$14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide

[george80]

The numbers are stacked against you.

With 700+ Coal stations under construction or approved to be constructed around the world tight now  and about 25 for Nuke, the numbers are anything but stacked against me.

People go on and on about nuke being safer but I can give you names of people killed by it but no one can give me the name of anyone killed by coal.

There is very little I back the greenwashed on but fortunately most of them are still against Nukes and for that they have my complete support.

[nctnico]

People go on and on about nuke being safer but I can give you names of people killed by it but no one can give me the name of anyone killed by coal.

You make my point exactly. So many people get killed by coal (just like in car accidents) that nobody cares anymore about who they where.

[george80]

Ain't gunna happen anytime soon.

The world is fully geared to use fossil fuels especially hydrocarbon based fuels due to their efficiency.
Supplement maybe but replace, not in my or my childrens lifetime.

Exactly.
No matter how much they rabble on about it and jump up and down about C02, Big biz is not going to throw away billions in infrastructure simply to accommodate some ideal..... UNLESS it's profitable. Until the world runs out of FF, they will be doing all they can to keep using it so they don't have to build their infrastructures they have over the last 100 years again.

The reality is that it is recognised right NOW unreliables CANNOT power the planet but the fairy dust believers needing a cause to champion keep ignoring that.  The fact gubbermints recognise this, already means the clock is ticking on the whole scam the same as when when cigarette companies who were in denial till they could be no longer, this unreliables thing will be exposed and the fraud it is. 

As you say and I have said all along, Supplemental, great. Put panels on all the rooftops so the power stations can be wound back and make practical and effective savings there if you want but having unreliables as the main power source, Not in the lifetime of anyone on the planet right now that's for sure. I still don't get why the greenwashed are in favour of destroying environments and landscapes with Vast solar farms instead of putting panels on rooftops here the power can be used without the further blight and cost of transmitting  the power hundereds or thousands of KM?.


I have to laugh at all this simplistic crap about how much land panels would take to power the world.
It's exactly like claiming you can run a car on water. Sure you can but the problems, inefficiency and cost and everything else makes it IMPRACTICAL to do so.

The people going on about this panel area are purposefully being ignorant to the problems  and logistics of distribution of the power and also the storage.  While I think some are talking about representative areas needed, some seem to actually think there can be one central area like a dessert that can supply all the power needed to the world.
They also base their calculations on the most perfect areas like Desserts and Places like Oz ignoring all the vast areas of europe where land is at a premium and due to the weather conditions would take  at least 6x more panels to generate a given amount of power in the ideal sunny areas. No point glossing the numbers over and quoting average sunlight radiation, the only way to plan is for the LOWEST overcast winters days because there is no way to store enough power for a country or a continent especially for a day let alone a week.

IF people want to play the area game, they should do it country by country taking into account their power needs, weather conditions, allowing to have adequate generation in winter which means another 6-20 times increase over summer insolation and then work out where all these panels could be put to provide power for that region.  Not a lot of Desserts and suitable waste land in Europe to put even 50 Sq Km of panels which would need to be one of many such blights on the landscape and environment to provide the needed all year round power. Base the solar generation area based on insolation of a dessert and put that in Europe and you are going to have a LOT of people freezing to death in winter....  or forgetting all about electric and going to fossil fuel defeating the purpose of the whole stupid suggestion in the first place.

[george80]

You make my point exactly. So many people get killed by coal (just like in car accidents) that nobody cares anymore about who they where.

How many people in your country or any other have Cause of Death: "Coal power plant emissions"  or anything mentioning coal ( unless they were miners) listed on their death certificates?

None.

Yet we are supposed to believe hundreds of thousands die from it every year??




 

[apis]

Here's a recent one (11/11/2017) that killed more people than Chernobyl:

Officials in India say the the death toll from the November 1 explosion at an NTPC thermal plant in Unchahar has risen to 43, with seven more deaths reported in the past week. Dozens of workers at the plant were injured when flue gases and steam were released from a 500-MW coal-fired unit at the plant during a maintenance operation. Several workers remain hospitalized, many with severe burns, according to local officials, who late November 10 said at least eight of the injured are in “very critical” condition.

https://www.powermag.com/death-toll-rises-to-43-in-wake-of-india-coal-plant-blast/

The Nov. 1 accident at the 1,550-megawatt coal-fired power station in Unchahar in northern India killed 45 people and left survivors with severe burns.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-ntpc-blast/delay-in-shutting-down-ntpc-power-plant-led-to-deadly-blast-in-india-probe-idUSKBN1KD1FJ

How many people in your country or any other have Cause of Death: "Coal power plant emissions"  or anything mentioning coal ( unless they were miners) listed on their death certificates?

Then please explain why coal miners lives doesn't matter?

Thousands of miners die from mining accidents each year, especially from underground coal mining, although hard rock mining is not immune from accidents. Coal mining is considered much more hazardous than hard rock mining due to flat-lying rock strata, generally incompetent rock, the presence of methane gas, and coal dust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident

Two recent coal mine disasters in the USA:

The Upper Big Branch Mine disaster occurred on April 5, 2010 roughly 1,000 feet (300 m) underground in Raleigh County, West Virginia at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch coal mine located in Montcoal. Twenty-nine out of thirty-one miners at the site were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster

During 2006, 72 miners lost their lives at work, 47 by coal mining. The majority of these fatalities occurred in Kentucky and West Virginia, including the Sago Mine Disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident

Lets see, 47 + 29 = 76 deaths directly related to coal in the US, recently. Those two accidents are sadly a drop in the ocean and it's already more people killed than the number of people who died during the Chernobyl accident:

Death(s)   
    31 (direct)
    15 (estimated indirect deaths up to 2011)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Yet we are supposed to believe hundreds of thousands die from it every year??

It's the sad reality:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4c552b5c709b
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

The triumph of coal marketing

https://seths.blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing/

[george80]

Here's a recent one (11/11/2017) that killed more people than Chernobyl:

Chernobyl killed THOUSANDS. That's fact which is well known and to deny that is typical of the lefty greens and Nuke advocates that will say anything in order to push their flawed agendas.

Of course to further spin doctor things you have changed the subject from emissions of power stations to accidents both in power stations and mining accidents.

So completely typical  . Facts don't support the fairy tale so just make up complete bullshit and pretend it's fact. 

[apis]

I'm starting to think you are beyond help.

Make up your mind. Should we include the estimates of people who die prematurely because of pollution or only those who can be linked directly to an accident?

You asked if there were any deaths directly linked to coal, and there are thousands, many every year. I compared that to how many have died in accidents directly linked to civilian nuclear power since it was invented, which is 31 from Chernobyl (1 from Fukushima).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

If you want to include those who are estimated to die prematurely because of pollution, then:

• Air pollution from coal power plants kill about one million every year globally, a hundred thousand every year in the USA.
  
• Pollution from Chernobyl is estimated by some (iaea) to have killed about 4000, others say 30000. Fukushima is less severe, but for arguments sake, say it killed just as many. So since nuclear power was invented 80 years ago nuclear has killed at most 60000 prematurely.

Every year air pollution from coal kills more people than civilian nuclear have since it's invention.

For references, see the previous post.

[george80]

I'm starting to think you are beyond help.

I am! If you think parroting  estimates of the number of deaths from Coal when there is NO FACTUAL ( Read that again, FACTUAL) numbers to support this, is going to win me over, you are very wrong.

Been through this already so if you want to argue this artificial deaths from coal, address what I have already point out a page or 2 back or show PROOF ( not figures plucked out the air and guesstimates by vested interests) of those numbers.

If there were a million people dying a year from coal there would be loads of information that directly pointed to this from all round the world. There would be a name for dying this way and it would be on death certificates.

All this million a year rubbish is nothing more than guess work and could have been attributable at very least in part to a whole range of other things.

Point out the facts not the bullshit if you want to be believed because repeating the same baseless bullshit isn't going to make it true no matter how much you want it to support your make believe ideals.

[paulca]

I am! If you think parroting  estimates of the number of deaths from Coal when there is NO FACTUAL ( Read that again, FACTUAL) numbers to support this, is going to win me over, you are very wrong.

Ok.  If we remove the estimated deaths from coal, oil, gas, let's also remove the estimated deaths from nuclear shall we?

Excluding those resulting from the USA barbaric behaviour at the end of WWII, it stands at around 200.  Some figures suggest even lower.  Your turn.

I agree BTW on current reactor tech, which is basically 1950s US Navy tech.  It doesn't mean there are not better solutions with less waste and designed fail safe.  However I think we need to really man up and consider that we will need nuclear and soon.

I'll also leave this here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-150d11df-c541-44a9-9332-560a19828c47

[nctnico]

You make my point exactly. So many people get killed by coal (just like in car accidents) that nobody cares anymore about who they where.

How many people in your country or any other have Cause of Death: "Coal power plant emissions"  or anything mentioning coal ( unless they were miners) listed on their death certificates?

Thousands in one incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
And similar events have happened all around the world.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But nowadays nothing like that happens anymore.

[bd139]

Most of that happened because smoking was cool then. Lots of people were on the verge of emphysema and had other respiratory problems from living in damp accommodation.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Blame Philip Morris.

[nctnico]

But nowadays nothing like that happens anymore.

I'm not so sure. Look at China.

[apis]

I am! If you think parroting  estimates of the number of deaths from Coal when there is NO FACTUAL ( Read that again, FACTUAL) numbers to support this, is going to win me over, you are very wrong.

Of course it's factual, you have been provided with lots of sources that link to scientific studies you just choose to ignore them. The estimates with regard to air pollution from coal are much better supported by scientific evidence than the estimated deaths from pollution from nuclear accidents. If you look at estimated deaths, coal is far far worse. If you look at deaths directly linked to accidents, coal is far far worse. No matter how you try and twist it, coal is far far worse.

[george80]

 The estimates with regard to air pollution from coal are much better supported by scientific evidence than the estimated deaths from pollution from nuclear accidents.

So show me the scientific evidence that backs up the estimates for coal deaths.

have you or anyone here EVER heard of anyone say " They died from coal power plant Emmisions"? or anything related directly to coal fired power plant EMISSIONS ( not coal mining ) .

Af coal power plant emissions kill so many, everyone must have known of someone killed from coal power plant emissions.

Fortunately, there is no such thing in the real world only made up " Estimates" it the green world.

Again, if you think i'm wrong, whats the word Term for dying from coal power station emissions?

[apis]

I have shown you many times but you just ignore it. Go back and check the previous few posts. Or do some research on your own it's not that hard to find.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Good. So far we've seen that if we were to put the PVs in the best possible place, the Sahara, where there's the most insolation all the days all the year, to generate 170e3 TWh/y we'd need 1.7e6 km².

That's 170e15 Wh / (365*24 h) / (1.7e6*1000*1000 m²) = 11.5 W/m²

Put the PVs anywhere else, as in roofs scattered all around the world, as george80 would like, and get less than that. Compare with this:

Fukushima Daiichi 4.7 GW, 350 ha => 1342 W/m²
Fukushima Daini 4.4 GW, 150 ha => 2933 W/m²
Almaraz 2.1 GW, 50 ha => 4200 W/m²

To use your (750W) microwave oven you can choose between 0.26 m² of nuclear, or 65 m² of PVs.

How much would that cost?

This is the entire worlds energy consumption we are talking about, so it's naturally very large figures.

Ok, but let's try to figure out.

Here it says $2.7 per watt of PV installed (2018): https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/much-cost-go-solar-money-go/

And here it says $2000/kW nuclear (2016): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

That's $2700/kW PV versus $2000/kW nuclear, but to generate the same energy we need about 3 times more PV power because PVs only generate 1/3 of a day. So 3*(2700/2000) = 4.

PVs are 4x times more expensive, and need 250x more land.

[mtdoc]

You make my point exactly. So many people get killed by coal (just like in car accidents) that nobody cares anymore about who they where.

How many people in your country or any other have Cause of Death: "Coal power plant emissions"  or anything mentioning coal ( unless they were miners) listed on their death certificates?

None.

Yet we are supposed to believe hundreds of thousands die from it every

Ignorant nonsense comment,

As someone who fills out the cause of death sections of death certificates - it doesn’t work that way. You cannot list coal plant emissions, air pollution, etc.  You must put the physiologic cause such as lung cancer,  COPD, asthma exacerbation, etc, etc.   It’s  the same for many things which are the ultimate (but not proximal) cause of death. You can’t list tornado, tsunami, earthquake, flood, bridge collapse, nuclear reactor containment breach etc, etc either. 

[boffin]

Good. So far we've seen that if we were to put the PVs in the best possible place, the Sahara, where there's the most insolation all the days all the year, to generate 170e3 TWh/y we'd need 1.7e6 km².
Fukushima Daiichi 4.7 GW, 350 ha => 1342 W/m²
...

again, you're off by a factor of 100 or so.

That facility occupies 371km2 (37,100 ha) of land which is useless for anything now due to the exclusion zone,
so even if it was still operating, it would mean an amazingly pitful 12W/sqm

[apis]

Here it says $2.7 per watt of PV installed (2018): https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/much-cost-go-solar-money-go/

And here it says $2000/kW nuclear (2016): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

That's $2700/kW PV versus $2000/kW nuclear, but to generate the same energy we need about 3 times more PV power because PVs only generate 1/3 of a day. So 3*(2700/2000) = 4.

PVs are 4x times more expensive, and need 250x more land.

As long as the world stop burning stuff for energy, especially fossil fuels, I'm happy. What is happening now though is that instead of shutting down coal people shut down nuclear and replace it with solar panels or wind. That doesn't help with either greenhouse gas emissions nor pollution and is basically a pointless waste of money. Eventually they will reach a point when there isn't enough storage capacity in the grid and they will realise they can't just add more solar panels. And then we will be stuck with solar panels and coal/gas without having achieved anything except wasting a lot of money.

It's really hard to estimate the true cost of these things though. If you want to do it properly you can't only look at the installation cost. You have to look at the entire lifetime including maintenance and decommissioning/recycling and all the externalises like cost of cleanup after an accident, the need for grid storage, the healthcare costs due to pollution, etc. The market is so heavily lobbied, regulated, subsidised (out of necessity) that the market prices isn't going to accurately reflect the true costs, and the production capacity is limited. The countries with nuclear power in EU have the lowest electricity prices though and I don't think that's a coincidence.

[apis]

Good. So far we've seen that if we were to put the PVs in the best possible place, the Sahara, where there's the most insolation all the days all the year, to generate 170e3 TWh/y we'd need 1.7e6 km².
Fukushima Daiichi 4.7 GW, 350 ha => 1342 W/m²
...

again, you're off by a factor of 100 or so.

That facility occupies 371km2 (37,100 ha) of land which is useless for anything now due to the exclusion zone,
so even if it was still operating, it would mean an amazingly pitful 12W/sqm

Sorry, I first thought you meant the area around normal nuclear reactors. There is usually a safety zone around a nuclear power plant, but it can be used for e.g. farming or solar panels.

The chernobyl exclusion zone is a thriving wild life habitat now and there are people living there that never left. It's not so black and white. And it's unfair to base calculations on the worst accidents only. We should use the average per unit energy.

Now that I think about it, you could put solar panels in the exclusion zone as well.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I don't like solar farms, the bigger they are, the less I like them. And now that I think about it... in the desert there are huge dunes! What happens with that? Sand and wind can't be good for the panels. I also prefer to see a desert than millions of rows of PVs.

[splin]

A big problem for PV in deserts is lack of water for cleaning them. In sandy deserts blowing sand will likely bury PV farms within a few years (as per Opportunity on Mars) and/or scour the glass seriously reducing output.

Another big problem is that huge PV farms in Africa or the Midle East would be an easy and attractive target for terrorists especially so if Europe was heavily dependant on that electricity. One very cheap bullet is enough to destroy one or more expensive panels. Just image how much fun Al Quaeda or similar could have machine gunning PV panels from the back of a Landcruiser. How many millions or tens of millions of dollars of infidel Western assets could be destroyed by a two man team in a day?

They would be virtually impossible to protect and why I believe (I don't know, just hypothesising) the Desertec proposals were abandonded and are unlikely ever to be implemented on a significant scale. If the electricity were used locally (as in Saudi) there would be much more incentive for the local governments to provide security. It might also reduce the vulnerability to attack in the first place but there seem to be no shortage of people willing to destroy anything related to the West or even representing modern living. And going to shoot up PV farms may simply be seen as good weapons training for new recruits or good sport for long range sniper practice.

[george80]

You cannot list coal plant emissions, air pollution, etc.  You must put the physiologic cause such as lung cancer,  COPD, asthma exacerbation, etc, etc. 

Yep.

So how do you define  the cause of lung cancer coming from Power station emissions and  not from the guy smoking 20 years ago or working in a factory where  there was some sort of toxic dust or whatever?

If one says that a million people a year die from coal plant emissions, how can you medically identify that to count it rather than just making guesses?   What else would give the same conditions and  coal plant emissions?

Sitting in traffic for years and years, Living in dusty environments, working in certain environments where there was say wood working or metal working, concrete plant....

What I am saying is to assign all these deaths to coal is just a guess and there are a Loads of other things that could also cuase the same condidions so how do we scientifically know which cause was what?

Unless you do, these greenwashed claims are all just complete and utter bullshit.
If you can't define them specifically then you are just guessing and like everything that comes from the green or nuke sides, You know it's going to be complete and utter bullshit and garbage..... like everything else we know they incessantly lie about.

Anyway, at the end of the day, Nuke is fked.  The public opinion against it, the costs, build times and risks mean very few places will entertain the idea of building new reactors as the numbers of Nuke Vs. coal plants under construction show.