 170 sq. meters of surface area with 22 facets, each 3 meters in diameter, and (2) stainless steel membranes stretched over stainless steel rings, with silvered glass tiles attached for reflectivity.)
This array, installed several years ago at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, features: (1) 170 sq. meters of surface area with 22 facets, each 3 meters in diameter, and (2) stainless steel membranes stretched over stainless steel rings, with silvered glass tiles attached for reflectivity.
Image: Warren Gretz / NREL
Most photovoltaic solar cells have an inherent efficiency cap, limiting how much useful energy they can extract from the sun. But scientists are finding ways around this obstacle with new research that could make solar energy more efficient and more cost-effective.
At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo., researchers are investigating how to get a unit of light to push more than one electron at a time. Meanwhile, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is working on getting the right type of light to hit solar cells to make sure its energy doesn't go to waste.
"One of the major limitations of solar energy conversion is that these high-energy photons are not efficiently converted. You lose a lot of energy to heat," said Matthew Beard, a senior scientist at NREL. He co-authored a paper last week in Science that demonstrated a device that, at the quantum level, peaked at 114 percent efficiency using a process called multiple exciton generation (MEG).
"It operates in some ways the same way a traditional solar cell would," said Beard. "Instead of bulk crystals, it uses quantum dots." Most solar cells are made of a sandwich of two crystal layers: one that's slightly negatively charged and one that's slightly positive. The negative crystal has extra electrons, and when a photon with enough energy strikes the material, it dislodges an electron on the positive side, increasing its energy and leaving behind a "hole." The electron-hole pairing is called an exciton.
MEG is one of the technologies at the vanguard of "third-generation" solar technology. Using these advances, solar panels can be thinner, lighter, cheaper, more flexible and fundamentally more efficient than current devices on the market. As a result, solar energy will be more cost-effective and will form a greater share of the world's energy portfolio.
But first these panels must bypass the Shockley-Quiessler limit, the bane of current-generation photovoltaic systems.
Saving wasted solar energy
The "SQ" limit describes the maximum efficiency of a solar cell using a conventional single-layer design with a single semiconductor junction. For most common solar cell materials, the efficiency limit is about 32 percent in ideal conditions. This means that at least two-thirds of the energy from sunlight that hits a solar panel is wasted, more if you account for losses from reflections, wiring and mounting hardware. The efficiency increases if you add layers to the cell, but this substantially raises the device's price and complexity. Currently, multi-junction solar cells are limited largely to satellites, where the need for efficiency, low weight and small space trumps cost concerns.
Now scientists are tweaking solar cell materials at nanometer scales to squeeze out better performance without increasing their prices or complexity, finding loopholes through the SQ limit.
In current photovoltaic cells, sunlight dislodges electrons, creating a moving charge that travels into the negative crystal, through a circuit, and then back to the positive side, where it fills the hole back in. If the photon doesn't have enough energy, the electron stays put. If the photon has too much energy, the charge flows using only the energy it needs, and the remainder warms up the device.
Beard's team found a way to make several holes with one photon using quantum dots—tiny chunks of semiconducting material between 2 and 10 nanometers in size. Their small size allows them to contain charges and more efficiently convert light to electricity. In this case, the dots are made out of lead and selenium. When a photon that has at least double the energy that is needed to move an electron strikes the lead selenide quantum dots, it can excite two or more electrons instead of letting the extra energy go to waste, generating more current than a conventional solar cell.
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentThere is a Canadian company called Cyrium technologies, advertising quantum dot solar photovoltaic cells on their web site: http://www.cyriumtechnologies.com/products
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are a supplier of quantum dot solar cells, and I wonder why quantum dot technology is considered new in the above article?
The quantum dots themselves are not considered new; it is the fact that multiple electron-hole pairs are generated from a single photon. The quantum dot middle-cell in the Cyrium triple-junction cells still has an internal quantum efficiency (number of usable electrons produced per photon) of less than 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRaising efficiency resulting in lower cost per unit of output is the secret rather than just raising the efficiency, as the article indicates. What is not so clear in the report is how you get any device to operate at better than 100%. That is the dream of every inventor who thinks he has cracked perpetual motion. Please raise the reporting standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey were talking about increases in Quantum Efficiency of over 100%. QE is the ratio of excitons generated versus incident photons. If you can get that higher than 1 to 1 with MEG, then you CAN get over 100%. Quantum Efficiency is a little confusing if you don't know how to use Wikipedia:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_efficiency
In addition, Cyrium is just trying to increase the current generated by the middle cell as this is the current-limiting junction in high-end solar cells right now. The problems of scaling up quantum devices to bulk scale and getting consistent performance from them still remain a challenge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is wonderful news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets stop wasting $100's of billions buying the current and ultra expensive junk and wait till this stuff comes. That way we will have saved up enough to put it in instead.
That's a false dichotomy. The experience gained from building solar farms to date has increased our ability to effectively harness the sun's energy at increasingly cheaper prices. If we were to follow your advice, renewable energy would NEVER be competitive because it would sit on the laboratory shelf collecting dust instead of generating real-world data. Learning by doing is the most effective way to move down a learning curve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we shouldn't have developed that whole Internet thing until EVERYBODY had broadband access, right? Or, we really didn't need the Mercury and Gemini programs because we could just go straight to the moon on Apollo without learning how to operate in space first, is that it? Maybe we shouldn't build any nuclear reactors until we develop fusion power and it's proven commercially viable...Wait, how do you prove something's commercially viable unless you see how it operates in the real world?
Your approach merely delays the development of clean energy. It is likely that this is the actual goal of language like this since it favors the pocketbooks of dirty energy immensely.
Oh you mean learning by doing. I responded to that on another string. In case you missed it: Learn by doing? Shove your hand on a hot plate. I can tell you what will happen without doing it. Clog up a river with turbines. I can tell you what will happen without doing it. Take a large surface area of sunshine, wind, wave what ever containing energy or potential energy. Concentrate it into a smaller area. What have you got? Lucky if you have half what you started with. Convert it to mechanical energy. Half again? Convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy, what are the losses? Store the energy? What about the environmental impacts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNumerous European countries have spent huge sums.
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/largest-solar-park-in-the-world-opens-in-germany.html
That opened in 2005.
Latest one: http://inhabitat.com/abandoned-german-open-pit-mine-turned-into-worlds-largest-solar-park/solar-park-saferay/
Just look at the photo & tell me what you see.
Try getting the actual figures of the real world output of the one opened in 2005. The promoters are happy to give projections but most reluctant to talk about outcomes. The same poor outcomes have been repeated around the world with every alternative energy scheme with the exception of hydro. How much learning by doing do you think we need?
I do not have to refer to wikipedia or anyone else to know that you can not get anything to operate at greater than 100% of its capacity. You are mixing oranges & apples & so is the article. It should have explained exactly what was meant. A device can not peak at above 100% of its potential. It is possible to improve its performance by more than 100% only if its original performance was sufficiently below 100% to allow for such an improved performance that does not exceed 100%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is off topic but I can not find a solution. On SCIAM guest blog, they invite comment but I have found it impossible to Log in to respond. I have noticed before that these blogs get very few comments. The vast majority complimentary to the author.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad people not invested in the polycrystalline, monocrystalline or amorphous solar panels to put on their rooftops, there would not have been additional R&D funds available to motivate innovation to improve solar cell technology, introducing multijunction cells and the quantum dot principle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack in 1977 if I had told Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak to stop messing around with comparatively primitive 8 bit microprocessors, and wait until the really powerful 32 bit microprocessors became available, people such as the late Steve Jobs would never have risked their venture capital, and in turn companies such as Intel, Motorola, Mostek, National Semiconductor, RCA, may have decided to manufacture other products, and 32 bit to 64 bit computers may have remained as mini or main frame computers.
The evolution of microprocessors from 8 bit single core to 64 bit six core CPUs took over 30 years, with incremental improvements, sustained by R&D funds obtained by semiconductor manufacturers, from the profits earned as a result of selling their products.
Well, if you deny reality and substitute your preconceived notions of what you think reality SHOULD be, then your conclusions won't be surprising. Face it, you have an AGENDA against clean energy. The "proof" you provided doesn't contain ANY facts to back up your statements. So, how is this like shoving your hand onto a hot plate, again? Your analogy doesn't hold up. Germany's economy is humming along and doing MUCH better than the U.S's while renewable energy makes up 20% of its electricity supply:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/20/393545/german-energy-consumption-drops-in-2011-renewables-energy/
Their learning by doing is paying HUGE dividends. Unless you show proof of those "same poor outcomes" that "have been repeated around the world", I'll assume that you're just running away from that debate because the facts don't support you.
Oh, and if you have beef with inefficiency in energy conversion steps, how come I don't here you complaining about fossil fuels? Might there be a double standard at play? Are you veiling your agenda against clean energy a little too loosely?
Considering that the energy conversion for fossil fuels goes like this:
Sunshine - dead plants - fossilization - extracted resource - refined resource - chemical energy - combustion - thermal energy - mechanical energy in an expanding gas - (and finally) mechanical energy in a rotating shaft
Do you even know the energy losses? A safe bet is that 99.9% of the energy in the initial incident sunlight is lost by the time you fire up your car and start driving down the road. Since solar cells can convert 10 - 20% of incident sunlight, they're already doing 1000 TIMES better than fossil fuels. They also do it BILLIONS of times faster than fossil fuels. AND, get this, they produce ELECTRICITY directly, no need to "concentrate it [energy] into a smaller area" or "convert it [energy] into mechanical energy". Face it, if you look at everything through fossil-tinted glasses, you're going to be WRONG every time.
I don't know how much clearer I can explain it. QE = excitons coming out / photons going in. It's NOT thermodynamic efficiency. If you can generate 2, 3 or even more excitons with 1 photon, your QE will be above 100%. This has been demonstrated with the materials outlined in this article. Did you even look at the Wikipedia page I posted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar cell technology has a longer way to go, only because until fairly recently, nobody had seriously considered investing serious R&D funds to motivate researchers to improve their efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we may compare the Boeing Spectrolab multijunction cells with a claimed efficiency of 39.2%, or the Cyrium triple junction quantum dot solar cells, with a claimed efficiency of 40%, to be roughly equivalent to 8 bit microprocessors. Much more R&D investment is needed, including how to mass produce these solar cells, and find new technologies to make them cheaper to fabricate.
Possibly further avenues for increasing their efficiency, may be manipulating Raman Stokes and anti-Stokes photon scattering, or finding methods and techniques to exploit the higher work function available from the green/blue/UV regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, or perhaps adapting the optics of lasers if possible.
In the above list of microprocessor manufacturers, I left out AMD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for clarifying KJM87.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Germany's economy ...renewable energy makes up 20% of its electricity supply..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWoopedy f'in do. France is 96% Green Electricity, and they did that much faster than Germany, without any religious fervor. Let's see how well they have done with 15 yrs of all-out, no-holds-barred effort:
Here is Germany's total Energy Production:
www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
The thin little red line on top is their much-hyped Wind & Solar Energy. Any thickening of that red line is matched with a thickening of their NG line that is 5X larger. Notice how #1 anti-Nuclear country Germany, achieved a lot more and a lot quicker with their mundane Nuclear expansion than they have with their mega-subsidy Solar & Wind program. Their Renewable Energy program was "so successful" that they are planning on building 26 humungous lignite dirt-burners to supply the bulk of their new electricity requirements. The result - Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity generated (one of the highest in Europe), while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.
Now lets see what France did in the same amount of time with a mediocre effort on Nuclear, using an outdated US design, and archaic construction methods:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. Notice how much Oil consumption it replaced. Notice how duplicate that modest effort one more time and France would be 100% Green Energy, mostly Nuclear.
Solar & Wind works so well in Germany that they are using "Green" Subsidy money (much of it obtained by taxes on their dirt-cheap Nuclear Energy) to finance fume-belching Brown Coal burning monsters, so they can export their toxic emissions to all of their neighbors to breath. Nice guys.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/23/1019740/-German-Energy-Research-At-Work:-Green-Coal-Mining
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/20/1018752/-Germany-To-Fund-New-Coal-and-Gas-Plants-with-Climate-Money
The Fascist philosophy and history behind the German Green movement:
http://ecofascism.com/review26.html
I think we can give Germany the title: Hypocrite Haven.
"...On SCIAM guest blog, they invite comment but I have found it impossible to Log in to respond. I have noticed before that these blogs get very few comments. The vast majority complimentary to the author..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've found the same thing, and I did manage to leave an anti-renewables comment on Biello's blog and it was removed.
Good god what a reach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you not realize real science not your Big Oil promoted junk variety tells us that we have less than a decade to get well on the way to a zero carbon future? That only nuke power whatever the erroneously perceived faults can get it done IN TIME? Obviously not as you persist with this nonsense.
Neither current solar power nor nuclear manufacturers are spending a nickel on out there tech like quantum dot solar, fusion, or Molten Salt reactors. All that work is done by entrepreneurs like Gates or Paul Allen or government funded research labs.
Last I looked current solar is a huge drain on government getting $100's of Billions in government subsidy while producing almost all its power from gas backup, while nuclear our only real source of carbon free energy is $80B in the black in the US alone in a DOE administered never to be used fund and gets virtually no subsidy or government research funds.
There is no hope that current solar tech with already 80% minimum of its cost in conventional civils like assembly, glass, aluminum, power converters, wire, cable, installation and licensing is ever getting any cheaper once current Chinese dumping ends.
At almost two bucks a kwh when green storage is included 70 cents a kwh as a filthy deadly GHG and pollution spewer with gas backup, compared to 3 cents a kwh to new nuclear, every dime spent on current solar is wasted.
That subsidy money could be much more effectively spent on research that has at least an unlikely chance of making the technology work.
Send a few billion over to nuclear and we'd have a working MSR in less than two years according to Flibe Energy. Nah!!!
"Had people not invested in the ...solar panels ...there would not have been additional R&D funds available ...to improve solar cell.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you are saying is irrational. According to you, we should spend $trillions subsidizing absurdly impractical Energy tech like Geothermal (in sub-prime locations), tidal, offshore wind, river turbines, ocean thermal, Solar PV etc, etc, because that will spur R&D to "someday" make them practical, maybe.
So 1-3% of Solar expenditure goes into R&D. It would make FAR MORE SENSE to save 100's of $billions by just spending that 1-3%, i.e. 10's of $billions on R&D, IF & UNTIL practical Solar tech can be developed.
And instead spend 10's of $billions out of the 100's of $billions being wasted building ABSURDLY impractical Renewable Energy SCAMS, on already practical Nuclear to make it even more practical. Right now a trivial amount of funding is going into commercial Nuclear R&D. Stephen "NO CAN DO" Chu, even refuses to endorse funding for the AMERICAN DEVELOPED extreme potential Molten Salt Thorium Reactor or LFTR. Obama & Chu are leaving it to China to develop this Wonderful American Invention, and then we might be able to Beg China to sell some to us. Obama's Big Oil benefactors and their Renewable Energy surrogates, just don't want any competition. That is the bottom line.
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/12/kirk-sorensen-why-didnt-molten-salt-thorium-reactors-succeed-the-first-time.html
You greenie warming deniers just can't stop exposing your thickness today. Is it overindulging in Christmas cheer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn each step of cpu evolution you describe there was no alternative to the limited capabilities of the technology of the day. The R&D was driven by sales and marketing.
In the energy market, there is an alternative, nuclear does a far better job a lot cheaper.
100% of Solar installation is driven by government subsidy not market. There would be no market without those subsidies as the cost of filthy air polluting and ghg spewing solar is many times that of today's clean and green zero environment footprint nuclear.
Hi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThi sis exciting and may be partof the developments and innovation that can lead to a carbon freer future.Costs currently for domestic use are about 20 years to payback, whcih is about the same as the depreciation, so not that attractive, but even if its only 2 x what they are now whti swill make it 10 years pay back and so starts to become really attractive.This potential go to market stuff. Great and thansk for posting
Wow, I guess it's true that when the facts don't really back you up, you have to resort to loaded words and vitriolic language to get your point across...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour graph on German energy sources is now 4 years out of date and tabulates TOTAL energy, not electricity. Since transportation is powered 98% by oil in that country, that huge chunk diminishes the apparent role of renewables. I said they supply 20% of their ELECTRICITY supply. A more up-to-date source vindicates I'm right and if you weren't blinded by your agenda, you'll see that you're WRONG:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,783314,00.html
Talk is cheap when Germany's economy is the strongest in Europe. France's nuclear power fleet was brought about by HUGE government involvement (A Socialist government at that!) and it's reprocessing scheme needs massive subsidies as well since the fuel it produces is 10x the cost of virgin uranium fuel.
Oh, and I don't know how a site called "ecofascism dot com can be considered a credible source, unless you hate environmentalists and have an agenda against clean energy. All these factors do WONDERS for your credibility on these issues...
Yeah, and the moon is made of cheese! However, I don't expect YOU to believe ME unless I brought back some lunar fondue. In short, where's your PROOF?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's some of mine: The new Vogtle nuclear reactors are coming in at $7/W and that's WITHOUT incorporating the cost to hook them up to the grid AND ignoring the financing costs. ANY construction delays will make these cost figures shoot UP dramatically as inflation and finance costs are what caused all those reactor construction projects to bust their budgets back in the 70s and 80s! The first 2 units at Vogtle were bid at a little under $700 million...and the final cost for both units came in at OVER $8 BILLION! Excuse me? How is nuclear going to save us? Will all those money-sucking reactors hoover up all the cash in the economy so a massive, global depression lowers CO2 emissions?
Also, I really want to know how is it that you can mention the validity of man-made climate change and even criticize Big Oil without being called a Socialist by all the McCarthyites around here. What's your secret?
You really are that thick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis will be about the tenth time I've had to give you the actual cost of building new reactors. Be the first Greenie warming denier to learn to read.
AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installations over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.
Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx"
The new Westinghouse AP1000 is begin built in China for $1.2/Gw which is around 1.5 cents a kwh. Both AECL and Westinghouse are claiming 3 year builds at under $1B/Gw once orders get into the scores and factory production begins.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
Your might also try the SCANA first of a kind AP-1000 project at VC Summer now under way at $4.2B/GW less than 5 cents a kwh if built by an American public power producer.
http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
What is this socialism horsepucky. Public power in the US and elsewhere is far more efficient than Wall Street pirate run operations.
"...German energy sources is now 4 years out of date and tabulates TOTAL energy, not electricity..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it ain't.It is to the end of 2008, the latest available, and it shows Renewables before the big cutback in growth following the 2009 recession. You have ZERO credibility, using that as an issue.
And yes it does show total energy production, since that is what we need to do MOST - I thought you were concerned about Global Warming. If you just want to focus on Electricity, like most greenies due - much to the delight of Big Oil, then here is Germany's Electricity growth:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DEELEC.pdf
Here is France:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
The difference is striking. France achieved that, in spite of being(at the time), a middle wealth nation, with the best health care & social services in the World, one of the most expensive, World Class Militaries in the World, and during the period improved their Standard of Living & productivity much faster than Renewables Germany, and instituted a 4 day, 32 hr work week. They still get free home doctor visits, even at night in France. One year state paid maternity leave with a nanny provided. One young American woman in France says she feels guilty for the high degree of care she enjoys there.
And all France did was take a run-of-the-mill GenII American Pressurized Light Water Reactor design, standardized and started building. No modern modular construction. No assembly line production. No CAD or CAM. No advanced computer control systems. No advanced GenIII designs or computer simulations. And they even partially reprocess their Fuel, producing only 0.3 oz of waste per capita per yr.
And Germany isn't doing so well, in spite of their dismal social programs:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/german-growth-nearly-grinds-to-a-halt-2011-08-16
Green Headache, Resistance Mounts to Germany's ambitious Renewable Energy Plans:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,756836,00.html
Re post 18.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA real sea change
By Mathew Stutz
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/23/a-real-sea-change/
Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Actually posting a comment is impossible.
Why would you want to?
To try & combat blatant misrepresentation e.g.
We can look to Louisiana to see a parallel. The Louisiana coast, made up of the expansive Mississippi Delta, has been ground zero for an ongoing coastal catastrophe for decades. Due to numerous man-made alterations, the delta is sinking, that is the sea level is rising, as much as 3 feet per century (leaving some portions of New Orleans 10 feet below sea level). As a result, one football field-sized area drowns on the Mississippi Delta every hour, 15 square miles every year.
The article continues, giving the distinct impression that the danger is from sea level rises, not land subsidence.
No examples are given that demonstrate actual sea level rise caused damage.
My real complaint is with SCIAM for inviting comment & then blocking it.
So man made sinking of Prime land in the New Orleans area is FAR, FAR WORSE than the temporary, mostly unnecessary Fukushima incident, and is PERMANENT. And Fukushima area becomes a wonderful, 100% safe nature wonderland (except for all the Oil, Asbestos & Chemical spills),unlike the New Orleans area wildlife wetland paradise, which is LOST FOREVER! Notice that greenies, like Sault, could care less about THAT man-made disaster, but go totally ballistic about the comparatively minor Fukushima area evacuation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother example is the enormous Mud Volcano in Indonesia, caused by Natural Gas drilling. A Mud Volcano caused by NG drilling, that releases 6 million cubic feet of mud per day, causing the evacuation of 13,000 families already & a dozen deaths and is expected to continue for another 80 yrs.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Worlds-Muddiest-Disaster.html
Again ZERO mention in the Mainstream Media and SCIAM about that disaster, but non-stop hyper-inflation of the comparatively insignificant Fukushima incident. You can sure tell how BIG OIL MONEY, buys politicians, greenies and press.
And you are REALLY thick too...The Chinese are hiding a lot of the costs with massive subsidies, cutting corners, horrible working conditions and currency manipulation. If you trust something this complex with a "made in China" lavel, then you have a warped sense of risk analysis. And trusting the Chinese government to give you accurate numbers is a testament to your thickness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, mostly China is hiding costs with their cornering of the Solar Market and their Wind Turbine manufacture, selling at below cost, hoping to put Western companies out of business, and then they will be able to raise prices again. And very little environmental control over Wind & Solar waste. And the huge energy inputs to Solar & Wind manufacture come from cheap Hydro, Nuclear & Coal, otherwise costs would skyrocket even higher, since Wind & Solar require 10-100X the high energy material inputs of Nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice Sault's risk analysis goes out the window, when it comes to Hydro dam failure, toxic mega-oil spills, NG drilling mud volcanos and earthquakes, geothermal earthquakes, Mega Plane crashes and giant mega-nuclear-bomb-sized LNG tankers and storage facilities. No risk analysis worries according to Sault. Including the fact that many of the critical components of all of the above are MADE-IN-CHINA.
You just can't stop shoveling it can you. Those reactors were built all over the world at that price the last in Europe in 2007.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll were built to the incredibly high standard of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd by the toughest engineering company in the world SNC Lavelin.
By the way the total $14B for the 2.25 GW Vogtle project includes $4B for transmission upgrades making the nuclear part of the project worth $10B same as the SCANA project.
You really need to upgrade your research skills.
Wow, $4B for transmission upgrades and you think renewable transmission costs are high? So when the Summer reactors in S Carolina are finished, they'll cost $14B too if there are no schedule delays? WOW! that's a lotta cash! How many building efficiency retrofits could that buy? How much could that investment shave off peak demand to make these money-sucking reactors a redundancy? If you think nuclear is cheaper per watt than efficiency, then you're smoking something that probably glows in the dark...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if your pipe dream efficiency measures resulted in the energy savings you believe in, what happens when energy demand overtakes the savings? You will eventually learn that the alternative energy proposals have been hugely oversold & do not generate anything like the power output & reliability necessary for a modern industrial society. Also your plans for retrofitting existing buildings only have relevance for the existing industrialised world. What is going to power the industrialisation of the developing world? There is only one clean technology that can do the job. Your illogical opposition to nuclear negates all your other arguments. One day you will learn that your opposition was misguided & together with likeminded misguided people, you are responsible for continuing the wasteful burning of fossil fuels. Your comment post 12 is dishonest. From many previous posts you know I favour phasing out the use of fossil fuels wherever nuclear generated power can be used to replace it. You make out that I advocate the untrammelled continuation of wasteful practices. Many of which would quickly cease if it were not for blindly ideology driven people like you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill posting fact-free assertions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it inevitable that energy demand will make efficiency gains disappear? You seem awfully confident in that assertion with NO proof. I think you're dredging up the long-debunked Jevons paradox:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/207532/debunking-jevons-paradox-jim-barrett/
So, make our economy as energy efficient as possible and end energy subsidies. Phase out dirty energy subsidies first and make them pay for their pollution. Take away the Price Anderson Act too so that the playing field is level. You'll find that commercial nuclear power from LWRs is NOT POSSIBLE with this government interference with energy market forces.
If nuclear power can be brought in for less than $7 per Watt, then MAYBE it can play a part in powering the future. However, previous experience with this technology is disappointing. Dozens of reactor construction projects abandoned with ratepayers left to pick up the tab. Many utilities forced into bankruptcy with the government forced to bail them out. We've already heard this little song and dance about "too cheap to meter". It failed horribly. Now that we know that current safety systems and protocols were inadequate in the face of the Fukushima Disaster, what makes you think it's going to be different this time? I'm still waiting on just ONE piece of evidence that eevul "big oil" and the greenies litigated nuclear power to death. If you can show how the $14B for the 2 Vogtle units is inflated, I'll eat my words. The NRC quickly approved their combined construction and operating license. They are also willing to approve the AP1000 design to streamline the permitting process. However, it still costs around $7B PER REACTOR to set these things up.
Since your nuclear energy blinders make you think that clean energy won't work, I don't expect you to realize that we need to find the cheapest and most effective energy sources out there and deploy them quickly. If nuclear power is really this expensive, it will crowd out investment in other energy technology and efficiency approaches. The numbers I've seen show that nuclear is one of the most expensive CO2 mitigation approaches and it has a NEGATIVE learning curve.
As I said before, we've seen this all before and it ended badly. What makes you think it will be different this time?
Ended badly compared to what? Three thousand coal mining deaths per year in China alone let alone the remainder of the world. How many from nuclear radiation since the very first crude reactors? Less than 100. A coal fired power station releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear power station. I am dealing here with an inteligence free zone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 logical fallacies you committed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"2 wrongs don't make a right" - I think coal is just as bad as you do. The numbers I'm looking at for the cost and speed of a nuclear power expansion means LESS clean energy investment and MORE coal power production! Do you REALIZE that nuclear power takes up 70% of the Department of Energy's budget? How about all that money down the toilet when all those reactors got cancelled in the 70s and 80s? How much clean energy could that have bought?
"ad hominem" - "I am dealing here with an inteligence free zone." I'm not arguing for coal power. You can add "putting words in my mouth" or building a "strawman argument" to the list I guess.
All those reactor construction failures ended badly compared to the clean energy deployment we've seen in Europe, Japan, China, and the U.S. At least renewable energy plants actually got BUILT instead of just becoming piles of scrap concrete like they did in the 70s and 80s.
Once again another demo of how you are thickest individual posting on these issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe $4B for transmission has little to do with the nukes it has to do with an upgrade of the utilities transmission grid.
Where it in your fevered brain you get the idea that that same $4B has anything to do with the VC Summer project. Are you into that Christmas cheer again.
For once let's see you use some facts. Please give us the average cost per kwh saved from the efficiency savings you propose and the % of US energy use you think this will save. Sources and/or your calculations and assumptions would be good.
The Vogtle price included transmission upgrades while the Summer project quote did not. According to the reasoning posted, the difference in prices between the two very similar projects are due primarily to transmission upgrades. I was chided earlier for bringing up the Vogtle price tag while ignoring the Summer price tag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd aren't you the thick one complaining all day about how renewables need all these grid fixes while you give your favored nuclear power the benefit of your extreme bias by saying "The $4B for transmission has little to do with the nukes...". Care to explain THAT DOUBLE STANDARD?
So, looking for proof? Here it goes:
The efficiency retrofits of the Empire State building pay for themselves after 18 months:
http://retrofitdepot.org/Content/Files/ESBCaseStudy.pdf
Here's an example of energy retrofits having 12 - 14% internal rates of return:
http://retrofitdepot.org/Content/Files/RetailCaseStudy.pdf
Interestingly, the highest rate of return was for the building that cut their energy consumption 72%! I guess you can get that rate of return on a nuclear reactor if you get to bill your ratepayers over $1B before they even get 1 kWh from the plant AND you have the government pick up the tab for your liability insurance...AND you get $8B in loan guarantees from the federal government AND you get a production tax credit...so, complaining about government support for renewable energy is just a teeny-bit hypocritical, don't ya think?
Once again the thickness!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Vogtle transmission upgrades were required because their entire grid needed upgrading as all grids do from time to time. Nukes are located next to load centers. Wind Solar has to trucked in long distances.
It was appended to the nuke project for regulatory reasons not because the nukes created the need. At VC Summer no grid upgrades are involved at all.
Is your fever subsidizing.
Nukes have a 40% rate of return you fool not including all the lives saved replacing fossils something you've never given a damn about.
You still haven't provided the list but one small example. Insulating a home in Maine without any insulation is another. Low hanging fruit cherry picked examples are one thing but it doesn't show squat about overall energy savings to the nation as a whole.
Carlyle and dwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre: "...On SCIAM guest blog, they invite comment but I have found it impossible to Log in..."
I think I've had the same problem the blog login link doesn't get you to a login page, or something...
I've found that if I logoff by clicking on the "(log out)" link very near the top of almost every page that says:
"Hello, [userid] (log out)"
...then return to that link, that now says:
"Log In or Register"
and click on "Log In" - I can then comment on blog postings.
I hope this works for you.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night...
Thanks. I'll give that a try. Hope that gives others the heads up too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're welcome! I also emailed the SA webmaster to notify them that you, dwbd & I have been having the problem & that it might be impacting blog discussions. Hopefully they'll get it fixed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come you require me to post proof of energy efficiency performance when you still let yourself spout off the 40% IRR without showing me proof yourself? That double standard of yours is TOO OBVIOUS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1M kWh per hour * 365 * 24 * .9 (capacity factor) * $0.10/ kWh = $788M or lets just be generous and say $800M in electricity sales PER YEAR. $800M / $7B = 11.4% IRR. So WRONGITY WRONG WRONG! To get a 40% IRR, you'd have to be able to build a 1GW reactor for 2B! You're only off by a factor of 3 or so...close but no cigar! But then you have to subtract out capital / financing costs, O&M, fueling/servicing,tThe value of the Price Anderson Act Insurance (since you ALWAYS complain about support for clean energy), and the $10M per reactor the industry charges the federal government to store nuclear waste on-site...
There is NO WAY you can drop in 2.2GW onto a grid without upgrades. Did they just have that 2.2GW spare transmission capacity from the site lying around for 20 years after they finished the first 2 units? If so, that's a horrible waste of ratepayer's money as they paid for something that's just going to waste. If not, you're WRONG AGAIN!
Oh, and you're WRONG ONE MORE TIME about the cost to hook up the Summer reactors to the grid:
That $9.8B for the reactors in S. Carolina is majorly low-balled:
" We estimate the cost for both units upon completion is approximately $9.8 billion... The price was based on the contract price plus forecasted inflation, owners costs (such as site preparation) and contingencies, he said. However, he added: Each company will also incur costs related to transmission facilities and certain financing costs related to the project. "
No wonder it's not just me that thinks traditional nuclear reactors don't have much of a future:
http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?ao=20&key=4wVf4k0yKe&n=293732.PDF
So, as the original article highlighted, do these unprecedented potential advances in solar power EVER factor in to your decisions on energy policy or your tendency to dismiss solar power out of hand? Do these developments make you reevaluate your feeling that solar PV is fully mature? Do you ever compare the positive learning curve of solar and other clean energy with the NEGATIVE learning curve of nuclear power?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
The French have a similar negative learning curve with their nuclear reactor construction too, btw.
Oh, one more thing, those CANDU reactors are even MORE expensive than AP1000s:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644
I think that Carlyle is wrong on the facts but he has a point on the terminology. If efficiency was defined as usual as the ratio of energy output over energy input the figures would be below 100%. Also I think that the article should provide an explanation of the use of the term Quantum as I see nothing in here that relates directly to Quantum Physics. OK I did not refer to Wikipedia either but nonetheless the article should avoid confusing readers with unconventional use of accepted terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, this is an article written by "Umair Irfan and ClimateWire". I think Umair Irfan is an independent reporter and Climatewire is a contract news agency that focuses entirely on 'Climate Change' news stories. Personally, I find that ClimateWire's stories are almost always highly slanted. Certainly "Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc." and apparently Nature Publishing Group are responsible for the tripe they impose on their readers.
Please provide proof supporting your accusation that the coverage from ClimateWire is slanted and that the Nature Publishing Group imposes "tripe" on their readers. Remember, I can say the moon is made of cheese all I want, but I wouldn't really expect you to believe me unless I brought back some lunar fondue!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to how much learning we need and the "do not put your hand on a hot plate" argument, then problem with your argument is that it proves too much. It can be used to argue against any research. It is therefore, obviously invalid, as we know from prior experience that research pays dividends. Unpredictably, yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to: "In the energy market, there is an alternative, nuclear does a far better job a lot cheaper."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm...I wonder what the Japanese would have to say about that.
In response to: Nukes have a 40% rate of return you fool not including all the lives saved replacing fossils something you've never given a damn about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm..Is Uranium (or Thorium) mining completely free? Or are there any costs associated with getting these radioactive substances out of the ground? How much does it cost to set up a processing facility? The costs I have seen so far for nuclear are only for construction of the reactors, but when coal or renewables are mentioned, all the deaths associated with them are mentioned? How about security costs associated with preventing theft at a nuclear refinement plant and a dirty bomb being set off in New York?
Once again confirming your title as the thickest commenter on Sciam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Darlington nukes weren't Candu's which almost 40 have been built, they were first of kind ACR-1000's.
The AECL Darlington bid was $26B for 60 years all costs included O&M fuel and refurbs of existing Candu's. Worked out to $2.7B/Gw for the new first of kind ACR-1000 a cost AECL predicted thus cost to drop to $1B/Gw after the first 20 build. Averaged over 60 years this is less than 2 cents a kwh - cheapest energy available anywhere.
Your calculation of IRR is so incredibly stupid as to make one wonder did your school graduate you without even taking grade 1 level arithmetic. As I suggested numerous times, you need to call a friend at home for help as you are clearly out of your depth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy rate of return number is to the nation as whole with a large scale elimination of all enormously expensive fossil fuels replaced with nuke power. The rate of return is even higher when health care and other air pollution costs as estimated in a recent Harvard study are added in.
As I shown over and over again the first of a kind cost of the AP1000 in the US is $4B/Gw. Westinghouse tells us it will have no problem building that reactor for $2B/Gw after modular construction starts dropping rapidly to $1B/Gw in a fossil to nuclear program. In fact the sister AP-1000's built to NRC approved standards under the supervision of Westinghouse's American engineers are on time on budget at $1.2B/Gw.
You can drop 2.2 GW into the grid without significant transmission upgrades if your load is local and you are importing power or running on gas peaking plant. Perhaps a friend at home can explain to you that when the 2.2 Gw of nukes cut over there isn't going to be a massive 2.2 Gw of new loads magically appearing.
Why do you bother posting nonsense from your Big Oil sources. Who do you think HSBC makes 90% their money from. Clue it's not the nuclear industry. The first page of the report while pushing Big Oil's gas already had a bunch of egregious errors two of them - China is going full bore with nukes but only Gen III+'s and the UK is now planning a full scale expansion of nukes.
There have been potential advances is solar coming out every week or so for the last twenty years. I recently read a report claiming cold fusion next year.
More Big Oil nonsense from Joe anti nuclear fanatic Joe Romm. His negative learning curve study was done by a guy with a sociology diploma. Numerous times I've given you recent Candu build costs which prove the opposite.
You and your kind are Big Oil's useful idiots allowing millions to die annually from fossil air pollution. Your warming denialism espousing the renewable junk science rejects the peer reviewed science published in reputable journal that tells us we may have less than 5 years to get well on the AGW path.
Only nuclear power can save us in time from that rapidly approaching disaster.
Actually the cost of FUKU is only a few cents a kwh distributed over the entire historical nuke power production in Japan. The only long term effect is the destruction of a nuke plant already slated for replacement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike all low information types you ignore the far greater pollution and forever environmental damage and water table poisoning caused by the destruction of its enormous refinery much closer to Tokyo.
Radiation levels outside the plant gate are less than in Denver.
The Japanese richly deserved the nuclear disaster with their society's standard shunning of the many whistleblowers that tried to warm the yawning idiots in the electorate of the Fukushima risk.
Every Japanese nuke plant shut down generates $1.5B in revenue for Big Oil. Stop aiding their cause.
In any case the disaster has nothing to do with modern nuke reactors which survived the crisis without damage.
All your costs are included in the 2 cents a kwh operating cost of today's working nukes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope - I can say what I said and I did - no proof required!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe post 48. How many times do you have to put your hand on the hotplate before you accept what the result will be? The same failed alternative energy systems costing millions are built time after time with the same, rarely published, failed results. Easy to find the projected energy output. try getting the real world results after a few years operation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...with the same, rarely published, failed results..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is very true. Sault and Joe Romm and other Renewable Energy Apologists, vehemently claim that Wind & Solar are totally viable and even cheaper than Nuclear, if you can believe that - BUT they refuse to publish hard data on Wind & Solar output, and many big Renewable Religious states & provinces REFUSE to release contract information on their Solar & Wind contracts.
In some cases Engineers have had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act to get routine utility data on ACTUAL Wind Energy output. If the Utility and Wind Farms would publish their actual output on 1/4hr intervals, information that they have, and a 12 yr old could make totally available, free of charge on the web, in both tabular and graphical form, then you could settle ONCE AND FOR ALL in any utility service area if Renewables are actually reducing CO2 production, and if they are, what is the $ per ton of CO2 cost, compared to other options, including Nuclear. You would think, if they REALLY BELIEVED that their energy source was viable, they would be EAGER to publish that data, instead of hiding it.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
"...PSCO refuses to release 1/4-hourly wind energy data of privately-owned wind turbine facilities, because it is a "proprietary trade secret". Such information is critical for any accurate analysis and comparison of alternatives to reduce such CO2 emissions.
PSCO deliberately withholding such information is inexcusable and harms progress regarding global warming. Any renewables subsidized with public funds should be subject to full disclosure to make sure public funds are not misused for projects with poor economics and poor CO2 reduction..."
"...Public Service of Colorado records 1/4-hour wind energy production but refuses to release the data; it is citing "trade secrets". These wind turbine facilities were built with significant public subsidies; should not the public know whether or not its money is invested in the most effective manner to reduce CO2? The $500 million Solyndra fiasco comes to mind..."
"...Could it be that the Wall Street elites see the 30% federal cash grants, accelerated write-offs, generous feed-in tariffs and renewable energy credits as major tax shelters and long-term income streams (preferably tax-free) for themselves and their high-income clients, all at the expense of the Main Street economy which is already economically depressed..."
Who you calling thick, bro?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion."
"AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity."
WHY WOULD ACEL BUILD INFERIOR REACTORS JUST IN THIS INSTANCE? Why would they attach their CANDU label to this money-sucking reactor? Do they totally want to ruin their brand?
Does nuclear power make you BLIND?
Great, let's incorporate the costs of pollution then! We're in agreement there. However, IRR means INTERNAL, meaning INTERNAL to the firm keeping the books. So the benefits of reduced pollution accrue to society as a whole and DON'T appear in IRR calculations. This is the MAIN reason we have environmental problems in the first place!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the fact remains that you need to build a 1GW reactor for under $2 to have a 40% IRR, and that's with a ZERO discount rate, ZERO O&M...meaning this is the impossible, BEST CASE SCENARIO for ANY energy plant. That may happen in China where they cut corners, have horrible working conditions / pay AND the government covers up a lot of the cost to make their country look better, but it has so far failed to happen in Canada, Finland, Vogtle, Summer...and on and on. How many "mulligans" do they need until they can make a safe reactor for under $5B in a free market?
You just IGNORE any fact that doesn't mesh with the way you think the world works.
WOW, the ONE source you posted backing up your rant is so well researched!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The net result of the wind turbine buildout during the past 10 years is a 2010 wind energy production of 94,650 GWh, or about 2.3% of total US production, higher electric rates for consumers and little CO2 reductions."
Yeah, so blame the disruption of power prices by deregulation, ENRON and the commodities price explosion of the past few years entirely on wind! Wow, if you can't spot the bias and attempt to mislead you, you're BLIND!
Yeah, don't blame CO2 emissions growth on population growth, political inaction, urban sprawl, etc...BLAME WIND ENERGY! Who woulda thunk it!
The "skepticism about CO2 reductions" section doesn't even contain ONE source to prove the guy's point and is just a rant to bring up the Solyndra nontroversy.
If you look at the ACTUAL studies that try to show that renewable energy doesn't lower CO2 or other such nonsense, you'll find that they're ALWAYS written by "think" tanks funded by fossil fuel companies! That's like asking your drug dealer to pay for a study on the effectiveness of rehab!
"China is going full bore with nukes but only Gen III+'s..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBULL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPR-1000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China
In the age of Wikipedia and Google, why lie?
Your habit of calling people liars when their opinions do not coincide with yours or are not born out by Wikipedia is extremely offensive. To regard Wikipedia as an unquestioned authority is to display ignorance for all to see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople may be in error, you often are, but that does not make them, or you, liars.
You are simply too stupid to realize that in the nuke business particularly involving China you need the latest info not some old claptrap from the wiki.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-12/07/content_14223281.htm
Yes, and the glorious Peoples' Workers' Republic (whatever) of the Chinese Communist Party NEVER lies, right? Too bad the article you posted said NOTHING about what type of reactor they're building. The CPR 600 / 1000 is a Gen II+ knockoff of a French design. It DOES NOT contain the Gen III+ safety protocols that could have (not necessarily WOULD have) prevented the Fukushima Fiasco.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the article DID say this:
"He [Shi Lishan] said renewable energy will account for a greater proportion of the energy consumed during the 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015) period.
The insider, who declined to provide his name, said China is developing third-generation nuclear technology that will help make nuclear plants safer and increase their generating capacity.
"If China puts more research and development into making equipment for nuclear generation, the high costs of nuclear plants will decrease to between 15,000 and 20,000 yuan a kW," he said. "That will make a great contribution to the industry."
So EVEN YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVES YOU WRONG-O! They're DEVELOPING "3rd Generation Nuclear Technology" while most of the reactors they are building are Gen II+. Therefore, you're WRONG!
1 yuan = $0.158 by the way. Even cutting corners in China can't get you below $2 per Watt!
Hey, if you don't account for ALL the costs to bring nuclear power to the grid, how can you make a fair comparison with other energy sources? Ignoring everything but the reactor is like saying solar is cheap if you don't have to worry about installing it or hooking it up to an inverter. Since clean energy doesn't need fuel, adding in the cost of nuclear fuel (was disposal included too, it's unclear from the article) and decommissioning the plant is only fair as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou article complains, "Lumping all the costs of the entire project, and then dividing them by the reactor power output at the turbine alone is not accurate or fair."
Then how in the world DO you determine the "all in" cost to compare different energy sources accurately? People don't build nuclear reactors for fun; they build them to run turbines and deliver electricity to the grid! Complaining about the "balance of plant" costs inflating the figures is like saying wind power costs are inflated because they incorporate the cost of putting up the towers! THIS IS DOWNRIGHT SILLY!
Look, nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of new power generation today. It was a spectacular failure in the 70s and 80s, destroying billions in capital, bankrupting utilities and causing billions more to be forced from ratepayers' and taxpayers' pockets. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN! There's been no magical technological breakthrough in nuclear power that has changed its cost metrics. If anything, the more we learn about these reactors (cough...Fukushima...cough), the more we realize that preventing meltdowns is WAY more expensive and complicated than we realized!
LWRs are a dead-end technology that was chosen PRECISELY because it was the most mature one at the end of the Manhattan Project. Because of this, it presents proliferation risks that erode any cost benefit they might enjoy. On top of this, to design and build them properly takes BILLION$$$$. Thorium reactors might hold promise, but LWRs are a stone around the neck of our energy supply.
It is simply impossible to penetrate the thickness of your fevered brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHe Chinese have announced that they will stop building their old Generation II units, and all new builds will be their own or imported Gen III+ machines.
Why is that impossible for you to understand that the the plant was vastly under protected by corrupt practices causing it to be backup power wiped out in an predictable tsunami.
That the Chinese would have executed those responsible is better than any technological Gen III deterrent. There is no incentive in China to cut corners as their
power is public power.
Yes a greater proportion - they are speaking of Hydro.
Lets see 2 bucks a watt is under a penny a kwh just like the the Candu built there imported from Canada and built under exacting Canadian standards by the best engineering firm in the world.
I notice that when your previous BS gets thrashed you never own up, your fevered what passes for a brain just spews something new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are simply too stupid to understand that the current operating cost of America nukes at two cents a kwh includes fuel, decom, waste and O&M. I believe this is the sixth time you've been told that. Are you on some kind of drug?
Note that built in the 80's under the onerous cost increases mandated by the Greenpeace run NRC at time, the Columbia Generating Station generates power at 4 cents a kwh all costs included - still a damn good deal. Rather than dwell on past regulatory failures that occurred only in the US, once again I repeat for the 10 to 15th time in a vain effort to penetrate the stupidity.
AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installations over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe. Best record in the world for any reactor manufacturer.
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx
Here is Bloomberg on the actual cost $1.2B/Gw ($2007) of the recent imported from the US AP-1000 builds now 75% complete on time and on budget built by American engineers to NRC standards under the watchful eye of the NRC.
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5.20kg0SOY0
No, when I thrash your "proof", you NEVER own up to it. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that you can't quote Chinese reactor costs and think that translates somehow to reactor cost in the West. We have market forces here. We let people have input into the reactor building and decision-making process. If the government in China says they want nuclear power, they just make it happen. We CAN'T do that here. So any comparison to the Chinese industry is utterly invalid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I show you a direct quote from a chinese government official saying that WITH DEVELOPMENT, the COULD get the cost to around $2.3B per GW (with all the safety corners they cut, their horrible working conditions, meager pay, currency manipulation, etc.) you just ignore the hole I blew through your argument. Remember, when you point your finger, you have three pointing back at you (unless you live next to a nuclear reactor, then you might have 7 or 8 pointing back at you, hahaha...).
When I show you a quote from ACEL that their "next generation" CANDU reactor costs around $12B in Canada of all places, you complain that the price includes everything else needed to make a functioning power plant. How else are you going to compare levelized costs?
Look, it's just too expensive to build these things properly without hiding the costs behind massive subsidies. Power from existing plants is cheap because the HUGE capital costs and debt servicing have already been paid off. That is a totally useless comparison to quote power from these plants. It's just like saying it's really cheap to live in your house when the mortgage is already paid off. That's great for you, but for anybody wanting to get a new house (or build a new power plant), that information is less than useless, it's totally misleading!
Once again your show your colors as the stupidest commenter on Sciam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you at least refrain from polluting this thread until you have completed a grade 3 level reading course. You had quote from Toronto Star not AECL. How many times to I have to repeat.
http://theenergycollective.com/Home/44781
"...First, $26 billion is an aggregate number that includes two reactors, turbines, transmission and distribution infrastructure (power lines or T&D), plant infrastructure, and nuclear fuel for 60 years as well as decommissioning costs."
Actual cost averages out to 2 cents a kwh over the 60 years.
Contrary to your moronic spew it is actually more expensive to build hi tech product to Western standards in China as are the current AP-1000 builds at $1.2B/Gw. Do you see any Chinese built Airliners at Lufthansa? How about Chinese autos on the road?
"..a chinese government official saying that WITH DEVELOPMENT, the COULD get the cost to around $2.3B per GW.. " He was speaking of the Chinese's own Gen III product you halfwit. Not local assembly of foreign built Ap-1000's and EPR's.
You are such a moron. Why can't you at least ask a local kindergarten teacher to read stuff for you and then have her give a response.You were asking about operating costs fuel, decom, waste so I gave out the current operating cost.
At $4B/Gw for the zero subsidy first of kind nukes at VC Summer than adds 2 cents a kwh to the cost it financed by public power at 4% and 5 cents when Wall street finances it at 12%. After the first 20 or so are build those numbers drop in half as evidenced by the Candu builds over the last two decades.
very lively discussion which I enjoyed. One of my favorites was (#53)sethdayal using FUKU...never mind..must be watching to much beavis and butthead;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the article a false claim is made: "Currently, multi-junction solar cells are limited largely to satellites, where the need for efficiency, low weight and small space trumps cost concerns." In fact, Uni-Solar has been selling mass-produced multi-junction solar laminate for years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think solar cells are inefficient because they are very slow compared to the frequency of light waves. A fast diode (solar cell is a diode) should be able to rectify light waves, and then it would be efficient. If solar cells used sufficiently fast Schottky diodes then they would be more efficient.
Yes there were alternatives to the technology then available, minicomputers, mainframe computers. If you couldn't afford those, there were electromechanical and mechanical type writers, calculators both programmable and non-programmable, as well as paper and pencil or pen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese days very few people in western societies exclusively use paper and pencil or pen.
Please quit putting words in my mouth, I never ONCE stated I'm anti nuclear. In fact I support nuclear energy, as long as it is INTELLIGENTLY applied. As last year's unfortunate disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has clearly demonstrated, it is a mistake to situate a nuclear power station on a geologically unstable region, or on a region vulnerable to weather extremes. Also the issue of what to do with the nuclear waste must be carefully and seriously researched, much as Sweden has been doing since the 1950's.
I doubt Solar technology alone can fully replace fossil fuel sources, for the present time and foreseeable future, it will need to be a combination of nuclear, solar, wind and Hydrogen extracted from water using Titanium Oxide solar panels.
Nuclear energy reactor research was initially exclusively funded by the US Department of Energy.
For comparisons on government energy spending see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy still requires massive US government subsidies totalling $74 billion dollars (Nuclear energy $50bn, Fossil fuels $24bn). Renewables requires $26 billion, not only just for solar energy, but includes wind and tidal power, and Hydrogen extraction from water using solar powered Titanium Oxide panels too.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128165212.htm
Now the question is, why do non-renewables need a much larger share (two to three times) of US government funding compared to renewables?
Photovoltaic (PV) solar cells have been improving their efficiency from 15% to 22%, to 40%. With continued R&D effort, there is no Physical reason why its efficiency cannot be improved.
New technology requires subsidies for R&D work to further improve their efficiency. But why do older and supposedly established technologies such as fossil fuels (100+ years old) and nuclear (50+ years old) require such high government subsidies?
Solar technology in comparison with fossil fuels and even nuclear energy, sounds like a bargain to me. And with Solar farms, I don't run the risk of toxic fumes triggering an asthma attack, or nuclear radiation leaking into my backyard, if there's an earthquake.