Nice Photovoltaik Peak in Germany

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chappy

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/13/54...cial-operation

I have been checking the California ISO website for evidence of this plant coming on-line. I haven't seen it. It may not be part of the general grid. I passed by the plant under construction when I went to see the annular eclipse a while back.

[chappy]

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-...-solar-panels/


http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...src=burger_bar


Of course, one of the take aways from all this is that China subsidizes the manufacture of these panels before they are even shipped. Meaning that the true cost of solar panels is even higher than Market prices would imply.

Interesting that the Cato Institute is all for Free Trade and against subsidizing American Manufacturing, but supports subsidies that help America.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by chappy

Interesting that the Cato Institute is all for Free Trade and against subsidizing American Manufacturing, but supports subsidies that help America.

If you're curious about their policy (I suspect not, but just in case), they don't think that messing with trade (subsidies, tarifs, quotas, etc.) is advisable, even if the 'other side' is doing it.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I have been checking the California ISO website for evidence of this plant coming on-line. I haven't seen it.

It looks like it has come on-line. There have been 300+ MW of peak solar thermal production in the past 4 days.

[kladner]

-by Green Energy author and activist Harvey Wasserman

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/comme...rgy-revolution

Robber Baron resistance to renewable energy has never been more fierce. The prime reason is that the Solartopian Revolution embodies the ultimate threat to the corporate utility industry and the hundreds of billions of dollars it has invested in the obsolete monopolies that define King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas).

(emphasis added.)

I am delighted with the CONG initialism. It will join my long-time favorite: SCOTUS RATS.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by kladner

-by Green Energy author and activist Harvey Wasserman

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/comme...rgy-revolution

(emphasis added.)

I am delighted with the CONG initialism. It will join my long-time favorite: SCOTUS RATS.

While the initialism is moderatly clever, what passes for facts in the article are basically a bunch of "I have no idea what I'm talking about nonsense."

For example, should there be a meltdown at either Perry or Davis Besse (an explosion of the type implied in the article is impossible unless everything we know about physics is wrong) the huge cloud of resulting radiation would devastate an area the size of...wait for it...the reactor building that the reactor is housed in. Which would then be flooded by triple redundant pumps to the brim to disperse heat buildup.

I'm all for moving forward with green energy, but recent cut-backs in Germany have proven that the photovoltaic shangri-la doesn't yet exist. And I see no mention of the $100 billion spent in Germany alone to produce less than twice the power in the entire 1013 that Davis Besse and Perry plants produced at 1/10th the cost. (and lets not forget that Germany's project is much more successful than the US's own $70 billion spent on almost nothing substantial aside from pushing tax credits out for wind generation)

I see no mention of how solar and wind generation here in the US are being retrofitted to shed power when they create grid instability, adding to the cost.

Let's be realistic in our expectations of what Renewables can achieve right now, and focus on what emerging technologies can actually make them work in the future. (see the above discussions on concentrated solar with storage, or building a high voltage DC grid, or short/long term energy storage technologies -- all of which would be a better use of effort than current projects in my opinion).

(truth in advertising: I currently work in the coal fired electric industry and previously worked in the nuclear industry--just so my biases are clear.)

[kladner]

I value your responses on this subject very highly. Wasserman is definitely an evangelist for the cause.

I would have to re-read, but my impression was that a meltdown could have happened if the containment had been eaten through by acid.

As to triple redundancy, forgive me if I am a bit cynical about such assurances. They remind me of things like blowout preventers.

I can certainly agree to a more efficient grid.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

For example, should there be a meltdown at either Perry or Davis Besse (an explosion of the type implied in the article is impossible unless everything we know about physics is wrong) the huge cloud of resulting radiation would devastate an area the size of...wait for it...the reactor building that the reactor is housed in. Which would then be flooded by triple redundant pumps to the brim to disperse heat buildup.

I'm sincerely interested in your thought on this...

Are you saying the US of A's reactors are built differently than those in Japan, which experienced catastrophic failure (and repeated radiation leakage) after an earth quake and a tsunami?

Are you saying the US of A's nuclear reactors are fool-proof, and can't leak radiation?

[ewmayer]

US has reactors [e.g. Diablo Canyon] built on/near fault lines, but how many are in flood/tsunami zones?

[I'm not saying that as a "so there" - I am sincerely interested in the answer, which may well be > 0 but which I strongly suspect is still < Japan.]

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

US has reactors [e.g. Diablo Canyon] built on/near fault lines, but how many are in flood/tsunami zones?

Well, at least one...

There is a reason power generation plants are placed near the ocean (if possible). But there is a risk associated with this.

Most inland plants need to use "Cooling towers", also known as an "Evaporative cooler". These are the hyperbolic towers so synonymous with nuclear power, but don't actually contain the core.

What we haven't yet talked about is what to do with the by-products of nuclear energy generation.

The US of A and its partners are in consternation about Iran doing work on this; meanwhile the US of A itself has lost the ability to dispose of its own waste because of a recent accident at its lone facility.

Hmmmm....

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chalsall

What we haven't yet talked about is what to do with the by-products of nuclear energy generation.

This issue is why I am firmly in the "if you're going to pursue a future including nuclear energy, you should be focusing on Thorium fuel cycle technology" camp. Produce predominantly short-half-lived waste, 0 weaponization potential [this is why the US abandoned its own R&D in this area during the cold war] and give yourself a means to "burn" existing long-lived wastes to short-lived as a byproduct of the energy generation. This has been discussed at decent length in several threads in the S&T subforum.

But that would require non-negligible amounts of vision on the part of our esteemed politicians, especially the ones taking bribes accepting campaign funding from existing heavyweights in the power-generation area.