Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Has anyone ever done a holistic costing on it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why we should think....Part 2
- Thread starter tom.harrigan
- Start date
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Can't be done since the decommissioning and waste management invoices haven't been presented.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Just like global warming then. :roll:biffvernon said:But you don't care because you will be long dead before all the bills are paid.
Ahem, more seriously, I've never entirely understood the 'greens' dogmatic stance against nuclear power. Certainly, the waste management issue is a huge concern, but if the alternative is to continue carbonising our way towards climate disaster should it really be so easily dismissed? Deal with the problem of every major city in the world underwater within a couple of hundred years or deal the problem of managing nuclear waste?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
It's not an either or thing. Even if the safety, decommissioning, waste disposal and terrorism problems all vanished, we would still be left with the geological truth that there just isn't enough uranium in useful concentrations for nuclear to be more than a marginal energy source.
It is an expensive distraction that diverts resources away from developing truly sustainable energy supplies.
It is an expensive distraction that diverts resources away from developing truly sustainable energy supplies.
biffvernon said:For the last 70 years we have been on the upslope of the oil production curve, unconstrained by geology. This has allowed all energy costs to fall in real terms. But that is no guide to the future.
Conventional crude oil reached its maximum production in May 2005 and the peak of all liquid oils was in July 2006 at 86.13 million barrels per day. It is just possible that this peak may be slightly beaten in a couple of years with new oil fields coming on stream but with the rapid decline of several of the worlds largest mature fields this is looking increasingly unlikely. We are on a plateau and will soon be experiencing the oil depletion curve. That will be a very different world. With oil at double or treble today's price, the relative cost of pv and other sustainable electricity sources will look much more favourable.
Schemes to harvest Saharan sunshine by 2050 may appear fanciful. Technically realistic, they depend on a world economy capable of large investment surviving that long.
And all based on a simple misundertanding of oil reserve data. Have you ever wondered why the oil companies dont share these concerns?
NT
> This is currently the world's largest PV array - a 10MW installation in Germany.
>
> There's an 18MW installation planned for the Nevada desert, at a cost of USD117-million. How does that compare with, say, a nuclear cost-per-MW?
The output of the 2 is of a very different nature, such that they arent really comparable. Any functional grid of electricity generation needs a certain amount of both baseload and peaking plant - and solar PV is in a 3rd category that replaces little of either. Nuclear is baseload, pv is right at the other end of the spectrum.
> With pv you pay the price on the ticket.
plus operating and maintenance costs. But no fuel. You do need water for frequent cleaning of large areas though, out in the hottest driest regions of desert.
> With nuclear you keep paying to decommission after you've lost your revenue stream and then you pay to take care of the waste for many generations to come.
Decommissioning costs occur after a lifetime of profitable operation. Pretty good timing.
Putting waste into long term storage is an ongoing cost during generation, so is not delayed, swept under the rug or anything like that. Yes there are costs afterward, but dont confuse those with the full cost of dealing with the waste.
Also bear in mind the life expectancy of nuclear and PV are very different. If you get 25 years out of PV you've done well, whereas we can still run 1950s nuke plants.
I suspect the logical option with nuke plants may be to never clear the sites. If we wanted to use the plots of land they stand on, constructing new land along the coastline would be cheaper.
>> Has anyone ever done a holistic costing on it?
> Can't be done since the decommissioning and waste management invoices haven't been presented.
Any proposed works can be costed before the job is done, and that includes works with an element of unknown quantity. The magnitude of the unknown worries some people, but a more logical option may be to do as little as possible and decommission but leave the plants in place.
> I've never entirely understood the 'greens' dogmatic stance against nuclear power.
The one thing that could realistically get them what they want and theyre scared senseless of it, imagining the plants have the power to destroy the world.
> ... we would still be left with the geological truth that there just isn't enough uranium in useful concentrations for nuclear to be more than a marginal energy source.
Its already a major power source in major countries, including US and USSR, so I dont think it could be considered a marginal energy source.
> It is an expensive distraction that diverts resources away from developing truly sustainable energy supplies.
thats a long topic, not one I think we could do justice in this thread.
NT
>
> There's an 18MW installation planned for the Nevada desert, at a cost of USD117-million. How does that compare with, say, a nuclear cost-per-MW?
The output of the 2 is of a very different nature, such that they arent really comparable. Any functional grid of electricity generation needs a certain amount of both baseload and peaking plant - and solar PV is in a 3rd category that replaces little of either. Nuclear is baseload, pv is right at the other end of the spectrum.
> With pv you pay the price on the ticket.
plus operating and maintenance costs. But no fuel. You do need water for frequent cleaning of large areas though, out in the hottest driest regions of desert.
> With nuclear you keep paying to decommission after you've lost your revenue stream and then you pay to take care of the waste for many generations to come.
Decommissioning costs occur after a lifetime of profitable operation. Pretty good timing.
Putting waste into long term storage is an ongoing cost during generation, so is not delayed, swept under the rug or anything like that. Yes there are costs afterward, but dont confuse those with the full cost of dealing with the waste.
Also bear in mind the life expectancy of nuclear and PV are very different. If you get 25 years out of PV you've done well, whereas we can still run 1950s nuke plants.
I suspect the logical option with nuke plants may be to never clear the sites. If we wanted to use the plots of land they stand on, constructing new land along the coastline would be cheaper.
>> Has anyone ever done a holistic costing on it?
> Can't be done since the decommissioning and waste management invoices haven't been presented.
Any proposed works can be costed before the job is done, and that includes works with an element of unknown quantity. The magnitude of the unknown worries some people, but a more logical option may be to do as little as possible and decommission but leave the plants in place.
> I've never entirely understood the 'greens' dogmatic stance against nuclear power.
The one thing that could realistically get them what they want and theyre scared senseless of it, imagining the plants have the power to destroy the world.
> ... we would still be left with the geological truth that there just isn't enough uranium in useful concentrations for nuclear to be more than a marginal energy source.
Its already a major power source in major countries, including US and USSR, so I dont think it could be considered a marginal energy source.
> It is an expensive distraction that diverts resources away from developing truly sustainable energy supplies.
thats a long topic, not one I think we could do justice in this thread.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
NT said:And all based on a simple misundertanding of oil reserve data. Have you ever wondered why the oil companies dont share these concerns?
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2981The former non-executive chairman of Shell UK will issue a stark warning about the world's oil supply at a conference in Ireland later this week. Lord Oxburgh expects that global oil demand will outstrip supply within twenty years as production hits plateau, and that the oil price could hit $150 in the long term. He accuses some in the industry of having their heads "almost in the sand" about oil depletion, and concludes "we may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware".
biffvernon said:NT said:And all based on a simple misundertanding of oil reserve data. Have you ever wondered why the oil companies dont share these concerns?
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2981The former non-executive chairman of Shell UK will issue a stark warning about the world's oil supply at a conference in Ireland later this week. Lord Oxburgh expects that global oil demand will outstrip supply within twenty years as production hits plateau, and that the oil price could hit $150 in the long term. He accuses some in the industry of having their heads "almost in the sand" about oil depletion, and concludes "we may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware".
Classic. An ex employee issues a statement that justifies further price rises and gets the public used to the idea, basing it on an appeal to popular pseudoscience.
If you want to see what people think, you need to look at what they do, not what they say.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I don't think Lord Oxburgh does pseudoscience.
It's difficult for oil executives to say "we're running out of oil" until they become ex-employees, as such words might be taken as not in the best interest of shareholders.
Thierry Desmarest chief executive of the French Total has been pretty outspoken in his warnings of peak oil recently and last week John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil, Houston said, “We have seen our country pass, in my opinion, a tipping point of energy supply keeping up with demand”.
It's difficult for oil executives to say "we're running out of oil" until they become ex-employees, as such words might be taken as not in the best interest of shareholders.
Thierry Desmarest chief executive of the French Total has been pretty outspoken in his warnings of peak oil recently and last week John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil, Houston said, “We have seen our country pass, in my opinion, a tipping point of energy supply keeping up with demand”.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Just to return us to the start of part 1 of this thread, the latest report from the Snow and Ice Data Centre of Arctic sea ice has just been released at http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
If you click on the 'See high resolution image' of Figure 3 you'll get a magnificant picture of the top of the world, marking this year's ice minimum. It's a very big file so don't bother if you're not on broadband.
If you click on the 'See high resolution image' of Figure 3 you'll get a magnificant picture of the top of the world, marking this year's ice minimum. It's a very big file so don't bother if you're not on broadband.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Is that the purple bit?
8)
8)
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Still, with the Northwest passage opening up for longer periods each year, think of all the shipping fuel that will be saved
(cue song . . . )
(cue song . . . )
quote biffvernon
> I don't think Lord Oxburgh does pseudoscience.
Lots of major corps do. If its good for business, it goes. You only need look at the promotion of the chemical imbalance hypothesis, which is just as scientifically dubious today as it was when it first appeared. Sure sells pills though.
... the marketing game goes on. Look at what theyre _doing_.
NT
> I don't think Lord Oxburgh does pseudoscience.
Lots of major corps do. If its good for business, it goes. You only need look at the promotion of the chemical imbalance hypothesis, which is just as scientifically dubious today as it was when it first appeared. Sure sells pills though.
It's difficult for oil executives to say "we're running out of oil" until they become ex-employees, as such words might be taken as not in the best interest of shareholders.
Thierry Desmarest chief executive of the French Total has been pretty outspoken in his warnings of peak oil recently and last week John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil, Houston said, “We have seen our country pass, in my opinion, a tipping point of energy supply keeping up with demand”.
... the marketing game goes on. Look at what theyre _doing_.
NT