a militant Islamist.  Even if they have to die in the process.  Which they don’t mind.  Because for them this world is only the prelude for the far better afterworld.  Whereas the regime running North Korea has no desire to die.  They enjoy living in the here and now.  And know that won’t continue if they launch a nuclear weapon.

Neville Chamberlain opened a Dialogue with a Lying Adolf Hitler who lied to Chamberlain

The Allies blamed Germany for World War I.  And the Versailles Treaty made the peace following the war a difficult one for Germany.  Blame for the war, war reparations, loss of territories, emasculation (severe limits on Germany’s military strength), etc.  It did a number to German esteem.  Especially when they didn’t technically lose World War I.  The war ended in an armistice.  Where the combatants agreed to a cease fire as they were all exhausted by war.  Of course, America’s entry into the war would have most likely led to a German surrender.  For they were not yet exhausted by years of war.  And could extend the conflict indefinitely until Germany did surrender.  But that didn’t happen.  Which made for a lot of angry Germans when the Allies treated them as if they had surrendered unconditionally.  Setting the stage for an Adolf Hitler to come to power.  Which is what happened.

The war left the Germans isolated.   Russia pulled out of World War I before its completion and devolved into revolution.  Bringing the communists to power.  Replacing Russia with the Soviet Union.  These developments left them, too, isolated in the post-war world.  And then these two isolated nations found each other.  Signing the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.  Renouncing any territorial or financial claims between them from the war.  And becoming trading partners.  Among other things.  Such as using Soviet soil to rebuild German armed forces in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty.  Where they trained for armor warfare.  Built an air force.  And even developed chemical weapons.  This new eastern friendship had another shared interest.  Poland.

 

Germany and Russia lost portions of Poland following World War I.  And they wanted them back.  But Hitler tested the waters first.  To see how the war-weary allies would react.  He marched troops into the demilitarized Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty.  And the Allies did nothing.  Hitler sent an ultimatum to the Austrian chancellor to hand over power to the Austrian NSDAP (i.e., Austrian Nazi Party) or he would invade Austria.  The Austrian chancellor did.  And Hitler’s Wehrmacht marched triumphantly into Austria the following day.  And the Allies did nothing.  Then Hitler turned his eyes to Czechoslovakia.  And the Sudetenland.  Which he wanted to annex into the Third Reich.  And he was willing to do this with an armed invasion.  Something that got the war-weary Allies’ attention.  For the last thing they wanted in Europe was another war.  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler.  And opened a dialogue with him.  Finding Hitler to be a reasonable man.  And the Allies agreed to give Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Hitler.  With Czechoslovakia having little say in the matter.  But it was for the greater good.  “Peace in our time.”  And it was the last territorial acquisition he wanted.  He promised.  So Hitler got the Sudetenland.  And within 6 months Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia.  Without firing a single shot.  Because the Allies were so eager to appease Hitler that they never considered that he was lying to them.  Which he was.

The Treaty of Rapallo allowed the Nazis to build the War Machine they eventually Unleashed on the Soviet Union

With the southern border of Poland secured thanks to the Allies giving Czechoslovakia to Germany it was time to recover their lost territory in Poland.  All they needed was a little help from their new best friend.  The Soviet Union.  And it came in the form of a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.  The Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed August 23, 1939.  Promising that neither would go to war with the other.  Or ally with a nation that does.  As well as the secret agreement to invade and divide Poland.  As well as dividing up Bessarabia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, etc.  Then, on September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.  Launching World War II.  Something they couldn’t have done if it weren’t for their new best friend.  The Soviet Union.

After Poland came Norway.  Then France and the Low Countries.  The British held the Nazis off in the Battle of Britain.  Then came North Africa.  Yugoslavia.  And Greece.  Then came Operation Barbarossa.  Starting on June 22, 1941.  Something Hitler thought about since writing about it in Mein Kampf back in 1925.  Finding Lebensraum (i.e., living space) for the German people.  In particular the Bread Basket of Europe.  The Ukraine.  Which if you know your history, and your geography, was part of the Soviet Union.  Yes, that’s right.  Hitler lied to Joseph Stalin to get what he wanted.  Launching off points for the conquest of the Soviet Union.  A land he viewed as filled with sub-humans he would kill off with famine after taking their food.

The Soviet people paid a dear price for their leader’s treachery.  Enduring hell on earth on the Eastern Front.  With some 20 million dead by the time it was over.  It was these innocent Soviets who won World War II.  Who wore down the Germans with their wholesale dying.  At times 10 Soviets dying for every one German.  None of which would have happened if Stalin had read Mein Kampf.  Or if he didn’t make a pact with the Devil that led to World War II.  The secret agreements in the Treaty of Rapallo.  Letting the Nazis develop the war machine they eventually unleashed on the Soviet Union.  Which just goes to show you that you need to understand who your enemies are.  And once you do you cannot try to make nice with them.  For they will turn on you once you’ve served your useful purpose.  Just like Hitler turned on Stalin.  As Iran will turn on the United States after they served their useful purpose in getting them their nuclear weapons.  And when that time comes the cost of that war will be far greater than it would have been if it was fought before they had nuclear weapons.  With scenes from that war looking more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the hell on earth of the Eastern Front

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nuclear Power is Green but Governments prefer Wind Power because its More Costly

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

To save the world from global warming we have to go to a low-carbon energy economy.  Say goodbye to coal.  And hello to solar.  And wind (see Energy firm RWE npower axes £4bn UK windfarm amid political uncertainty by Terry Macalister posted 11/25/2013 on The Telegraph).

Britain’s green ambitions have been dealt a blow as a big six energy company has pulled the plug on one of the world’s largest offshore windfarms, with the political storm enveloping the industry threatening the multibillion-pound investments needed to meet emissions targets and head off a looming capacity crunch.

Weeks after warning that the government was treating environmental subsidies as a “political football”, the German-owned RWE npower is pulling out of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel because the economics do not stack up.

The move comes as figures show that energy firms reaped a 77% increase in profits per customer last year, due to bill increases that the big six say are partly due to government green levies…

The Renewable Energy Association (REA), which lobbies for more low-carbon power, said government infighting over subsidies was causing deep uncertainty in the industry…

“We need assurances from George Osborne in the autumn statement about where we stand,” said a spokesman for the REA. “Nick Clegg says one thing about the green levies, Michael Fallon [the energy minister] another…”

RWE indicated that the government might have to raise green subsidies – and thus increase bills or the burden on the taxpayer – after admitting that technical difficulties had pushed the price up so far that it could not be justified under the current subsidy regime.

But RWE has already pulled out of a £350m nuclear-power project, is selling its DEA North Sea oil business and last week disposed of part of its UK gas and electricity supply arm. Developers have been warning for some time that they would need more subsidies from the government if ministers were to realise low-carbon energy targets.

RWE was in partnership to build that nuclear project.  Which cost in total £696m.  Or 17% of the cost of the £4bn Atlantic Array project in the Bristol Channel.  Which they say will power one million homes.  Of course, that would be only when the wind is blowing.  But not blowing too fast.  For there is a small window for safe wind speeds these turbines can generate power at.  Giving them a low capacity factor (the amount of power they could produce over a period of time at full nameplate capacity and the actual power they produced over that period).  About 30% in Britain.  Whereas nuclear power is about 90%.  Which is why we use it for baseload power.  Because it’s always there.  Even when the wind is blowing too slow.  Or too fast.  So that Atlantic Array wasn’t going to provide reliable power for a million homes.  In fact, on a calm day it will provide no power to any home.  Which begs the question why spend £4bn for unreliable power when you can spend £696m for reliable power?

Worse, wind power requires government subsidies.  So much that companies won’t build wind farms unless they get government subsidies.  Something you don’t need to build a nuclear power plant.  And to rub salt in an open wound those subsidies are paid for with levies on the family utility bill.  Or higher taxes.  Forcing these families to get by on less.  While these green energy firms are seeing rising profits.  Because of the money the government takes from the households and gives to the green energy firms in the form of subsidies.  Which begs another question.  Why charge the British people so much more for clean energy when they can get it for far less from nuclear power?  At 17% of the cost for the Atlantic Array project?

When it comes down to it renewable energy is crony capitalism at its worst.  Huge transfers of money from the private sector to the public sector.  Where they turn around and give to their friends in green energy companies in the form of lucrative contracts and fat subsidies.  After taking some off the top for their expenses, of course.  If it wasn’t they’d be building less costly and more reliable nuclear power plants to be green.  Instead of building these green elephants all over the place.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After Fukushima Meltdown shuts down Nuclear Power Industry Japan turns to Solar Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2013

Week in Review

Japan shows how easy it is to go green after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant meltdown.  Nuclear power is unsafe.  Coal-fired power plants are too dirty.  So what to do?  Why, go solar, of course (see Kyocera launches 70-megawatt solar plant, largest in Japan by Tim Hornyak posted 11/8/2013 on CNET).

Smartphone maker Kyocera recently launched the Kagoshima Nanatsujima Mega Solar Power Plant, a 70-megawatt facility that can generate enough electricity to power about 22,000 homes.

The move comes as Japan struggles with energy sources as nuclear power plants were shut down after meltdowns hit Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima plant in 2011.

Set on Kagoshima Bay, the sprawling Nanatsujima plant commands sweeping views of Sakurajima, an active stratovolcano that soars to 3,665 feet.

It has 290,000 solar panels and takes up about 314 acres, roughly three times the total area of Vatican City.

Wow, 70 megawatts.  Sounds big, doesn’t it?  With 290,000 solar panels on 314 acres.  An installed capacity of 0.22 megawatts per acre.  It must have cost a fortune to build.  And they built it on a bay.  At sea level.  In the shadow of an active volcano.  It would be a shame if that volcano erupts and covers those solar panels in a layer of ash.  Or if another typhoon hits Japan.  An earthquake.  Or a storm surge.  For if any of these things happen those 22,000 homes will lose their electric power.

So how does this compare to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant?  Well, that plant sits on 860 acres.  And has an installed capacity of 4700 megawatts.  Or the installed capacity of 67 Kagoshima Nanatsujima Mega Solar Power Plants.  And an installed capacity of 5.47 megawatts per acre.  Which is perhaps why they built this on the bay.  Because it is such an inefficient use of real estate in a nation that has one of the highest population densities that they put it on the water.  To save the land for something that has value. 

We used the term ‘installed capacity’ for a reason.  That reason being the capacity factor.  Which is the actual amount of power produced over a given amount of time divided by the maximum amount of power that could have been produced (i.e., the installed capacity).  Nuclear plants can produce power day or night.  Covered in volcanic ash or not.  On a sunny day or when it’s pouring rain.  Which is why a nuclear power plant has a much higher capacity factor (about 90%) than a solar plant (about 15%).  So the actual power people consume from the Kagoshima Nanatsujima Mega Solar Power Plant will be far less than its 70 megawatts of installed capacity.

So in other words, solar power is not a replacement for nuclear power.  Or any other baseload power such as coal-fired power plants.  Power demand will far exceed power supply.  Leading to higher costs as they try to ration electric power.  And a lot of power outages.  Some longer than others.  Especially when powerful typhoons and/or storm surges blow in.  As they often do in the Pacific Ocean.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Japan Turning to Wind Power after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Accident in 2012

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2013

Week in Review

Japan suffered a close call in 2012.  The nuclear power plant at Fukushima survived the massive earthquake.  But the resulting tsunami led to electric problems in the backup power systems.  Which led to the core meltdown.  Something that never happened before.  And is not likely to happen again.  Because they saw what that tsunami did.  And now can prepare these plants to handle future tsunamis.  Still, the Japanese are turning their back on nuclear power.  After it served them so well all these many years (see Japan to build world’s largest offshore wind farm by Rob Gilhooly posted 1/16/2013 on New Scientist).

By 2020, the plan is to build a total of 143 wind turbines on platforms 16 kilometres off the coast of Fukushima, home to the stricken Daiichi nuclear reactor that hit the headlines in March 2011 when it was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

The wind farm, which will generate 1 gigawatt of power once completed, is part of a national plan to increase renewable energy resources following the post-tsunami shutdown of the nation’s 54 nuclear reactors. Only two have since come back online…

The first stage of the Fukushima project will be the construction of a 2-megawatt turbine, a substation and undersea cable installation. The turbine will stand 200 metres high. If successful, further turbines will be built subject to the availability of funding.

To get around the cost of anchoring the turbines to the sea bed, they will be built on buoyant steel frames which will be stabilised with ballast and anchored to the 200-metre-deep continental shelf that surrounds the Japanese coast via mooring lines…

Another contentious issue is the facility’s impact on the fishing industry, which has already been rocked by the nuclear accident. Ishihara insists it is possible to turn the farm into a “marine pasture” that would attract fish.

The earthquake didn’t hurt the Daiichi nuclear reactor.  It was the tsunami.  Which flooded the electrical gear in the basement that powered the cooling pumps.  That same tidal wave that swept whole buildings out to sea.  Which it will probably do the same to those buoyant steel frames.  Which means instead of replacing downed power lines after another tsunami they will be replacing windmills.  Making the resulting power outage longer.  And more costly.

The wind farm will not generate 1 gigawatt.  It may have the potential to generate 1 gigawatt.  But that will be only when the winds cooperate.  They have to blow hard enough to spin the windmills fast enough to produce electric power.  But not too fast that they damage the windmills.  Which typically lock down in high winds.  Providing a narrow band of winds for power generation.

Buoyant windmills and underwater power cabling in fishing waters?  Sure, that shouldn’t be a problem.  What are the odds that a boat will run into a windmill?  Or snag an underwater power cable?  The odds of that happening are probably greater than another Fukushima-like accident.  And yet they’re shutting down their nuclear power.  To use floating windmills.

Incidentally, 143 windmills at 2 megawatt each only comes to 286 megawatts.  Not 1 gigawatt.  No, to get 1 gigawatt you’ll need 500 windmills.  Three and half times more than the 143 they’re planning to build.  If the one they start with works.  And they have the money for more windmills after they install the first one.

India has more wind and solar power than anyone else.  Yet they’re adding nuclear capacity because their wind and solar just can’t meet their power needs.  The Japanese should probably reconsider their position on nuclear power.  For even though wind power is green power and it will provide a lot of jobs it will result in massive debt.  And unreliable power.  That money would probably be better spent making improvements to their nuclear power.  Such as getting electric gear out of basements.  And providing a more failsafe power source for their cooling pumps.  For their nuclear plants can survive earthquakes.  And with these improvements they’ll be able to survive a tsunami.  All while providing reliable electric power.  Something windmills just can’t do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

India leads the world in Wind and Solar Power but turns to Nuclear Power for Serious Power Generation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2013

Week in Review

By 2012 India had about 1,045 MW of solar power capacity connected to their electric grid (see Year End Review of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy posted on the Press Information Bureau, Government of India website).  Available when the sun shines.  India had about 18,320 MW of wind power capacity attached to their electric grid.  Available when the wind blows.

In July of 2012 India suffered the largest power outage in history.  Approximately 32,000 MW of generating capacity went offline.  Putting about half of India’s population of 1.22 billion into the dark.  Which her solar and wind capacity was unable to prevent.  So even though they’re expanding these generating systems guess what else they’re doing?  Here’s a hint.  You don’t need as much land to make this power.  And a little of it can create a lot more electric power than solar or wind can (see Areva says India keen to start using EPR reactor by Geert De Clercq posted 1/17/2013 on Reuters India).

Negotiations about the sale of two French nuclear reactors to India are at an advanced stage and Indian authorities are keen to start using French nuclear technology, reactor builder Areva (AREVA.PA) said on Wednesday…

The World Nuclear Association expects India’s nuclear capacity will grow fourfold to 20,000 megawatts by 2020 from just under 5,000 MW today, making it the third-biggest market after China and Russia…

The third-generation European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), conceived following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, has a double containment wall and a “core catcher” to contain core meltdown. Its 1,600 megawatt capacity is the largest on the market…

The planned site for the EPR reactors in Jaitapur – on the subcontinent’s Arabian Sea coast, 400 km south of Bombay and 230 km north of Goa – could receive up to six nuclear reactors, though at the moment only two EPRs are under consideration.

If you do the math that one site in Jaitapur will be able to produce 9,600 MW.  They’ve been building solar power for a decade or more and have only brought that capacity up to 1,045 MW.  That one nuclear power site will produce 9.2 times the power produced by all the solar power they’ve built to date.  And it doesn’t matter if it’s day or night.  That nuclear power will always be there.

To produce that additional 15,000 MW of nuclear power will only require building two nuclear sites like at Jaitapur.  To get this additional capacity they could double their wind power installations to add another 18,320 MW.  Of course if they did that power would only be available when the wind blew.  Which is why they are installing nuclear power.  Because it’s easier, less costly and more reliable.  And with good reliable power some 610 million people may avoid another power outage like that in 2012.  Or they can build more solar and wind.  And continue to set more records for power outages.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Britain will have to add New Nuclear Power Plants to their Renewable Energy Mix to meet Demand

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Coal-fired power plants produce reliable and inexpensive electric power.  But they pollute too much for those on the left.  So they want to replace them with renewable energy sources.  The leading two being solar power and wind power.  Which require a lot more infrastructure to produce the same amount of electric power.  Making these sources very, very expensive.  So no one builds these unless they are highly subsidized by the taxpayers.

But they have other problems besides their high costs.  The sun doesn’t always shine.  And the wind doesn’t always blow.  Which means you can’t replace all coal-fired power plants with these renewable sources.  You also need something that can produce electric power when the sun doesn’t shine.  And the wind doesn’t blow (see Britain to Encourage Both Nuclear and Wind Power by STANLEY REED posted 11/23/2012 on The New York Times).

The British government on Friday announced far-reaching changes in energy regulation designed to encourage development of renewable energy and nuclear power while ensuring the country could meet its electricity needs.

The changes will gradually quadruple the charges levied on consumers and businesses to help support electricity generation from low-carbon sources, to a total of about £9.8 billion, or $15.7 billion, in the 2020-21 fiscal year from £2.35 billion currently.

The government forecasts that the new price supports will add 7 percent, or about £95 a year, to the average household electricity bill. Currently, such charges add 2 percent to energy bills, or £20 a year…

Electricity generated from cleaner sources like nuclear and offshore wind is much more expensive than power generated by coal- or gas-fired plants. Companies will invest in clean energy only if given substantial incentives. The government hopes to attract £110 billion in energy investment through 2020…

Others said they were appalled by support for new nuclear installations. While nuclear plants are low carbon emitters, they bring risks of accidents as well as the unresolved problem of what to do with spent fuel.

Stephan Singer, head of energy policy in Brussels for the World Wildlife Fund, said his organization was “fundamentally opposed” to price supports for nuclear power…

Britain intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Until now, wind power has been the main beneficiary of government intervention. Now the government has come to believe that while building more nuclear plants would be costly and controversial, they will be necessary to reach emission targets.

This is the price of going green.  Higher electric bills.  And more nuclear power plants.  For there are no renewable sources that we can build that can provide baseload power.  Power that is there 24/7 regardless of time of day or weather conditions.  Hydroelectric power could but pretty much all the good rivers have already been dammed.  Which lives only one emissions-free energy source.  Nuclear power.  With all the baggage it comes with.  Safety issues.  Spent fuel issues.  Terrorist issues.  Things you don’t have to worry about with a coal-fired power plant.  That’s why they provide the majority of our electric power.  There just isn’t anything else that can do it as well.

But because a coal-fired power plant may put into the atmosphere dangerous emissions over their operating lifetime equal to a volcanic eruption or two the environmentalists won’t have them.  No.  They’d rather you have higher electric bills.  And suffer more power outages.  Of course, they may change their tune once their Internet access becomes spotty due to those power interruptions.  But until then expect higher electric bills.  To fund those new windmills and nuclear power plants.  The costly renewable energy that will replace your beloved coal-fired power plants.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Australia turns away from Nuclear Power because of Fukushima and Irrational Fear and Scaremongering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2012

Week in Review

In the war to save the world from global warming one of the first campaigns was the battle against coal.  The backbone of baseload power.  One of the most reliable means to generate electric power.  Fed by a large domestic supply of coal.  You could always count on power being there in your homes with our coal-fired power plants feeding the electric grid.  But coal had to go.  Because they were melting the Arctic ice cap.  And raising ocean levels.  Not quite like they did during the Ice Ages when glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere.  Until global warming pushed them back a couple of thousand miles or so.  At a time when only Mother Nature released the carbon boogeyman into the atmosphere.  But we ignore this historical climate record.  And only pay attention to temperature changes that suit the global warming agenda.  Because the real goal of the war to save the world from global warming is to expand government control into the private sector economy.

Australia wants to show the world that they take global warming serious.  They enacted a carbon tax.  To help fund their investment into renewable energy sources.  Which has increased the cost of electric power.  And if the carbon tax and higher utility prices weren’t enough they also are talking about raising their GST.  Of course the GST has nothing to do with climate change.  But it just goes to show that Australia is trying hard to raise tax revenue.  Which is perhaps the driving force behind their carbon tax.  Revenue.  On top of this there is a growing opposition to the only source of power generation that can duplicate what coal-fired power plants can do but without the pollution (see Meltdown fears crush case for nuclear power – Brisbane Times posted 11/11/2012 on Canberra Hub).

THE Fukushima nuclear accident has quashed consideration of nuclear power in Australia, with the government’s energy white paper arguing there is no compelling economic case for it and insufficient community acceptance…

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has said it should remain ”a live debate”. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said before he re-entered politics: ”I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously … [it] should certainly play a role in Australia’s future mix of energy sources.”

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has said it should be considered ”in the mix” and Senator Barnaby Joyce has said: ”If we are fair dinkum [i.e., truthful] about reducing carbon emissions … then uranium is where it’s going to be…”

Labor argues nuclear power is not economically necessary in Australia, since the carbon tax and the renewable energy target are already shifting power generation to renewables.

There are some fundamental truths about power generation.  Coal, natural gas, and petroleum provide reliable and abundant electric power while being safe but they pollute.  Nuclear power provides reliable electric power without any pollution but can be dangerous.  Though for the half century or so we’ve been using nuclear power the number of accidents that have claimed human lives is statistically insignificant.

There have been about 68 people killed in nuclear power accidents   If you count the future cancer deaths from the  Chernobyl accident you can raise that to about 4,000.  Fukushima in Japan claimed no lives other than one apparent heart attack someone had carrying heavy things in the aftermath of the accident.  It was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl.  But if it, too, claimed 4,000 lives in future cancer deaths that brings the total death toll from nuclear power to approximately 8,000 deaths for the half century or so we’ve been using it.  Sounds like a lot.  But you know what nuclear power is safer than?  Driving your car.  In 2010 the number of motor vehicle deaths was just over 32,000.  Again, that’s for one year.  Making nuclear power far safer than getting into your car.

The opposition to nuclear power is based on fear.  And politics.  Not the facts.  Yes, nuclear power accidents are scary.  But there are very few nuclear power accidents.  For a statistically insignificant risk of a nuclear catastrophe we’re giving up the only baseload power source than can do what coal can do.  Give us abundant and reliable electric power.  But without the pollution.  However, they oppose nuclear power.  Not because of facts but because of irrational fear and scaremongering.  And if we know they’re doing this for nuclear power can we not conclude that they’re doing the same thing in the war to save the world from global warming?  Especially considering how many thousands of miles glaciers moved long before man released any carbon into the atmosphere?  Yes.  We can believe they base their war to save the world from global warming on nothing but irrational fear and scaremongering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

France uses Renewable Energy to offset a Decline in Nuclear Power Generated Electricity

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2012

Week in Review

France may be moving ahead in renewable energies but they are only a sideshow to the major electricity producer.  Nuclear power.  In the grand scheme of things there is only one renewable energy that is a serious player.  Hydroelectric power.  Which is picking up the slack during some planned outages at their nuke plants (see French utility EDF sees profit up 4.6 percent as renewable energy offsets lower nuclear output by Associated Press posted 7/31/2012 on The Washington Post).

Electricite de France saw profits rise 4.6 percent in the first half of the year as growth in renewable energy offset lower nuclear output…

The increase in profits and sales came despite more planned outages at nuclear plants — and also unexpected extensions of those outages — this year than last. The company’s chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal said those issues should be resolved by August.

Hydropower, which struggled last year, and other renewable energies made up the difference. Excluding one-off charges, the group’s net income grew 10.3 percent.

Executives said that the group’s better-than-expected results were also due to a reduction in costs.

One would almost get the impression that the French, too, are abandoning nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources.  To save the planet.  Well, they are pursuing renewable energy sources.  But they’re not abandoning nuclear power.  Because they can’t.  Taking a look at French electricity production explains why.  (These numbers are pulled from Table 6 in The French wholesale electricity, natural gas and CO2 markets in 2010-2011 and Part V in THE FREN CH ELECTRICITY REPORT 2010).

(Note: The variation is in electricity produced.)

Nuclear power produces the majority of French electricity.  About three-quarters of it.  And they were increasing their nuclear capacity in 2010.  And of all their electricity sources nuclear power is operating nearest full capacity.  Of all the nuclear reactor capacity they installed 74% is producing electricity.

The next largest producer of electricity is hydroelectric power.  And it only produces 12.4% of all electricity.  Of all the generating capacity of hydroelectric power only 31% actually produced electricity.  So more than two thirds of hydroelectric dam capacity sat idle.  Hydroelectric power increased 9.9% in 2010 “as a result of changes in the availability of water resources and the use of reservoirs” according the French Electricity Report.  Which means hydroelectric power is only as good as the volume of water behind those dams.  And once they build those dams it’s up to the weather to snow in the winter (in places that have winters with snowfall) and rain in the the spring, summer and fall.  With more than two-thirds of installed capacity sitting idle either it hasn’t rained or snowed enough in the mountains.  Or that water is being diverted for other uses.

The next largest producer of electricity is natural gas producing 5.5% of the total.  Because of the speed they can bring a gas turbine on line we often use these to handle peaks in demand.  So they don’t run all of the time like the nuclear power plants that provide the baseload.  Based on these numbers the baseload handled the electrical demand most of the time as these gas turbines only produced at 42% of their installed capacity.

After natural gas comes coal at 3.5% of the total.  A 7.6% drop from the previous year.  With 72% of installed capacity sitting idle.  A basic shuttering of the coal industry to make way for renewable energy.

Wind power produced 1.7% of all electricity.  An increase of 22.2% from the previous year.  So they’re increasing wind power.  But it’s almost statistically insignificant.  Worse, of the installed capacity only 24% is producing electricity.  That’s because they can only produce electricity when the wind blows.  But not too fast.  Or too slow.  Only a narrow band of wind speeds can produce electricity at the same frequency (typically 50 Hertz in Europe) that matches the grid.

And solar power produced a statistically insignificant 0.1% of the electricity total.  And this is a 281.6% increase over the previous year.  But of the total installed capacity only 34% of it produced electricity.  Because it is sometimes night.  And sometimes cloudy.  Which is why it will be difficult to get a large percentage of our electricity from solar power.  The fuel may be free.  But it’s just not always there.  Also, photocells are semiconductor devices that produced low DC currents.  So you need a lot of solar arrays to produce useable power.  And additional electrical equipment to convert the DC power into AC power.  And more if you want to store power during the day to use at night.  So even though the fuel is free solar power can be very expensive.

So nuclear power isn’t going anywhere in France.  It’s too reliable.  And it’s just too prevalent.  To replace that capacity would require enormous amounts of money.  Which just isn’t that prevalent during a European sovereign debt crisis.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Those Living Closest to the Worst Nuclear Accidents still favor Nuclear Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2012

Week in Review

The ghost of Fukushima doesn’t appear to be haunting nations in the region.  Neither is the ghost of Chernobyl.  The China Syndrome is probably not being downloaded much from Netflix either.  For the people closest to the worst nuclear accidents aren’t spooked by nuclear power in the least (see Nuclear expansion in Asia on track despite Fukushima – report by Eric Onstad posted 7/26/2012n on Reuters).

Strong expansion of nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source in Asia is expected to press ahead despite the Fukushima accident in Japan that soured sentiment in some countries, a benchmark report said on Thursday…

Nuclear capacity is due to expand in East Asia by 125 percent to 185 percent by 2035, the report said. The strongest growth is expected in China, India, South Korea and Russia.

Despite their proximity to Fukushima, despite Chernobyl being the worst nuclear accident of all time, China, India, South Korea and Russia are proceeding with nuclear power.  While the U.S. pursues solar power and wind power.  The number two and number three economies in the world, China and India, are pursuing reliable nuclear power.  While the world’s number one economy, the United States, is pursuing temperamental renewable energy.  So we may see a reshuffling of the world’s top three economic powers.  As one starves itself of energy while the other two just gorge themselves on energy.  Or in other words, they have a sensible energy policy.

Energy drives the modern economy.  Reliable energy.  Countries suffering recurring blackouts don’t have strong economies.  And what energy source provides reliable energy?  Fossil fuel-powered.  Including nuclear.  We rate power generation by its capacity factor (CF).  Which is a measure of actual power produced over a period of time compared to the maximum that could have been produced over that same period.  Hydroelectric dams need rain to keep their reservoirs full.  If the rains don’t come the water isn’t there to drive their water turbines. Which gives a large hydroelectric dam a CF of about 50%.  Or less.  Wind power only works for a narrow band of wind speed.  Giving it a CF of about 30%.  And solar power only works when the sun shines.  Giving it a CF of about 15%.  The CF of fossil fuel-powered plants?  About 90%.  Or more.  Some nuclear plants can even exceed 100%.

This is why China, India, South Korea and Russia are proceeding with nuclear power.  Because it’s reliable power.  And as far as they’re concerned it’s safe power.  It’s also clean power.  So why is the U.S. pursuing wind and solar power?  Because they don’t have as sensible an energy policy as China, India, South Korea and Russia have.  Well, India is abandoning coal like the U.S. is.  But the Indians haven’t abandoned nuclear power like the Americans have.  So the Indians have an edge over the Americans in sensibility.  Even though their electric generation capacity is busting at the seams.  What with a dry rainy season hurting their hydroelectric generation and their move away from coal.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries