Irbis wrote:*yawn* I find the claims the nuclear power is only viable with subsidies versus... renewable power that is of course NOT relying on subsidies to be viable to be pretty funny.
I never claimed solar was currently viable without subsidies (although I have claimed it will
be), and I previously in this thread did link to the German company Manz proving my assertion
But, nuclear power doesn't have to rely on magical, nonexistent durable hydrophobic covers,
Magical non existent durable hydrophobic coatings for solar panels? Is it standard practice for you to make blatant lies to favour your nuclear fanboy position?
Here, since you're obviously too fucking lazy to Google an issue for five fucking seconds, here you go:HYBRIDSIL Solar CoatingNanoshellNanoparticle Solar Panel Coating Helps Maintain Panel Efficiency
Oh wow! Commercially available hydrophobic coatings that are completely transparent, durable, impact resistant, frost resistant, very easy to apply (Can be applied from -25 °C to +80 °C), etc.
'Magical non existent' indeed. Let me know when you start operating in the real world instead of your nuclear fantasy dream one.
does not need to be made from material five times as expensive as gold and isn't easily thwarted by bad weather or unknown, rare phenomenon known as 'late autumn/winter/early spring' period.
*yawn* I linked earlier in this thread about how actual studies of environmental effects upon solar technology are greatly exaggerated.
I'll link it again here
, although apparently you're allergic to reading unless it's about tips for improving fellatio skills for nuclear power.
Frankly, NP might save less CO2, but when you take into account huge ecological damage renewables cause with them relying on toxic materials to produce, or them turning huge areas of land into glass desert (solar), migrating fish killers (hydro) or bird grinders (wind) then nuclear with small, non emitting footprint suddenly ceases to look bad.
Yeah, because no one could have possibly dreamed up the concept of recycling solar panels!Oops! Oops again! Triple oops!
Whole industries preparing to open up for recycling, making money and dropping the costs of remaking new solar cells. Tell me, do nuclear fanboys cry radioactive tears?
You know, I'd make a bet with you that in 100 years, at opening of yet another fusion power plant, people will wonder what we saw with these idiotically damaging renewables that will be looked on with similar contempt like coal power is today, with wasting fantastical amount of rare earth resources on them being modern equivalent of trying to make perpetuum mobile, but I doubt any of us will live that long.
I'll make you a counter bet: in five years the idea of nuclear being competitive with renewables will be a laughing joke and current nuclear projects will be scrambling to determine what the fuck to do with nuclear power plants built and currently being built since they are no longer economically viable and will have no one to sell to. Never mind public opinion being even more against it because the renewable infrastructure and possibilities will be even more blindingly obvious. No one is going to willingly elect to pay more for energy from nuclear power, even if you think nuclear cock tastes simply delicious.
The only renewable that can compare with nuclear on cleanliness and small area is orbital power plant sending energy down via microwaves, but I have my doubts it will be any less expensive than nuclear. I would like it to be different, but it's and will remain pipe dream. Unlike you, I live in the shadow of dangerous renewable power (472 million cubic meters of water in river dam reservoir
threatening 8 million lives with colossal wave had it ever burst) just 30 minutes away and I would have felt much
safer if that dam was replaced by nuclear power plant. Especially seeing that salmon and other migrating fish would return to that river, dam made all these species extinct within few years.
I'm not arguing for hydro power or other renewables. As far as I'm concerned, solar will pretty much replace all other forms of power generation because it is much cheaper, more flexible, faster to implement, easily integrable with existing infrastructure, enormous public support, effectively infinite source of energy, etc, etc.
Oh how cute, I'll play! Let's see what India is doing:
Nuclear energy is expensive and unsustainable, and takes more than a decade to be fully operational. It is also high on risks. Moreover, the 20 nuclear reactors spread across the country generate hardly 60 per cent of the total installed nuclear power
Hidden subsidies have helped the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited to offer power at less than `4 per unit to the State Electricity Boards, even as the Department of Atomic Energy continues breaking promises and failing to realise targets which it set long ago. In real terms, nuclear power has become more expensive because of the inefficiency of the Department of Atomic Energy. What has gone unnoticed is the fall in the price of renewable energy, especially solar, and that too at unbelievable rates. A study reveals that nuclear power has become unsustainable, costly and risky.
“By the turn of the century, we will be generating 10,000 MW power from nuclear energy.” This was the war cry of HN Sethna and Raja Ramanna, chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission, during the 80s. From all available platforms, these top honchos of the DAE, made this declaration, and it has been parroted by their successors since then.
But, twelve years now after the turn of the century, India’s total installed capacity of nuclear power is a mere 4780 MW, less than half of what was promised by the country’s eminent nuclear scientists. The 20 nuclear reactors spread across the country generate hardly 60 per cent of the total installed nuclear power due to reasons like the shortage of uranium fuel. But the DAE is still continuing to declare that it is all set to create history. “By 2018, we will meet the 10,000 MW target and we are all set to cross the 20,000 MW mark by 2020”, Swapnesh Kumar Malhotra, official spokesman of the DAE said.
He added that the DAE could not meet the 10,000 MW mark at the turn of the century because of ‘cold shouldering’ by the Union Government. “We did not get due consideration during the Eighth Five Year Plan and that is the reason behind the failure”, Malhotra explained. The DAE spokesman said that four reactors (each of 700 MW) are under various stages of construction in Gujarat and Rajasthan. “We are sure all of them would be commissioned by 2016. The two units at Kudankulam (each of 1000 MW) which are expected to be commissioned shortly, and the 500 MW Fast Breeder Reactor coming up at Kalpakkam, would take the country’s installed nuclear power capability to 10,000 MW”, Mr Malhotra informed.
But the track record of the NPCIL is in stark contrast to what he claims. Works for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plants began in September 2001. The two units (each of 1000 MW) were scheduled to commence production in December 2007 and December 2008 respectively. Though we are nearing December 2012, there is no sign of the Kudankulam reactors coming alive. The works of the 500 MW Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam commenced in early 2005. It was announced that the reactor would commence production in early 2010. But even as 2012 will bid us goodbye in a couple of months time, the Fast Breeder Reactor is nowhere near completion. A nuclear power station takes a minimum of 10 years for completion. “The situation is no different in the US, a technologically advanced country. Here in India we can never build a reactor within eight or nine years”, GM Pillai, director general, World Institute of Sustainable Energy, a renewable energy think tank, commented.
Mr Malhotra said the FBR was getting delayed since it was being built without any foreign assistance. Interestingly, the reason for the delay in commissioning the Kudankulam reactors is that the reactors are being built with foreign assistance. One cannot blame SP Udayakumar and Pushparayan, the anti-nuclear activists, for the delay in commissioning of the reactor because the agitation by the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy got vocal only in September 2011. “Though the agitation was there since the beginning, it was peaceful in all respects”, Sam Rajappa, a veteran journalist who has been closely following the construction of the reactor since the agreement was inked between Rajiv Gandhi and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, said.
Cost overruns of the nuclear power plants is the factor worrying power managers in the country. It was declared by the DAE that the power generated at Kudankulam would be as cheap as the hydro-electric power, which is `2 per unit. “Till date the Government has spent more than `17,000 crore on the Kudankulam Power Plant. That makes it costlier than solar power”, a former nuclear scientist remarked. The amount spent on the reactors till date does not include operational and maintenance costs as well as the price of 6,000 acres of land. The scientist said that the cost of producing one MW nuclear power has become `8.50 crore ,which is unsustainable because of operational and maintenance costs. “It costs less than `9 crore to generate one MW of solar power. And remember, it is a one time investment”, Mr Pillai said.
Mr Pillai said solar power stations could be built at competitive prices if the Government reduced the lending rates. He said the Government could bring down the interest rates to 8 or 9 per cent. “We do not require zero per cent interest. We are ready to pay interest”, he said. It will be interesting to note that, according to experts, the financial loans extended to nuclear reactors do not have any interest attached to them. “We get loans at zero per cent interest," Mr Malhotra confirmed.
The latest news is that Reliance is building Asia’s largest solar power plant in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. “The 250 MW plant being built with Areva of France would be ready by late 2014. The entire project would be ready by 2014”, Mr Pillai stated.
MG Devasahayam, a former IAS officer who headed many energy utility services, is of the view that it is time for India to rework its nuclear energy options. “Eight years for building a power plant is not sustainable and economically feasible. Our nuclear engineers have failed to deliver the goods”, Mr Devasahayam remarked.
And given you're a fellow Canadian, here's a more local source on the issue:
On Oct. 26, The Windsor Star reported that all of Canada's nuclear reactors are supplying the grid. I find it interesting that it is considered newsworthy that the reactors are actually operating, reportedly for the first time all together in 20 years.
So the status of not operating is the norm, the status of actually operating is the newsworthy exception.
Let me put matters in perspective.
The article reports that New Brunswick's Point Lepreau reactor is finally operating, for the first time since March 2008 - 4-1/2 years ago. It is three years behind schedule, which means it took three times as long as planned. It had cost overruns of $1 billion, so instead of $1.4 billion as budgeted it ended up costing $2.4 billion.
The Point Lepreau nuclear generation station has a net capacity of 635 MW. That means the $2.4 billion capital spent to have 635 MW capacity calculates to a capital invest cost of $3.78 per W.
This is a way to compare the capital investment cost for different electricity generation investments, and does not yet include the annual operating cost.
The article reports that for the first time in 17 years all of the Bruce Power Tiverton reactors are operating. So for 17 long years not all were actually operating.
Bruce Power units 1 and 2 refurbishment have cost $4.9 billion, almost double what was anticipated.
It took 15 years to complete the refurbishment - 15 long non-operating years.
Unit 1 and 2 have a combined 1.5 GW capacity. Capital invest of $4.9 billion over 1.5 GW capacity means a capital invest of $3.27 per W - again not including operating costs.
Both wind and solar capital investment costs for MW size power generation plants are at or below $ 3 per W. In particular solar PV has a very strong track record of decreasing capital investment costs. Based on today's economics, the capital investment cost of solar PV and wind is already lower than the capital investment cost of nuclear power. It is a myth that nuclear power is cheap, it is more expensive than solar and wind power.
Nuclear power plants have high annual operating costs, Bruce Power reported $445 million in operating costs for the first 6 months of 2012 alone. The annual operating costs of a solar PV plant is negligible, and for wind farms is only fractions of the operating costs of nuclear plants.
Again, nuclear power is the far more expensive choice.
A MW size solar PV power plant can be developed and implemented in a few short years, versus up to 15 years for Bruce unit 1 and 2.
Multiple MW size solar power plants can be developed in parallel, in many suitable locations. In 2011, Germany alone added 5.9 GW of new solar PV generation capacity. Globally in 2011, 23.8 GW of solar PV capacity was newly installed.
Finally the article reports that mid-afternoon on Oct. 25, the hourly nuclear power generation in Ontario was 10,130 MW, or 10.13 GW.
Resource-poor Germany presently has 29 GW of total solar PV capacity installed, which will generate clean electricity depending on sun and weather conditions.
Mid-afternoon on Oct. 25, the solar PV actual hourly power contribution to the grid in Germany was 5 GW. (See this link for actual solar PV power generation in Germany: www. sma.de/en/company/pv-elec-tricity-produced-in-germany. html)
In conclusion, solar PV and wind power generation are the less expensive choices when compared to nuclear power.
I'm sure you'll make a nice effort to spin doctor this somehow into how the evil hippie solar empire is picking on poor nuclear power.
And while we're at here, here's a nice article on Tokelau to become world's first solar-powered country
Tokelau is on it's way to becoming the world's first fully solar-powered nation.
A New Zealand team has been working on the three tropical atolls that make up Tokelau and they're just about ready to start switching off the diesel generators.
The sun scorches all year round in Tokelau and now that energy will play a key part in running the island nation.
Workers from Kiwi company Powersmart Solar are just a week away from converting the atoll Fakaofo from being diesel powered to solar powered.
“It’s been quite a milestone week for us, we now have all the solar panels erected, 1584 solar modules, all the batteries are in place,” says mechanical engineer Dean Parchomchuk.
More than 4,000 solar panels on the atolls will provide electricity to the nation's 1,400 people. The $7.5 million project has been funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it is being welcomed by the Tokelau community.
“It’s going to be an amazing change from using fossil fuel,” says Tokelau energy minister Foua Toloa. “It avoids expenses, but also bringing them there, it’s dangerous and any spill will affect the environment.”
More than 2,000 barrels of diesel are used to generate electricity in Tokelau each year costing more than $1 million.
“To date they have relied on diesel fuel for all their needs, and it’s had to be imported, and they’re reliant on generators which have had a knack for breaking down,” says Mr Parchomchuk.
Speaking in New Zealand Powersmart Solar's director says the project will save money in the long run.
“We would expect this system to repay itself in five years, and have a 20 year life before it needs any sort of significant maintenance,” says director Mike Bassett.
Workers on Fakaofo will soon move on to install solar panels on the two remaining atolls, Atafu and Nukunon, and all work is expected to be completed by September.
This is obviously a small example (for some strange reason smaller examples will pop up first, go figure), so I'm sure we can greatly look forward to you borrowing creationist logic on how evolution
solar power can work on small scale, but not large scale.