header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Electricity Update Pt 6

 (Read 3155 times)

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2019, 05:08:48 PM »
https://www.iea.org/geco/electricity/

Renewables accounted for nearly half of the global additional generation (at 380 TWh) required to meet increasing demand, bringing their share in global generation to a record high of 25%. Generation from renewables was second only to coal in 2017, and ahead of gas for the third year in a row. Despite strong increases in wind and solar PV generation, hydropower remains the largest source by far of renewables-based electricity generation, with a major share of 65% in overall renewables output. A strong year for hydropower in the United States and Canada more than offset a drop in hydropower generation in the European Union.

Among other low-carbon technologies, nuclear generation increased by 26 TWh in 2017, as a significant amount of the new nuclear capacity commissioned in 2016 saw its first full year of operation last year. Nuclear generation accounts for 10% of global power generation and grew by 3%, relative to 2016, with Japan contributing to 40% of this growth. Nonetheless nuclear capacity additions globally only just exceeded retirements in 2017.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2019, 05:10:13 PM »
So, what is amazing is how many countries are going to renewables more than anything else.  

That would be factually correct.  That is where the growth is happening globally.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #58 on: January 02, 2019, 05:14:18 PM »
 I ignore the fact many countries are starting to build new reactors and those  reactors  as well as the initial planing that goes into new plants are not counted in new generation link I posted as they are not on line. I will also continue to ignore I made a compatible statement
Thanks for continuing to prove my points there Pirate OCD Dawg

So you can continue your obnoxious behavior, as I said I don't play games nor respond well to certain personality disorders. 
So see if this reminds you of a commandment from Christ to his disciples 
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2019, 05:16:55 PM »
"However its amazing many countries are going nuke more than anything else"

That assertion is false, plain and simple.  I showed data.  You claim you have inside information not published, which is BS.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #60 on: January 02, 2019, 05:22:49 PM »
I don't care what is published in the press and trade periodicals. Likewise I ignore someone who worked in the industry and still does contract work for the industry and has friends all throughout the industry may know what their talking about . So great is my desire to try and run someone down.  
Yap Yap Yap
Thanks for continuing to prove my points there Pirate OCD Dawg

So you can continue your obnoxious behavior, as I said I don't play games nor respond well to certain personality disorders.
So see if this reminds you of a commandment from Christ to his disciples



I see OCD Dawg continues to ignore what was previously posted

about his links ignoring the fact many countries are starting to build new reactors and those  reactors  as well as the initial planing that goes into new plants are not counted in new generation links he  posted as they are not on line.

He also continues to prove my points

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ :singing:

« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 06:01:57 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #61 on: January 02, 2019, 05:39:15 PM »
Being intentionally oblivious to facts posted is remarkable to me.

If someone posts a fact that I didn't know before, I'm glad about it, especially if the facts are backed up with highly credible citations.

Being wrong about something is not nearly as bad as continuing to want to be wrong in the face of contrary information.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #62 on: January 02, 2019, 05:55:26 PM »
https://www.iea.org/geco/electricity/

Renewables accounted for nearly half of the global additional generation 

So, to make plain, this means that the additional generation over the past year has been of the renewable variety.  Lest we think that is from some commie site, here is BP's site:

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/renewable-energy.html

 "Renewables accounted for nearly 50% of the growth in global power generation in 2017, and contributed 27% of world primary energy growth."

"Coal remains the world’s dominant source of power, with a share of 38.1% in 2017, almost as much as natural gas (23.2%) and hydroelectricity (15.9%) combined, which sit in second and third positions. Renewables’ share of power generation was 8.4% in 2017, having risen 6.1% percentage points since 2007. Over the same period, nuclear’s share declined by 3.4 percentage points while coal lost 3.1 percentage points. "

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Viewpoint: There is no Holy Grail of energy
« Reply #63 on: January 02, 2019, 06:17:36 PM »
In September this year, I was invited to attend the IAEA General Conference to make a presentation at its Scientific Forum, laying down the arguments for the development of nuclear energy as a climate protection factor for a country having one of Europe's highest CO2 emission rates per power generation unit. I could have repeated some commonplace statements found in many reports, but as a physicist by profession, I decided to focus on facts.
Based on the data of the European Environment Agency, I compared the historical emissions data for Poland, Germany and France. The results, although obvious to me, may seem shocking to many. What I found is that, for the last 20 years, Poland has reduced its emissions by virtually the same amount as Germany, whose total renewable energy investment exceeded EUR250 billion. Of course, we are talking about slightly different levels.
Germany’s emissions per power unit are about half those of Poland, but let’s not forget that in Poland we had a completely different starting point. The picture is even more interesting when you look at France. In fact, Germany, while it leads the way in the development of renewable energy sources, has emissions ten times higher than France that relies on nuclear for power generation. And here we come to some very interesting findings and questions.
How is it possible that a country investing heavily in renewable energy ends up with a ratio similar to Poland’s? For energy generation experts, the answer is simple - unstable energy sources achieve a certain degree of saturation in the energy mix, so much so that their further development does not lead to an effective increase in their share of overall energy production. The power system is a zero-balance one. Energy is produced in amounts that can be used, with storage possibilities being generally negligible. The energy system cannot feed solely off renewables without supply from stable sources, and these, in the case of Germany, are provided by lignite power plants, the highest producers of emissions.
Perfectly aware of this, our western neighbour is diging new open-pit lignite mines, holding back the European Parliament’s ambition to set higher goals. Germany already knows that it will fail to achieve the CO2 emissions reduction targets set for 2020 and the gap will be quite significant. That’s why it is postponing the closure of coal-fired power plants and is building Nord Stream 2. The only possibility for reduction it has, assuming its withdrawal from coal and nuclear, is gas, which is why Germany is so determined to complete the second leg of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.
A German expert on wind energy, advisor to the German minister of economy, recently came to Warsaw to give some interesting lectures at the Universities of Warsaw and the Sejm on wind energy as a power system source. He had the clear message that wind energy cannot be the basis of the power system, and neither can offshore. He also explained why the Holy Grail of renewable energy - an energy storage facility capable of filling the gap if wind stops for one day across the country - cannot be built, meaning it does not exist. Remember that the ‘wind silence’ can last for weeks.
Now let’s have a look at France that derives 75% of its energy from nuclear power plants. The remainder - produced by thermal power plants - emits an average of ten times less CO2 per power unit than neighbouring Germany. The incumbent president abandoned the plan of his predecessor who, on the wave of green ideology, pledged to reduce the share of nuclear energy to 50%, stating that what matters is the reduction of emissions and not the way it is achieved. Nevertheless, in order to appease the wind lobby, he approved the construction of offshore wind farms, with a guaranteed price five times more expensive than that of nuclear power. Well, the rich can afford more.
The European Union should ask itself whether the chosen, or in fact enforced, renewable energy development path is truly leading to climate protection - reducing CO2 emissions - or is a profitable business-making scheme. I think it’s the latter. It may be that, in the beginning, the development of, say, wind energy was driven by ecological considerations, but then huge subsidies have transformed this way of generating energy into a very profitable business.
A few years ago, I read an article by a consultancy that "a wind turbine is not a wind power plant; it is an excellent financial instrument”. And it is true, as it is not easy to point to another instrument that guarantees such high profits for several years. It is also a business with a powerful lobby. How else can it be explained that the provisions of the SPD-CDU coalition agreement, which explicitly speaks about the export of Energiewende, point to the protection of almost 200,000 jobs in Germany? In addition, the same document highlights the decision to block the use of funds from the EU budget for the development of nuclear energy. So Germany can use Polish funds paid into the EU budget for the development of renewable sources in Germany, but Poland cannot use its contributions for nuclear energy.
One may ask who gets the most profits from the development of renewable energy. It is obvious to me that it is not the climate. In addition to the RES-related industries and financial markets, the largest beneficiaries are suppliers of natural gas, a commodity supporting the use of renewable energy sources, whose European resources are gradually being depleted, but not Russia’s. I would not count on LNG so much, because Asian countries will always be able to pay more than we do, and their needs are definitely bigger and growing.
If the EU really wanted to protect the climate by reducing CO2 emissions, it would set the reduction targets as effectively as possible, regardless of the technology used. The most effective currently available technology is nuclear fission power (fusion technology still has a long way to go to commercialisation). Nuclear generation has high investment costs, but its output is very cheap thanks to its long service life and low variable costs. It is available on demand, no matter the weather conditions, and thus guarantees energy security. It is a fact that half of the EU’s emission-free energy is produced by nuclear power plants.
But nuclear energy has its opponents, especially ideologically-conditioned ones, whose argument is “no because no”. They use mostly untruths or misrepresentations, as opposed to facts; they do not know what they are talking about and, unfortunately, they are able to play on emotions. But it is the problem of Western countries, completely irrelevant to the growing powers of Asia, which are dynamically developing nuclear energy.
The last 30 years have seen a clear slowdown in the development of nuclear energy in the so-called First World. This was caused firstly by the failure of the Chernobyl power plant (consciously triggered by plant personnel), and thereafter as nuclear power was experiencing a revival, a tsunami in Japan put a spanner in the works. Although no one died of radiation in Fukushima, the opponents of nuclear energy used the accident to build a massive campaign against it, while preventing its economically viable development.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this does not apply to developing countries. And yet, in addition to generating electricity, new nuclear technologies have a much wider application. They enable the production of heat for heating purposes or process heat, and also to achieve temperatures enabling an effective hydrous pyrolysis that leads to the creation of the most promising fuel - hydrogen. And all this is possible with zero emissions into the atmosphere.
The advantage of these new solutions is passive safety: There is no way a reactor’s core could melt as a result of loss of coolant. As the First World, we are starting to lag behind.
Recently, a number of reports have been published on climate change, clearly indicating the need to develop nuclear energy as the only real measure that can prevent the bad from getting worse. A report by the International Energy Agency, presented at the beginning of this year, highlighted in an impartial and balanced manner the need for intensive development of nuclear energy. But perhaps the most surprising is the recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to which, of all scenarios leading up to limitation to the average temperature rise, the most effective one is the significant development of nuclear energy.
Maybe it’s time now to consider changes to EU policy and the replacement of “renewable energy” with “clean energy”?
       
Researched and written by World Nuclear News
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29728
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #64 on: January 02, 2019, 06:42:10 PM »
I agree with this Polish physicist.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Nuclear the 'ideal way' for dealing with climate change, says Bill Gates
« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2019, 11:56:49 AM »
Bill Gates has written in his year-end blog that nuclear power is "ideal for dealing with climate change". The technologist, business leader, and philanthropist wrote about nuclear power in a section about energy in his 29 December article What I learned at work this year.

The Microsoft Corp co-founder chairs TerraPower LLC, a nuclear energy venture, which Reuters reported yesterday is seeking a new partner for early-stage trials of its technology after new US rules forced it to abandon an agreement with China. Reuters cited comments made by company officials to the Wall Street Journal. TerraPower reached an agreement with state-owned China National Nuclear Corp in 2017 to build an experimental nuclear reactor south of Beijing.
In his blog, Gates wrote: "Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy. Some people think we have all the tools we need, and that driving down the cost of renewables like solar and wind solves the problem. I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.
"But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Besides, electricity accounts for only 25% of all emissions. We need to solve the other 75% too."
Gates said he plans this year to "speak out more" about how the USA needs to regain its leading role in nuclear power research.
"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation," he wrote, adding that the USA is "uniquely suited to create these advances with its world-class scientists, entrepreneurs, and investment capital".
America is no longer the global leader on nuclear energy that it was 50 years ago, he wrote, and "to regain this position, it will need to commit new funding, update regulations, and show investors that it’s serious".
There are "several promising ideas" in advanced nuclear that should be explored, he noted.
"TerraPower, the company I started ten years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the US have made that unlikely," he wrote.
"The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade US leaders to get into the game."
TerraPower signed a memorandum of understanding with CNNC to develop its traveling wave reactor in September 2015. The MoU was signed in Seattle by TerraPower CEO Lee McIntire and CNNC President Qian Zhimin. Initially developed in the 1950s, the TWR design resurfaced in the early 1990s, and was later patented by Intellectual Ventures, the company from which TerraPower was spun out of. The traveling wave reactor is a liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor that uses depleted or natural uranium as fuel.
   
Researched and written by World Nuclear News
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
The logic of nuclear power for Central Asia
« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2019, 07:28:56 PM »
Share
Many observers were surprised this year when Uzbekistan announced its decision to build a nuclear power station, which will be the first in Central Asia in the last 30 years, writes Jurabek Mirzakhmudov, director general of UzAtom, the state nuclear agency which was established in July.
 
Why, we were asked, would a leading gas producer opt to go nuclear when we could easily increase our gas-fired electricity production?
We are doing so largely because of growth. Uzbekistan, Central Asia's most populous nation, has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The World Bank is forecasting GDP growth of about 5% this year and next, and 5.5% in 2020. Current projections indicate that, to match these trends and consumer demand, we will need to double electricity output by 2030.
We could of course do this by burning our ample supplies of natural gas, but we have chosen a different course. Our parliament recently ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, having signed the accord in April last year. We are committed to dramatically reducing our consumption of natural gas for power generation to free it for other higher-value purposes, including in particular the petrochemicals industry.
We now plan to make our transmission systems more efficient, to renovate our existing gas-fired and hydroelectrical facilities, and to build new ones, and to adopt renewable energy sources such as solar. But as part of the strategic energy plan supported by President Mirziyoyev, we believe it to be a mistake to keep converting gas to electricity just because current gas prices are low. Instead, we have chosen to build a Russian-designed third-generation VVER two-unit NPP with a capacity of 2.4 GW. We anticipate this plant will generate approximately 15% of Uzbekistan’s power needs by 2030. This will free up an estimated 3.5 billion cubic meters of gas annually -- more than half a billion dollars at current price levels.
Today, nuclear power is one of the most reliable and environmentally safe types of energy available. In the multiple agreements being prepared in association with this massive project, we anticipate the highest environmental and safety standards. Moreover, Rosatom, our partner in the project, is currently developing a fourth generation technology enabling reuse of reactor waste, such that we may be able to collaborate in this area as well.
In the month ahead, we will be preparing an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract and, based on a geological survey, selecting a location for the facility.
The programme will take full advantage of Uzbekistan's existing knowledge base in the nuclear field. Up to 8000 workers will be needed for the construction work and another 2500 will be needed to operate the plant after its launch.
We recognise that, as a newcomer to nuclear power generation, we have much to do beyond the construction of the nuclear power plant. We will need to develop the regulatory and educational infrastructure to support the programme. Together, Russia’s regulator, Rostekhnadzor, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be helping our own new independent regulator to gain the expertise it will need, and on IAEA advice we will be adapting Russia’s standards and regulations.
Uzbekistan is no novice in the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Over the past 60 years our country has been actively researching nuclear technologies at our Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Academy of Sciences, which operates a 10 MW research reactor. We have been an active and committed member of the IAEA since 1994, and are already in discussions with its experts to ensure full compliance with international regulations.
Many steps have been taken already to solve the personnel challenges with regard to construction of the nuclear power plant, including the creation of the educational programmes for training students in the sphere of nuclear power.
But nuclear power plants don’t spring up overnight. We expect it will take 8-10 years before the plant begins contributing to our energy needs. In the meantime, the existing electrical power production and transmission systems are scheduled for wide-ranging modernisation and expansion, including 42 new hydro power stations and 32 existing stations scheduled for modernisation. Up to 7100 km of power lines and 2500 transformer points will be either modernised or built.
This is a huge undertaking where international expertise and investment are required, and there is active cooperation in this area with leading companies of the USA, South Korea, Germany, Russia, France, China, and many other countries.
Step by step, we are seeking to engage with the world’s leading nations and their leading businesses in accordance with the principles of mutual respect and trust. Ultimately what we expect to gain from all this is a balanced energy future which would simply be impossible without nuclear power generation.
     
Researched and written by World Nuclear News
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17960
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2019, 07:53:34 PM »
Meanwhile, more coal plants shuttered for good in December.

Florida:   766 mw (Crystal River)
Missouri: 740 mw (Sibley & Montrose)
Texas:    840 mw  (JT Deely)



HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17960
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2019, 07:56:50 PM »
More coal: 584 mw to shutter in February in Kentucky and another 470 mw to close in Texas.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power (677 mw) to close in May and Three Mile Island (803 mw) to shutter in September this year.




DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
Re: Electricity Update Pt 6
« Reply #69 on: January 07, 2019, 08:03:21 PM »
Meanwhile, more coal plants shuttered for good in December.

Florida:   766 mw (Crystal River)
Missouri: 740 mw (Sibley & Montrose)
Texas:    840 mw  (JT Deely)
Plants are so old you can not retro fit them to meet today's regs
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

 

Associate Links/Search