Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

Expand Messages
  • Robert Johnston
    I wish we had a rebate like that here in the Houston area! Robert From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet Sent:
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      I wish we had a rebate like that here in the Houston area!

       

      Robert

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Janet
      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:27 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

       

      ummm I think you're right RJ. I read something into Jays post that was not the point. The issue of embodied energy has, for a long time, been a sore point with the PV industry. It used to be valid criticism but no more. Technology developed for the integrated circuit business, and adopted by the PV industry, has seen to that.

      As for the cost payback, it's high. But don't forget that on Jan 1 the residential PV 30% federal tax credit will begin.  That will take a chunk out of the installed cost.

      And up here in N. Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery (of all people) will begin a $2.46 PV rebate in November. That should work out to around another 25-30%.

      I have a cost calculator on my www site that will show the cost of a PV system per kilowatt hour. It also shows the length of time until the PV power is cheaper than utility power. http://www.ntrei.com/cost.html

      Jim


      ----- Original Message -----

      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:06 PM

      Subject: [SPAM] RE: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

       

      I may have missed something since I’m only loosely following this topic, but are you guys talking apples and oranges?  It looks to me like Jim Duncan is talking about “energy payback” (using terms like “embodied energy”) while Jay Ring is talking about “financial payback”.  If so, they you will never agree!  I think you need to get on the same page before the discussion can continue.

      That said, I would think that in the end, embodied energy should be reflected in the price as a first approximation.  If nuclear power costs so much less to purchase ($/kwh) than solar, then I would think that must reflect a lower embodied energy.  I have no data to back that up…just speculation.  I suppose it depends partly on how you count the energy payback period for fuel (uranium) which is a nonrenewable resource (barring use of breeder reactors).  But if the embodied cost were a factor of 8-15x that of solar, I don’t see how it could be offered so inexpensively.  Government subsidies aren’t THAT big!


      Robert Johnston

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

      I don't like my new role as "Mr Grim Reality"! I'm not going to keep
      doing it either :) So this will likely be one of my last posts on
      this topic -

      But Thin-File tech? Does your company recommend or even sell that
      stuff? Could you get your hands on it even if you wanted to?

      It seems like wishful thinking to me. I'll grant you "forward
      thinking". Maybe it is the way of the future - but that's my point -
      we're talking about the future.

      Meanwhile, waaaay back in the stone ages of late 2008 (today) - what
      does a 4kw system cost, and what is the payback on it? Someone should
      check my math, but:

      4 kW DC (installed PV)
      85% system efficiency

      3.4 kW AC (available)

      Houston is about 4.8 mean solar hours per day:
      4.8 SH * 3.4WK = 16.32 kWH/day, 489.6kWH / month, or 5956.8 kWH/year

      Market rate in my area is currently about $0.14 / kWH, So the value of
      the electricity is about $833.95/year

      Your own company, North Texas Renewable Energy, quotes on their
      homepage an approximate cost of $8000 per installed KW, which is
      maybe a little high, but about in line with other companies. So you
      guys charge about $32000 for this system.

      $32,000 / $833.95

      38 years.

      Q.E.D.

      BTW - I am still going to get one :)

      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years,
      then it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor
      of 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years....
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > The "payback" period for solar PV of 15 years is way old news.
      > According to Justine Sanchez in her Home Power article (issue 127,
      Oct-Nov 2008)
      http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP127_pg32_Sanchez the Embodied
      Energy, the correct term, in solar photovoltaic module production is
      one to two years. Thin-film technology will generate significantly
      lower embodied energy, while the more energy intensive
      mono-crystalline manufacturing process doubles the energy involved.
      > The article updates a Dec 2000 HP article that illustrates the
      payback is 2.9- 6.5 years. *
      > The analysis includes not just the electricity used in the
      manufacturing process. Along with aluminum and glass making, the study
      includes the minor processes and chemicals for cleaning, etching etc,
      and wire for slicing silicon ingots into cells is also factored in.
      > Losses from inverter inefficiencies, wire (voltage) losses dirty
      modules on your roof will add up to approximately 20% kilowatt hour
      output loss from the finished grid-active installation. These losses
      are not considered a part of the embodied energy since they vary
      depending on the quality and efficacy of the installation.
      > I seriously doubt that the process of generating nuclear powered
      electricity, starting at the mineshaft through to the electric grid
      can come close to matching the efficiency of PV. I doubt that any
      construction process that can take a decade to complete, that contains
      hundreds of tons of steel and thousands of cubic yards of cement can
      claim any payback at all.
      > We welcome any rebuttal with references.
      > Jim Duncan
      > North Texas Renewable Energy Inc
      > 4029 Aragon Drive
      > Fort Worth, Texas 76133
      > 817.917.0527
      > ntrei@...
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > * Authors: Karl E. Knapp, Ph.D., Energy & Environmental Economics,
      Inc., 353 Sacramento St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111 .
      415-391-5100
      > Fax: 415-391-6500 . karl@... www.ethree.com
      >
      > Theresa L. Jester, Siemens Solar Industries, 4650 Adohr Ln.,
      Camarillo, CA 93011 . 805-388-6500 Fax: 805-388-6557 .
      terry.jester@... www.solar.siemens.com
      >
      > For further reading:
      >
      > Alsema, E.A., Energy Requirements of Thin-Film Solar Modules, A
      Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v2, 387-415, 1998.
      >
      > Fthenakis, V., K. Zweibel, and P. Moskowitz, ed., Photovoltaics and
      the Environment 1998, BNL/NREL, July 23-24, 1998, Keystone, CO,
      BNL-52557, Feb.1999
      >
      > K. Knapp and T. Jester, An Empirical Perspective on the Energy
      Payback Time for Photovoltaic Modules, Solar 2000: ASES Annual
      Conference, June 16-21, 2000, Madison, Wisconsin, American Solar
      Energy Society
      >
      > www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf K. Knapp, T. Jester,
      and G. Mihalik, Energy Balances for Photovoltaic Modules: Status and
      Prospects, 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, September
      17-22, 2000, Anchorage, Alaska www.solarpv.com/paybackstudy.pdf
      >
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Jay Ring
      > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:09 AM
      > Subject: [SPAM] [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
      >
      >
      > Unfortunately I have limited time (don't we all), so I can't give you
      > the full length answer I would like to (and you deserve) But, very
      > very briefly:
      >
      > Susan,
      >
      > No offense taken :) I said "coal", not "oil" but to a lesser extent
      > it applies to oil too.
      >
      > Q: what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels?
      > A: It is a substitute for them
      >
      > Q: How?
      > A: Coal is a fossil fuel
      >
      > Q: But they (oil and energy) are seperate crises, are they not?
      > A: Not really, particularly with the coming of Plug in electric
      vehicles.
      >
      > The "cost economy" (as opposed to fuel economy) of a plug-in electric
      > is going to be related to the price of gas and the price of
      > electricity. The more expensive gas is, the more attractive the
      > hybrid is. The cheaper electricity is, the more attractive the hybrid
      > is. Cheap and plentiful electricity, which nuclear can provide, makes
      > burning oil seem expensive and thus hastens the development away from
      > these sources.
      >
      > Returning to the previous point - it's not just cars, in fact it's not
      > even mainly cars, it's electricity for your home and office, plus the
      > factories that produce the things you buy.
      >
      > Jim,
      >
      > I am not sure what point you are driving at with the the power
      > statistics you posted :) Sorry! What is popular is not always right,
      > and what is profitable is not always right either.
      >
      > The cost-effectiveness of of nuclear depends on the cost of it's
      > competitors. When that competitor is coal, nuclear, solar, and wind
      > ALL lose out. If you eliminate coal, nuclear is the cheapest of the
      > remaining options. If you don't eliminate coal - then coal wins every
      > time and the rest can go home and cry. They all need subsidies if
      > they are to compete with coal. That doesn't make them bad!
      > Optionally, you can tax the emissions of coal instead, which achieves
      > the same goal.
      >
      > We are all familiar with the massive subsidies we get on solar. I for
      > one am excited about the elimination of the cap! The fact that
      > nuclear requires them too (and then actually -does- compete with coal)
      > seems like a moot point.
      >
      > Finally, nuclear energy's output would not be stagnant if we could get
      > some new construction approved. Without new construction, I don't see
      > how they could possibly rise - so I guess I don't see the relevance.
      >
      > Kevin,
      >
      > I am actually an electrical engineer, not a nuclear :) I am
      > significantly more familiar with how solar panels are made than I am
      > with refining and enriching uranium. I do have a passing knowledge
      > though.
      >
      > I will say that enriching electronics grade silicon is no small task
      > and our current method involves tremendous energy - google for "float
      > zone processing" for some idea.
      >
      > If a nuclear power plant is really paying for itself in 8 years, then
      > it's beating current residential solar installs by about a factor of
      > 2, which are optimistically paying for themselves in 15 years.
      >
      > I wish I could put better numbers together for you, but typically cost
      > (in money) is at least roughly in line with the "true" costs. Since
      > neither generates negative externalities, I'd say you can use the
      > total payback period as a rough indicator.
      >
      > I wouldn't normally reply with such a worthless "no real data"
      > response, except that I wanted to respond to something you raised
      > earlier in your message: "I also understand that only a fraction of
      > the stored energy is used, and the rods are not reprocessed to capture
      > this lost energy."
      >
      > It is true that we don't recycle the spent rods. This is by federal
      > law. I believe congress should immediately repeal this law - is there
      > any reason for it to exist that I am not aware of?
      >
      > Conclusion:
      >
      > I still think PV is the best long term solution, but until the cost
      > comes down, going nuclear is the best way to get off coal RIGHT NOW.
      > We can't afford to wait the amount of time it will take to get PV on
      > every home in the country, the cost is just too prohibitive - we are
      > letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are also forgetting
      > that when we get to the nuclear waypoint, we will be in a tremendously
      > better position to jump to the PV waypoint. Trying to make that jump
      > all in one go is just a bridge too far.
      >
      > I wish I could explain more but I am out of time -
      >
      > Have a good one guys!
      >
      > - Jay
      >
      > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
      > > to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
      > > escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
      > > my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
      > > and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
      > > has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
      > > independent of foreign oil"
      > >
      > > How?
      > >
      > > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
      > > homes/businesses/industry do.
      > >
      > > Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
      > > electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
      > > does.
      > >
      > > Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
      > > alternatives? Of course...
      > >
      > > Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
      > > ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...
      > >
      > > But they are seperate crises, are they not?
      > >
      > > And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my
      bread
      > > and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
      > > cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
      > > but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
      > > have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
      > > uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
      > > resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
      > > and repeatedy been
      > > told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
      > > widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
      > > situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
      > > gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.
      > >
      > > Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
      > > a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
      > > page. And please, let me know what you think.
      > >
      > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I am generally pro-nuclear.
      > > >
      > > > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
      > > > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
      > > would
      > > > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
      > > charge
      > > > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
      > > the
      > > > significant issues.
      > > >
      > > > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
      > > > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
      > > burns
      > > > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
      > > I do
      > > > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
      > > output,
      > > > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
      > > >
      > > > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
      > > we
      > > > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
      > > use
      > > > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
      > > than
      > > > being pro-coal.
      > > >
      > > > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
      > > wide.
      > > > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
      > > this.
      > > > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
      > > Believe
      > > > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
      > > long
      > > > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
      > > doesn't
      > > > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
      > > > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
      > > whole
      > > > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
      > > use
      > > > the existing power generation - coal.
      > > >
      > > > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
      > > hybrids
      > > > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
      > > to
      > > > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
      > > much
      > > > better position to be in when you start the long investing
      phase to
      > > > being the move to solar.
      > > >
      > > > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
      > > > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
      > > > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
      > > that
      > > > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
      > > empirically
      > > > no different than being pro-coal.
      > > >
      > > > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > - Jay
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
      > > The "free"
      > > > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
      > > long
      > > > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
      > > and so
      > > > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
      > > well-
      > > > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
      > > > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1%
      catastrophic
      > > > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as
      it's
      > > > > safe and
      > > > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
      > > > > brings up
      > > > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
      > > the
      > > > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
      > > decide
      > > > > but
      > > > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
      > > luck,
      > > > > when
      > > > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
      > > billion
      > > > > our way
      > > > > > :-).
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > >
      > > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
      > > Behalf
      > > > > Of
      > > > > > texasblessings
      > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
      > > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
      > > general
      > > > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
      > > > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
      > > > > general
      > > > > > consensus is "no". Good.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
      > > all
      > > > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
      > > is
      > > > > an
      > > > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
      > > > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of
      reactors
      > > > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
      > > > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
      > > > > aired
      > > > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
      > > > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
      > > They
      > > > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the
      longest
      > > > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
      > > > > > industry.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
      > > our
      > > > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
      > > > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the
      backbone of
      > > > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
      > > moment
      > > > > I
      > > > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds
      and
      > > > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
      > > industry
      > > > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
      > > > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should
      we,
      > > the
      > > > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
      > > > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
      > > > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly
      emits
      > > > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
      > > can
      > > > > we
      > > > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
      > > be
      > > > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
      > > renewables?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
      > > into
      > > > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
      > > its
      > > > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
      > > > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
      > > run
      > > > > the
      > > > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
      > > &
      > > > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
      > > he
      > > > > had
      > > > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
      > > over-
      > > > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in
      from
      > > > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
      > > searched
      > > > > the
      > > > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
      > > > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
      > > case". In
      > > > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
      > > > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
      > > back, it
      > > > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
      > > have
      > > > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
      > > and
      > > > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
      > > > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
      > > less
      > > > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
      > > industry
      > > > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
      > > ourselves
      > > > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
      > > > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and
      even if
      > > it
      > > > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
      > > waste
      > > > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
      > > > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to
      Yucca.
      > > Our
      > > > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
      > > is
      > > > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
      > > or
      > > > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The
      nuclear
      > > > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
      > > a
      > > > > suit
      > > > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
      > > > > nuclear
      > > > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
      > > training
      > > > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
      > > tax-
      > > > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
      > > them
      > > > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
      > > pay
      > > > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck
      would
      > > > > they
      > > > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
      > > the
      > > > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
      > > are
      > > > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
      > > never
      > > > > got
      > > > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
      > > in
      > > > > the
      > > > > > matter at all.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
      > > do
      > > > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
      > > > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
      > > led,
      > > > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
      > > have
      > > > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
      > > this
      > > > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
      > > your
      > > > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly,
      talk
      > > to
      > > > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
      > > > > > Insist that this madness end.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Peace,
      > > > > > Susan
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.