Muons and ADNA proposing using accelerator-driven subcritical reactor for heat for production of synthetic fuels and chemicals
Argentina’s YPF and Bridas, 50% owned by CNOOC, to invest $1.5B in Vaca Muerta shale oil development in Argentina

Ford Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid sedan EPA-rated at 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined; Ford projects best hybrid sales quarter ever

13FusionEnergi_04
2013 Fusion Energi. Click to enlarge.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has rated the new Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid (earlier post) at up to 108 MPGe city, 92 MPGe highway and 100 MPGe combined (2.2, 2.6 and 2.4 l/100km-equivalent, respectively).

Fusion Energi is the Ford brand’s fifth electrified vehicle to launch in the past year—and its second plug-in hybrid after the C-MAX Energi. Ford expects the Fusion Energi to accelerate its record hybrid sales pace, including its highest monthly hybrid sales month ever in November. Ford projects 19,000-plus hybrid/electric vehicle sales in the fourth quarter of this year, making it the company’s best quarter for hybrids ever and besting its own previous hybrid vehicle sales record by more than 50%; Ford expects more than half of hybrid sales this year to come in this quarter.

With Fusion Energi and Fusion Hybrid, the Fusion lineup brings the widest range of powertrain options to the US midsize segment. Fusion also is available in gasoline-fueled versions with a choice between a pair of fuel-efficient EcoBoost engines and a normally aspirated four-cylinder engine.

Like its cousin, the C-MAX Energi PHEV, the Fusion PHEV offers:

  • SmartGauge with EcoGuide to provide in-vehicle customizable displays, including instantaneous fuel economy readings and coaching functions to help drivers understand and optimize their fuel efficiency.

  • SYNC with MyFord Touch to manage and control phone, available navigation, entertainment and climate functions. Plug-in hybrids and all-electric models have additional options for monitoring information like battery state of charge.

  • EV+ combining the built-in GPS of Ford SYNC with proprietary software algorithms developed by Ford engineers to learn frequent destinations. As a result, vehicles give drivers more drive time in electric-only mode.

C-MAX became the fastest-selling hybrid ever at launch after 8,030 units were sold in October and November, the first two months C-MAX was on the market. The pace beat Toyota Camry Hybrid’s 7,300 sales in its first two full months of availability in May and June 2006.

The response to C-MAX really shows the amount of pent-up demand from a specific market for C-segment hybrids. Fusion Energi has a different audience in the midsize sedan market, but delivers many of the characteristics and technologies that make C-MAX Energi so great, which is why we’re anticipating a similar positive response.

—C.J. O’Donnell, marketing manager, Ford Electrified Vehicles

Ford differentiates between the two PHEVs by noting that C-MAX is geared toward those most concerned with fuel economy, but designed so that owners aren’t forced to sacrifice comfort and convenience. Fusion is designed with the driver’s sense of style in mind, delivering a midsize sedan that offers functional design elements that enhance its sleek exterior and promote fuel economy.

Many of the technologies of Fusion Energi are shared across Ford’s electrified vehicle lineup and draw from the automaker’s portfolio of about 500 patents related specifically to hybrid technology:

  • MyFord Mobile: Enables access via smartphone or Web-based interface to perform key tasks, such as monitoring a vehicle’s state of charge and current range or locating charge stations and planning routes to find them.

  • Eco cruise: Saves vehicle energy by relaxing acceleration compared to standard cruise control.

  • EV mode button: Conveniently mounted on the console to the right of the shifter—allows a driver to switch vehicle operation between three modes: all-electric, normal hybrid operation and conserve battery power for later use.

  • Regenerative braking is capable of capturing and reusing more than 90% of the braking energy normally lost during the braking process.

  • Hybrid transmission, designed by Ford engineers in-house, is capable of operating at high speeds and in a smooth, fuel-efficient manner at the same time. (Earlier post.)

  • Advanced lithium-ion batteries covered by an eight-year/100,000-mile component limited warranty.

  • Charge port with LED light ring, conveniently located on the driver’s side and near the front of the car, it features a light ring that illuminates to indicate charge status.

Comments

Davemart

@Kit:
Coal fired power in the grid in the US is indeed usually more than 33% efficient.
However there are grid losses of around 7% to account for, which brings us back to around that efficiency for the grid as a whole as measured at the point of consumption.
High burn of natural gas due to lower prices has raised that figure somewhat for the past couple of years, but we are still only talking in the area of 36% efficient or so.

I am still waiting for your academic sources to be referenced to substantiate your claims of the health giving effects of coal and vehicle pollution in the US.

You tout an opinion and never offer any grounds for it at all.

Davemart

@Harvey:
Wind is utterly dependent on gas burn to function and there is no prospect of that changing.
That is why Germany is building a load more fossil fuel plants to cover running down nuclear.

If you want to offer another opinion, then how about providing some backing for it instead of simply proclaiming it?
You will have a tough time so doing, as that is the present technical reality, despite what fantasists would have us believe.

Kit P

@Davemart

“I am still waiting for your academic sources to be referenced to substantiate your claims of the health giving effects of coal and vehicle pollution in the US. ”

So you want me to provide references for what I did not say. What I said is that you prevent the harmful effects of pollution by not exposing people to pollution.

People like Davemart like to talk about how terrible the world is. I look around and where I live it is pretty nice. Davemart says prove with a academic reference. What I need a college professor tell me it is nice? I can also check:

http://airnow.gov/

I do recall when I was in the navy seeing some places that were terrible. When i drove through West Virginia, ground zero for US coal-based industry, my eyes burned. Thirty years later it is different story.

Saying air quality is good is not an opinion. It is a measured fact.

I deal a lot measured facts. It is a fact that high doses of radiation are lethal. It is also a measured fact that my exposure and the people whom I was responsible for their radiation safety had very low exposure and were not harmed.

The measurable fact is that people who have terrible air quality is caused by the absence of coal-based generation. The first step in improving air quality is to replace with electricity heating and cooking with coal and biomass.

It grips me to no end that folks think PHEV or FCEV will improve air quality for the rich who already clean air but ignore the plight of billions who are not so fortunate.

Bob Wallace

The notion that renewables will allow a 'transition away from fossil fuels' is, to put it bluntly, a flaming lie based on anything we can remotely do technologically. - Davemart

We need to quit burning fossil fuels. That means we need alternative energy sources and the options seem to be renewable energy (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) or nuclear. If we wish to avoid the multiple problems of a nuclear future then we have to make sure that four important concerns about renewable energy are answered.

1. Is there enough non-fossil fuel, non-nuclear energy available to provide all the energy desired worldwide?

2. Do we have the technology necessary to turn that energy into useful forms?

3. Can we deal with the variable supply nature of some forms of renewable energy?

4. Can we afford to operate our economies using nothing but renewable energy?

Jacobson and Delucchi (2009) answers questions 1 and 2 in the affirmative.

They surveyed the most abundant renewable energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, hydro, etc.) and found the world has far more than enough. They calculated the number of solar panels, wind turbines, etc. we would need to install to produce all the energy (electricity, heat, and transportation) we would need in 2030 and found that current (2009) technology could do the job.

Budischak, et al. (2013) answers questions 3 and 4 in the affirmative taking a "worst case" grid fed only with wind, solar and a tiny bit of natural gas.

They ran simulations against four years of actual grid demand against the weather (availability of wind and solar). They found that we could power the grid from almost nothing other than wind, solar and storage. That "almost nothing" was using natural gas turbines for a total of 35 hours in four years. Five times in four years it was necessary to call on NG for an average of seven hours each time.

And the overall cost for electricity was approximately what we pay now for electricity.

Of course adding in other renewable sources (hydro, geothermal, biomass/gas, tidal, wave), load-shifting, and power swaps with surrounding grids along with technological advances would lower the cost.

These two studies show us the route forward. 'Worst case' is that we can power ourselves with renewables plus insignificant amounts of gas. All the improvements we make to our generation and storage systems over the next two decades simply make the job easier and cheaper.

Jacobson and Delucchi
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

Budischak, et al.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit

Davemart

Bob:
Thanks for the references.
Even when I do not agree I respect those who have done some investigation.
For the record I am familiar with both studies, and consider them unfounded speculations.
Both simply assume that whatever they happen to need to provide their preferred systems will come about, with science as a kind of tooth fairy.

Jacobson in particular never, ever, responds to critiques, and is still presented as an expert, when if he had views which were not what people desperately want to hear he would be dismissed on those grounds, as he does not engage in the academic process.

My own views are based on what is happening, and in practise neither Germany and Japan is managing to come off of fossil fuels, nor is there any prospect of their so doing. For instance:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9480

And:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9205

This is hardly the place to conduct a in depth discussion, but thank you for providing references.

Davemart

Kit:
'Saying air quality is good is not an opinion. It is a measured fact.'

Which you consistently refuse to provide any backing for your claim that present levels are harmless.

Here are just some of the reputable studies that indicate otherwise:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/exposure/air-pollution/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/southern-california-air-pollution_n_1273348.html

If you deal in facts, how about stopping ignoring huge bodies of evidence which contradict your position.

It seems your opinions are as faith based as those of creationists.

Bob Wallace

Dave, I need more than

Even when I do not agree I respect those who have done some investigation.

For the record I am familiar with both studies, and consider them unfounded speculations.

Both simply assume that whatever they happen to need to provide their preferred systems will come about, with science as a kind of tooth fairy.

Specifically what assumptions do you believe the authors of the two papers have made which are erroneous? What is "unfounded speculation" in the two papers?

I'd really like to find out what the flaws are that the review committees for the two journals missed.

If you can't provide something concrete then shouldn't we suspect that you are simply dismissing facts which you find inconvenient?

Kit P

Let me add to BS Bob's list

5. Know the difference between producing energy and writing a paper.

“These two studies show us the route forward ”

Who is us? What BS Bob means by 'us' is those who do not have a clue about producing energy. What looks easy on paper may not be the least bit practical. For example:

“If we wish to avoid the multiple problems of a nuclear future ..”

For something to be practical you have to over come problems on a daily basis. Real problems not the ones BS Bob makes up. The nuclear industry has demonstrated that it is a practical way of producing power. Anytime, anyplace, anywhere!

I have been an advocate of renewable energy all my life. We should keep striving to push the envelop because you solve problems by doing not writing magazine articles. I find people like BS Bob very frustrating. The expend more effort explaining why nuclear and coal plants should be shutdown than figuring out how to make renewable energy work. Just try to build a renewable energy project in their backyard.

I have explained to BS Bob before that the PJM has very poor wind and solar resources. When Duke Energy of FPL invest in solar or wind equipment they are going to site production at location that will produce the most power. There are many better places to build.

The challenge for renewable energy is the next 1% not replacing coal or nuclear.

Kit P


“Our last Nuclear plant closed down ”

Could you be more specific? Canada still has lots of nuke plants running.

Davemart

Bob:
Since you choose to adopt that attitude, I look forward to your detailed response to the links I have given indicating just some of the practical difficulties in enacting the renewables fantasy.

Some idea of the complete nonsense Jacobson writes can be gathered in the responses to the article you quote here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-march-2010

For instance:
'Jacobson says: "….Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate…"

The Truth: CERI - the Independent non-profit Canadian Energy Research Institute found a complete life-cycle analysis of Nuclear Power in Ontario to be 1.8 gms CO2 per kwh. Far below Jacobson's 9 gms, which he falsely claims is from Nuclear Industry sources. CERI is not a Nuclear Industry "estimate".

http://www.ceri.ca/Institute/institute=index.asp'

And:

'Jacobson says: "….Range 68-180 g-CO2/kWh based on the 10-19 year planning-to-operation time for nuclear power plants…"

The Truth: Denmark is the Wind Energy capital of the World - 25 yrs of All-Out effort. Let's see the results of that Supreme Effort:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKTPES.pdf

The tiny little red line on top is Wind Energy ( most of which must be exported, only 1/4 to 1/2 is actually consumed in Denmark). See the huge purple, blue and green lines - that's dirty, filthy, GHG spewing Coal, Oil and Gas. The brown line is garbage and biomass (raped from the soil - where it should have been returned) burnt in smoke belching Thermal Power plants.

Compare with France:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf

See the big fat yellow line - that’s Nuclear. The filthiest Coal line is mighty thin compared to Denmark's isn't it?
Opportunity cost indeed!'

Jacobson willfully and deliberately misrepresents figures to suit his convenience.

Davemart

As for the other paper you quote, this is based on the said Jacobson, and builds on his misrepresentations.
For its debunking, see Goat Guys comments here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/the-lowest-cost-combinationof-wind.html

For instance:
'Look at the graph showing green frantic-wiggles of production, purple "storage" and red "fossil fuel" backup production. Note that the purple graph caps at ... ahem ... capacity. Know what happens to every other kilowatt-hour that the frantic green line produces that isn't in demand? Junk watts. Not used. Bupkass. Wasted. Zilch.

That there is one hell of an indictment of Mr. Jacobson's scientific credibility. There aren't any mysterious sinks that can (or were) cited to fill the production-consumption gap. This - if it passes for science these days in the hallowed halls of Government - is just the kind of thing that destroys the long-term credibility of the PV/Renewable Energy sector to the public.

I'd go so far as to hail it as Pork. Pure and straight. By the barrel.'

You really should learn to tell the difference between engineering proposals and some nutter making random statements which are given a false cloak of respectability because that is what people want to believe.

In order to counter the supposed dangers of nuclear which they exaggerate by several orders of magnitude they manipulate and falsify figures to pretend that renewables can be used where there is no sensible way of doing so at all.

Note that I have been supporter of renewables for 40 years.
I am simply horrified that they have been hijacked by ideologues in service to the notion that they can replace nuclear.

They can't, and no sensible person would imagine that anytime in the next 40 years the tiny proportion of total energy needs that wind and solar currently provide and which only happen when they feel like it instead of on demand could possibly provide a complete energy solution.

That's it.
I have wasted too much time over the last 40 years reading and refuting complete garbage.
It is as futile as bothering to look at believers in perpetual motion latest scheme.

Kit P

@Davemart

“Which you consistently refuse ”

I have provided this link many times maybe you missed it our our browser only sees junk science.

http://airnow.gov/

One has to wonder if Davemart reads the links he provides. No evidence of the lethal nature of air pollution could be found.

I thought this would be a good place to look.

Mexico Childhood Asthma
“Mexico City has the highest ozone levels in North America. ”

Just for the record Mexico City is not part of the US and not regulated by the EPA.

The NIEHS link documents research on the health effects but Davemart provide any evidence. I will be happy to look at a specific paper at the NIEHS but Davemart is sending me on a wild goose chase. Pretty good indication that Davemart making up stuff.

The Huffington Post

Really! Who goes there look for anything but junk science? In any case, I have seen this questionable work before.

“This article estimates ”

I do have an advantage over Davemart. I used to work at a power plant in California. There are no large coal fired power plants in California. Whatever air quality problems California has they can not be blamed on coal.

The second problem is defining what a health affect is. How do you measure premature death in a person with chronic heath issues who is over 75? When a 45 year old smoker dies of lung cancer it is a very clearly a premature death that could be avoided. He may have been a cool dude in high school, too bad he will not see his kids graduate.

Two points here. First if you are talking about air pollution, Please show me that it is really bad. Second if you are telling that air pollution is killing people show me it is killing people and not some half baked study that says really old people might be dying early based on some half baked model.

Places with bad air pollution have a big problem. It is called poverty and inadequate medical care. Malnutrition is a terrible way to avoid cancer.

Kit P

“based on the 10-19 year planning-to-operation time for nuclear power plants ”

This is one of my favorite junk science anti-nuke arguments. Utilities typically look 20 years down the road. Second it is how long the plant operates after construction that determines ghg emissions for construction.

For example. The LCA share for construction is 10 g-CO2/kWh based on 40 years. If the plant runs 20 years it would be 20 g-CO2/kWh. If it ran 80 years it would be 5 g-CO2/kWh.

Of course the purpose of LCA is to look at the factors affecting environmental impact and reduce them. Producing twice as much power using uranium enriched with modern practices is the reason wind and solar should avoid comparison with nuclear.

Bob Wallace

Dave, I'm not going to get sidetracked over how what the CO2 footprint of nuclear might or might not be.

This - "'Jacobson says: "….Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate…"" is not from the paper I linked.

Neither is this - "'Jacobson says: "….Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate…""


The only statement about nuclear and CO2 in the Jacobson and Delucchi paper which I can find is "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind...."

The paper is not about nuclear and CO2, it is about the availability of ample renewable energy to power the world. Please restrict your criticism to what is in the paper.

The paper is also not about the current state of affairs in Denmark or France. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Please point out an incidence in the linked paper where numbers are distorted.

Bob Wallace

Dave - I did find the source of "'Jacobson says: "….Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate…""

It is from a different paper. In it Jacobson states:

"We estimate the lifecycle emissions of new nuclear power plants as 9–70 g-CO2e/kWh, with the lower number from an industry estimate (WNO, 2008b) and the upper number slightly above the average of 66 g-CO2e/kWh from Sovacool (2008), who reviewed 103 new and old lifecycle studies of nuclear energy. Koch (2000), Fthenakis and Kim (2007), and IPCC (2007) estimate mean lifecycle emissions of nuclear reactors as 59, 16–55 and 40 g-CO2e/kWh, respectively; thus, the range appears within reason."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/BiofuelFinPapMZJIntJBiotechnol08.pdf


Now, I hope you understand that Jacobson did not generate those numbers. He did what any good researcher would do, he cited previous published numbers.

Why the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) number is not included, I don't know. The CERI website seems to be down so I can't determine the publication date. It could be that they published after Jacobson's 2009 paper.

It could also be that they never placed that paper in an academic journal where it would be searchable.

I did find a paper about oil sands and using nuclear to extract the oil that CERI published in December, 2008. In it I found nothing about lifetime carbon footprint.

And they site no lifetime footprint study that they made in their reference section.

www.ceri.ca/docs/CERIOilSandsGHG-PartI.pdf

Furthermore, a search using "Canadian Energy Research Institute nuclear footprint" yields no link to any paper published by them.

I've been trying their site for about an hour. If you find their study please let me know.


HarveyD

KitP...Canada (like USA) has many electrical grids (regional Networks)that are not yet always connected together. Our's supplies all of Quebec Province (at a uniformed rate) with sales (over $2.5B/year) to neighboring Provinces and South of the Border States. Even with one of the lowest rate in Canada, the yearly net profits are about $4B. About half the yearly profits are turned over as 'dividends' to the sole owner...i.e. the Provincial Government to pay part of the free medicare program cost and part of higher education (colleges and universities) cost.

Eventually, Wind Power may become the primary energy source (when developed to between 30,000 mega-watt and 50,000+ mega-watt, with (variable output) Hydro used to fill in during peak demand and whenever Wind Power is not enough to meet demands.

Hydro and Wind make good to ideal clean energy companions because Hydro can easily be turned on and off and unused water stored in huge water reservoirs. Hydro power plants could easily be over-equipped to meet larger peak demands. We could eventually (whenever demand exist) increase Hydro and Wind to about 95,000 mega-watt each or almost 4X current installed capacity. All Hydro-Wind energy plants share the same High Voltage (735,000 V) transmission lines.

The 20% to 25% limits for Wind power does not apply when Hydro is the sole or main companion.

Bob Wallace

Now, Dave, your GoatGuys comment. That is one pure POS.

GoatGus says -

"And this part - "Know what happens to every other kilowatt-hour that the frantic green line produces that isn't in demand? Junk watts. Not used. Bupkass. Wasted. Zilch.""

The Budischak paper clearly determines that because of the storage technology we have today it makes more financial sense to over build capacity than to invest in additional storage.

That is exactly how today's grid works. We have built enough capacity to cover peak-peak needs and that is at times far more than we need. We have gas peaker plants which sit idle most of the year. We turn off some coal plants in the spring when the wind is up, the streams full of water and demand low. We curtail generation at night when demand drops.

Furthermore, the guy who flung out that article failed to note that the cost of a nuclear power grid would not simply the be the cost of a MWh of electricity from a plant placed in service in 2017.

Just like a wind/solar grid, nuclear would have to be built in adequate amounts to cover peak-peak demand or storage and/or other generation would be needed. Those drive up the cost.

Take a critical look at the page you link. Clearly the author wrote with little thinking and understanding.

And this -

"That there is one hell of an indictment of Mr. Jacobson's scientific credibility. "

I don't think you're reading before spouting off. You're just parroting crap from someone else's page.

"Tbhis is basing analysis upon the crappy plans by Stanford's Professor Jacobson."

That is factually incorrect. The Budischak study was not built on the Jacobson paper. It was built on data from supplied by PJM and NOAA.

The author also states "I would also like to see how they are handling the power grid costs and if the grid is in the right places. Usually renewables need more power grid extensions which are costly and time consuming."

Had he read the paper his wishes would have been fulfilled. That is addressed in the paper.

You guys need to start reading papers prior to declaring your expertise.

Bob Wallace

Dave - apparently the US government knows nothing about a possible CERI study on nuclear energy footprint. It is not listed on this site.

http://en.openei.org/apps/LCA/

And 1.8 gms is significantly lower that any of the data they cited. Here's a paragraph from their summary...

"Screening 274 references yielded 27 that reported 99 independent estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from light water reactors (LWRs). The published median, interquartile range (IQR), and range for the pool of LWR life cycle GHG emission estimates were 13, 23, and 220 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively. After harmonizing methods to use consistent gross system boundaries and values for several important system parameters, the same statistics were 12, 17, and 110 g CO2-eq/kWh, respectively. Harmonization (especially of performance characteristics) clarifies the estimation of central tendency and variability."

See if you can find the source for your claim, please.

Engineer-Poet
Coal fired power in the grid in the US is indeed usually more than 33% efficient. However there are grid losses of around 7% to account for...
0.33*0.93=0.31 (rounded to 2 figures).  Hardly a game-changer.
Engineer-Poet
Just like a wind/solar grid, nuclear would have to be built in adequate amounts to cover peak-peak demand or storage and/or other generation would be needed. Those drive up the cost.
As it happens, it's easier to build enough storage to do the job with nuclear because you are only managing a daily/weekend demand curve, not dealing with variations in availability on the scale of hours to weeks to years.

Pumped hydro storage is economic when nuclear power is supplying the off-peak watts and reservoirs are full every Monday morning.  There isn't enough land for reservoirs to do the job with wind and PV.

Last, nuclear power does not have to be built out to cover peaks.  Peaking generation could come from any energy source available in sufficient quantity.  Suppose for a moment that you have 6000 TWH/yr of power to supply and 5% of this cannot be met by nuclear or its associated storage systems.  The un-met need is 300 TWH/yr, or 1.08e18 J.  Suppose we take 300 million dry tons of surplus crop biomass at 17.4 GJ/ton (5.2e18 J), torrefy it at 90% energy efficiency (4.7e18 J) to make it easily transportable and storable, and burn it in advanced gas turbines with the appropriate systems to handle ash achieving 40% efficiency (1.88e18 J).  It looks like you'd accomplish the job and have an annual surplus which could be used for other products or as a carbon-sequestering soil amendment.

If you really want to improve the environment, you want nuclear power.  Nuclear energy can not only eliminate carbon emissions, it can support the removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

Bob Wallace

Well, you agree with what I said. Nuclear would take overbuilding, storage and/or in-fill generation. And that would add to the cost. Can't use only the LCOE of nuclear placed in service in 2017 as did the article that both you and Dave have linked.

Now, would it be cheaper to build a nuclear or a renewable grid? That is a question we cannot answer at the moment. We have no current costs for building a nuclear reactor in the US. Southern Company might give us that data in a few years.

In the meantime we can watch the prices of wind, solar and other renewables. And we can see how storage develops.

Right now existing economics in "free market" conditions are not choosing nuclear. Perhaps that will change.

Davemart

@Kit:
' Second if you are telling that air pollution is killing people show me it is killing people and not some half baked study that says really old people might be dying early based on some half baked model.'

So dying early is not evidence of increased mortality?

You then characterise any study which does not agree with the results you fancy as half baked.
That is just about all of them.

Here are a couple showing that whilst progress has been made in the US, air pollution is still a significant factor in mortality and ill-health.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/09/epa-proposes-tighter-particulate-air-pollution-standards/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2012-releases/air-pollution-improve-life-expectancy-us.html

But I forgot. According to you people dying has nothing to do with mortality, and any study which includes older people is necessarily half baked.

Engineer-Poet
Nuclear would take overbuilding, storage and/or in-fill generation.
Compared to your favorite model, which requires all of the above?  Hello?  Hello?  Bueller?
And that would add to the cost.
Heaven forbid you have to overbuild by 3x or so, and also assume fossil-fuel use elsewhere to make your sales targets.
Can't use only the LCOE of nuclear placed in service in 2017
Yeah, continued production would continue to get cheaper with experience absent government obstruction.  Can't have that, it violates the dogma.
Now, would it be cheaper to build a nuclear or a renewable grid? That is a question we cannot answer at the moment. We have no current costs for building a nuclear reactor in the US.
Now why is that?  Could it be... punitive government regulation?  The AP1000 is a single approved design; why does it take China half the time to approve and construct one, compared to the USA?

Under the AEC, a nuclear plant could go from license application to breaking ground in ten months.  That's not a typo:  ten months.  And they worked pretty well; some of those AEC-era plants have been retired, but that's because they were very early, very small, and just not economical to keep running under the NRC's fee schedule or hostile state governments.

Right now existing economics in "free market" conditions are not choosing nuclear.
The scare quotes are correct, because the market is not free; suppliers and consumers in many states are forced to buy and sell under particular terms which favor low capital investment.  This means gas-fired plants have an advantage over everything else, because they have the lowest capital costs and can charge whatever they need to to recover fuel costs in a spot market.

Engineer-Poet

Nuclear has very cheap fuel and O&M (less than 2¢/kWh), so its cost of production is determined mostly by the interest on capital.  This favors long-term, fixed-price contracts, not mandated sales at hourly spot-market prices.  This is how the non-free market discriminates against nuclear power.

Wind and PV have free fuel, but they have the worst of both worlds otherwise:  they are not dispatchable so they must sell at spot prices (which will be depressed when they are producing the most), and they have large fixed costs to recover.

Kit P

@Harvey

It is easy, you said you closed your last nuclear power plant, What is the name of the plant?

“Gentilly Nuclear Generating Station”

Just for the record, regional US grids are tied together. The US grid is connected with the Canadian grid. Power goes back and forth depending on the time of year.

For those who want 100% renewable energy there are lots of places to live. I think BS Bob should move to Quebec or maybe Iceland. He will love it there. However, like most of the California loons their bones are found when the snow drifts melt.

I love renewable energy but the power industry also has to supply power on the worst days that nature provides. Sure we lived without electricity for thousands of years yet very few choose to live that way again. Harvey and BS Bob choose to live a modern life style that includes the power sucking internet but somehow fails to make the connection that how they live is not possible with renewable energy.

The comments to this entry are closed.