Should I convert to gas heat now?

joea99

Voyager said:

pecmsg said:

. . .

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Our biggest mistake is not building more nuclear plants. They are the cleanest and safest way to make electricity on a large scale.

It can appear that way if you ignore all the ancillary costs, such as mining, refining, refueling downtime and long term storage or recycling of the highly radioactive "spent" fuel. And of course, the reality of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There may be no single "best" means of generating electricity. The big issue is distribution and the continued inclination to build huge generating plants that require massive grids, rather than smaller more reliable plants, local to the areas of use. When one of these huge plants goes down, for whatever reason, it leads to serious issues for "the grid" and for consumers. Smaller more distributed plants would lessen that issue, but might complicate grid building and interconnection.

ChrisJ

joea99 said:

Voyager said:

pecmsg said:

. . .

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Our biggest mistake is not building more nuclear plants. They are the cleanest and safest way to make electricity on a large scale.

It can appear that way if you ignore all the ancillary costs, such as mining, refining, refueling downtime and long term storage or recycling of the highly radioactive "spent" fuel. And of course, the reality of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There may be no single "best" means of generating electricity. The big issue is distribution and the continued inclination to build huge generating plants that require massive grids, rather than smaller more reliable plants, local to the areas of use. When one of these huge plants goes down, for whatever reason, it leads to serious issues for "the grid" and for consumers. Smaller more distributed plants would lessen that issue, but might complicate grid building and interconnection.

I'm by no means an expert, but even larger nuclear plants aren't one big plant that gets shut down.

For example Three Mile Island was 2 separate reactors driving I assume multiple generators each and things were able to be serviced etc without interrupting anything
.
Chernobyl, was four reactors running, and they were building 2 more next to it for a total of 6 with another 6 planned, so it would've been 12 individual reactors running. Obviously they stopped at 4 from the accident.

Voyager

joea99 said:

Voyager said:

pecmsg said:

. . .

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Our biggest mistake is not building more nuclear plants. They are the cleanest and safest way to make electricity on a large scale.

It can appear that way if you ignore all the ancillary costs, such as mining, refining, refueling downtime and long term storage or recycling of the highly radioactive "spent" fuel. And of course, the reality of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There may be no single "best" means of generating electricity. The big issue is distribution and the continued inclination to build huge generating plants that require massive grids, rather than smaller more reliable plants, local to the areas of use. When one of these huge plants goes down, for whatever reason, it leads to serious issues for "the grid" and for consumers. Smaller more distributed plants would lessen that issue, but might complicate grid building and interconnection.

No, it is that way when all is considered. The mining requires for solar and batteries far, far outstrips that required for nuclear. It isn’t even close. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation.aspx

Safe storage of nuclear waste isn’t a huge deal and only the US seems to be behind the curve on this. We could learn a lot from the French. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui

And the deaths from the three nuclear accidents pales in comparison to the deaths from all other forms of energy. https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

When you look at all energy sources “all in” from soup to nuts, nuclear is far ahead of everything else and solar is one of the worst.

Jamie Hall

" Smaller more distributed plants would lessen that issue, but... might complicate grid building and interconnection"

That ranks right up there as the understatement of the week.

joea99

Voyager said:

joea99 said:

Voyager said:

pecmsg said:

. . .

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

Our biggest mistake is not building more nuclear plants. They are the cleanest and safest way to make electricity on a large scale.

It can appear that way if you ignore all the ancillary costs, such as mining, refining, refueling downtime and long term storage or recycling of the highly radioactive "spent" fuel. And of course, the reality of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

There may be no single "best" means of generating electricity. The big issue is distribution and the continued inclination to build huge generating plants that require massive grids, rather than smaller more reliable plants, local to the areas of use. When one of these huge plants goes down, for whatever reason, it leads to serious issues for "the grid" and for consumers. Smaller more distributed plants would lessen that issue, but might complicate grid building and interconnection.

No, it is that way when all is considered. The mining requires for solar and batteries far, far outstrips that required for nuclear. It isn’t even close. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation.aspx

Safe storage of nuclear waste isn’t a huge deal and only the US seems to be behind the curve on this. We could learn a lot from the French. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui

And the deaths from the three nuclear accidents pales in comparison to the deaths from all other forms of energy. https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

When you look at all energy sources “all in” from soup to nuts, nuclear is far ahead of everything else and solar is one of the worst.

Another "analysis" of costs.

https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/

The French are hardly to be emulated:

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/french-nuclear-power-crisis-frustrates-europe’s-push-quit-russian-energy

Pro Nuclear fanatics like to quote "deaths" attributed to those nuclear disasters, but "direct" deaths are about all that can be accurately claimed. The follow on issues for health and longevity are not easy to determine. Further, bringing up "deaths" is merely a diversion, ignored are the costs of containment and cleanup.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-staggering-costs-to-clean-up-fukushima/

When the "big picture" is taken in, your contentions really do not hold up.

Voyager

Another "analysis" of costs.

https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/

The French are hardly to be emulated:

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/french-nuclear-power-crisis-frustrates-europe’s-push-quit-russian-energy

Pro Nuclear fanatics like to quote "deaths" attributed to those nuclear disasters, but "direct" deaths are about all that can be accurately claimed. The follow on issues for health and longevity are not easy to determine. Further, bringing up "deaths" is merely a diversion, ignored are the costs of containment and cleanup.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-staggering-costs-to-clean-up-fukushima/

When the "big picture" is taken in, your contentions really do not hold up.

The first article cited makes the same mistake as nearly all analyses make when comparing a 7x24 source to an intermittent source. You can’t compare them as they are not even close to equivalent. To fairly compare solar to nuclear, you also have to include enough battery capacity to allow the solar array to provide the same level of power AROUND THE CLOCK as does a nuclear plant. If you include enough batteries with the solar array to provide the same reliability of power as is provided by a nuclear plant (you would likely need enough battery capacity to store at least several days of energy), the cost differential is hugely in favor of nuclear. Solar only looks favorable today because it has baseload sources to back it up, effectively subsidizing it massively. If you make solar stand on its own by taking away its “free battery” and requiring it provide 99.9% reliable power around the clock, the cost will be staggering. It is only when subsidized by nuclear and fossil fuel baseload generation that solar looks good at all.

I will be the first to admit that nuclear has its issues, but most are driven by short-sighted regulation and politics. And two of the three nuclear disasters were caused by poor designs and this can easily be fixed. With reasonable government regulation and sound design and construction, nuclear is the best baseload energy source currently in existence. If you compare it apples to apples (not just when the sun shines on solar or the wing blows on a turbine), the costs and risks tilt to nuclear.

I am sure you won’t believe me, but that is fine. The truth will come out in another decade or so when rolling blackouts become the norm as we will no longer have enough baseload capacity to subsidize the amount of solar and wind on the grid. So, on days when the sun isn’t as bright as normal due to widespread cloudiness or the wind isn’t blowing on a scorching summer day and the intermittent sources drop to 60% of their normal output and we have only enough baseload left to cover 30% of the 40% shortfall, you will learn in a very tangible way how risky our renewable strategy is at present. California is already starting to see this and Texas is right on their heels. However, it will spread to other states in the next 10 years or so and by the time the problem is seen by most voters, it will be too late to fix it as most baseload plants take 5-15 years to permit and build.

Hot_water_fan

@Voyager Texas has high levels of renewables without issues. Their winter freeze was gas caused. That baseload disappeared (so did nuclear for what it’s worth). 

Jamie Hall

For those with the inclination to do, and access, the June 25th issue of The Economist has an excellent, not overly technical, summary of various energy considerations globally. It should be read prior to further commenting.

joea99

Nuclear proponents mantra always includes that 24/7 thing. As if Nuclear plants did not have down time for months, or years, for scheduled maintenance, such as refueling.

The 3 disasters noted were in large part due to poor design and manufacturing decisions, which you dismiss as "easily solved". You site regulatory issues and "politics", neither of which contributed to the design or plant siting faults at the root of those disasters. Commercial plants, in the "free world" at least, are designed, built and operated by "private industry".

On the issue of subsidies, are you not aware that the generation of electricity via Nuclear energy would not exist at all, if it were not for Government programs that developed the technology and allowed private industry to exploit it at no charge? Are you not aware of Federal Law that limits liability of Nuclear operators in event of a disaster, in order entice Insurers to write policies? Are you not aware that many of these plants could only be built after local governments were persuaded to float huge bonds to support or subsidize their construction? Please. While these and other policies many not be called "subsidies" they are subsidies nonetheless.

There are certainly limitations associated with ANY power generating technology and any power infrastructure must be designed with those in mind.

You speak as if the planners and designers would be unaware of these limitations, or are simply stupid and would not take them into account.

I've never proffered solar, wind, tidal, "geothermal" as the :"golden goose" of energy production.

However, as someone that was once qualified to operate certain "small mobile" nuclear plants, neither do I proffer Nuclear as the be all and end all of so-called "clean" energy production. Because it is not. No single technology is without fault in that regard.

Voyager

One month of planned downtime every two years (that is what we experience with the two units we operate) is much different than random downtime that occurs every day.

I never said nuclear was perfect or without issues. That is your fabrication. I said it was the best of the available alternatives, and there is substantial evidence that is the case. Every energy source has its issues, the key is to optimize as best we can and that is nuclear.

We also operate a hydro unit and that is very good also where it can be used, but there are a limited number of good hydro sites and ours is occasionally affected by low water levels. Geothermal is great where it can be used, but that is limited also.

I will take a nuke plant any day with NG as my second choice with hydro and geo used where it is reasonably available. Solar and wind work in a few areas in limited circumstances, but they only work when the grid is available as a “free” battery.

psb75

How about a more de-centralized and SMARTER grid? That would be a lot safer.

Jamie Hall

psb75 said:

How about a more de-centralized and SMARTER grid? That would be a lot safer.

That is being worked on. Do you have any idea how difficult it is? Some of the very best minds in power engineering are working on it, and they haven't gotten very far. One of the things they have already found, however, is that in the absence of spinning reserve power or truly huge batteries it is necessary to have instantaneous load shedding available at all points of use.

The most vexing problem is synchronization (phase and frequency). It's hard enough when you have two sources which are co-located, as in a central power plant. As the sources become spread out and, individually less robust if not less reliable, it becomes really difficult. Can it be done? Most likely; it is amazing what can be done if one throws enough money and brains at the problem. Can it be done so the end result is more reliable and less subject to external interference, either intentional or natural? So far it doesn't look like it. Can it be done so it's safer? I very much doubt it.

Dave Carpentier

When we think of storing energy to make up for gaps in electrical production, we usually think conventional battery. Im not sure of the current outcome/progress/status, but some interesting approaches have happened. One way was to lift an amount of water up into a reservoir, another was to lift weighted rail carts up a hill. In both cases, energy is stored which can be recovered. Not economical to set up in flat terrain obviously.
Nevertheless, I cant see this being done to scale and especially at the scale of electricity that we seem to be heading for. At this point, Im still a nuke proponent.

Jamie Hall

Pumped hydro (your lifting water up a hill!) is a very promising approach. I can think of at least two examples of large projects in the US right off hand, and I'm sure there are more. It does help to have a lot of water -- and a hill! But it is an excellent approach -- a lot of energy and fast responding. I've read some about the various lift a weight and drop it ideas, but honestly I have my doubts -- a lot of weight and a very long fall...

Voyager

Jamie Hall said:

psb75 said:

How about a more de-centralized and SMARTER grid? That would be a lot safer.

That is being worked on. Do you have any idea how difficult it is? Some of the very best minds in power engineering are working on it, and they haven't gotten very far. One of the things they have already found, however, is that in the absence of spinning reserve power or truly huge batteries it is necessary to have instantaneous load shedding available at all points of use.

The most vexing problem is synchronization (phase and frequency). It's hard enough when you have two sources which are co-located, as in a central power plant. As the sources become spread out and, individually less robust if not less reliable, it becomes really difficult. Can it be done? Most likely; it is amazing what can be done if one throws enough money and brains at the problem. Can it be done so the end result is more reliable and less subject to external interference, either intentional or natural? So far it doesn't look like it. Can it be done so it's safer? I very much doubt it.

I am a little more optimistic than you, but I agree it is a tough problem. Having worked a good part of my career as a software and control systems engineer (many moons ago), I believe we can find a way, but it likely requires power generation that is both consistent and has the ability to be throttled fairly quickly. This rules out both wind and solar, but I believe small nukes and gas plants could meet these requirements with proper design.

The problem with wind and solar, at least until an economical storage technology exists, is that it doesn’t reduce the baseload capacity needed. If you want to avoid brown-outs and black-outs, you must have baseload capacity that matches the total system demand. This means that for every MW of intermittent generation, you need a MW of baseload generation. So, intermittent sources do virtually nothing to reduce the need for baseload capacity. What they do though is make the baseload capacity less efficient. Almost all large generation plants are most efficient when running at or near their design output capacity. When they have to be throttled back to accommodate intermittent generation such as wind and solar, they move to a lower point on their efficiency curve. These are a couple of the “inconvenient truths” that solar and wind advocates choose to ignore.

I know otherwise intelligent people who think that if a system currently demands 100 MW of power and a need is coming online for an additional 10 MW, they they can add 10 MW of solar capacity and be good to go. Well, this simply isn’t the case. In addition to the 10 MW of solar capacity you have to simultaneously add 10 MW of baseload capacity, unless the new 10 MW load ONLY operates when the sun is shining. There may be a few loads where this is the case, but it certainly isn’t the general case. If more people really understood that for every MW of renewable generation installed they also have to add a matching MW of nuclear, gas, coal or oil, they would probably be a little less excited about it.

joea99

Voyager said:

One month of planned downtime every two years (that is what we experience with the two units we operate) is much different than random downtime that occurs every day.

"Random"? A bit of a stretch. Weather patterns are known. Have "unanticipated events" never shut down an Nuclear plant? We know that is not true.

I never said nuclear was perfect or without issues. That is your fabrication. I said it was the best of the available alternatives, and there is substantial evidence that is the case. Every energy source has its issues, the key is to optimize as best we can and that is nuclear.

No, but you did choose to extol it and ignore it's down side. A reasonable interpretation of your inital comments and far from a "fabrication".

Jamie Hall

@Voyager -- Quite so. Foor very small (relatively) distributed sources, such as residential roof installations, the problems aren't really all that hard, since the grid is stiff enough to resist minor inputs disturbing the phase and frequency. Basically sense what the grid is doing and adjust the power factor of the inverter so it is feeding current. That works, because the amount of power that particular roof is feeding is trivial. That is, it works up to a point. Start feeding any really significant amount of power, and some question arises as to who is driving the train! It doesn't help that the phase at any given point X is not in a simple relationship to the power generating station(s) which are feeding power to point X -- and that relationship may change with time, as various grid mains are switched in and out. Interesting problem.

psb75

Very large fly-wheels are also being considered.
The tides are fairly predictable. Going out, coming in. Any power there?

Jamie Hall

Tidal power where it is available is definitely a thing. Again, it's not simple --the ocean, where the tides are powerful enough to be useful, is a remarkably unforgiving environment. But it has been tried (the most successful so far is in the Pentland Firth; the installation in the Bay of Fundy failed) and works. There are some environmental considerations -- the turbines are a little tough on the fish -- but it does work.

Interestingly, before steam power there were a surprising number of tide mills in seacoast communities in New England, where there is adequate tide range. They worked by having a lagoon which filled on high tide, and then spun turbines as the tide was ebbing. You need a few feet of tide range -- and they were environmental catastrophes in terms of filled wetlands.

There are also some intriguing schemes to derive power from wave action, some of which work at least well enough to be hopeful. Again, however, it must be remembered that the ocean is a remarkably unforgiving place, and designing something which works during most of the time but isn't destroyed by the odd storm is not so simple.

Hot_water_fan

This means that for every MW of intermittent generation, you need a MW of baseload generation. 

This means renewables could never be >50% of a generation mix, yet that exists in some places today! This constraint doesn’t seem real. 

Jamie Hall

Would a better way to look at it be to consider that one needs to have some way of meeting the demand at all times? With what I might terms "pure: renewable -- just wind and solar -- the more widespread and diverse the installation is, the less the need for some form of backup power. Is there anywhere which really is 100% wind and solar, with no backup and no grid connection to bail it out?

Hot_water_fan

@Jamie Hall that’s what I mean. Meet the demand and forget about artificial constraints. Who cares if a coal plant runs inefficiently? That’s their business problem (and energy storage helps coal, gas and nuclear just as much as it helps wind and solar). If one hour the demand is met with 75% renewables great. Maybe another hour is 50%. It’s not a binary. 

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

This means that for every MW of intermittent generation, you need a MW of baseload generation. 

This means renewables could never be >50% of a generation mix, yet that exists in some places today! This constraint doesn’t seem real. 

Tell me where it exists. I’d like to look into the details.

Voyager

psb75 said:

Very large fly-wheels are also being considered.
The tides are fairly predictable. Going out, coming in. Any power there?

Absolutely, but it isn’t cost effective. Building things under the ocean isn’t trivial. And salt water is a very unforgiving environment. And when things break, it takes weeks or months to fix them, not hours or days.

Hot_water_fan

Tell me where it exists. I’d like to look into the details.

In those economist articles Jamie mentioned, they talked about it happening in Germany, California, Norway (IIRC), etc. 

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

Tell me where it exists. I’d like to look into the details.

In those economist articles Jamie mentioned, they talked about it happening in Germany, California, Norway (IIRC), etc. 

I don’t subscribe to the Economist and have not found a way to access that article.

Hot_water_fan

I signed up for a free trial. Anyway, a grid can meet its needs with >50% renewables, but there was skepticism initially. 

https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/electrifying-everything-does-not-solve-the-climate-crisis-but-it-is-a-great-start

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

Tell me where it exists. I’d like to look into the details.

In those economist articles Jamie mentioned, they talked about it happening in Germany, California, Norway (IIRC), etc. 

This shows Iceland at 83%, Norway at 70% renewables and the only two above 50%. Germany is at 20%
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy.

California was harder to find good numbers on and they claim to be about 50%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California

However, the comments I made earlier were in relation to intermittent renewable sources. Iceland depends heavily on geothermal which is not an intermittent source. If only the entire world had that available. And both Iceland and Norway depend a lot on hydro, which again isn’t an intermittent source. And California is much the same as it has access to hydro and some geothermal.

My comment about needing one for one baseload to renewable was in reference to intermittent renewables. If you have baseload renewables such as geothermal or hydro, then they are on the baseload side of the equation, not the intermittent side as with solar and wind.

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

I signed up for a free trial. Anyway, a grid can meet its needs with >50% renewables, but there was skepticism initially. 

https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/electrifying-everything-does-not-solve-the-climate-crisis-but-it-is-a-great-start

And since you mentioned California in regard to high level of renewables, it is only fair to look at what comes with that. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-says-it-needs-more-power-keep-lights-2022-05-06/

This will spread to other states and countries as the move to intermittent renewables continues. Texas will be next in line to have serious issues and other states will soon follow.

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

I signed up for a free trial. Anyway, a grid can meet its needs with >50% renewables, but there was skepticism initially. 

https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/electrifying-everything-does-not-solve-the-climate-crisis-but-it-is-a-great-start

Thanks for the link. I didn’t sign up for the trial, but it did let me read that one article by registering for their newsletter. I didn’t see anything new in the article. It pretty much said what I’ve been saying in that intermittent generation sources need a backup. There are many ways that can be provided, but the current best ways are with nuclear, NG and coal. There are some novel ideas such as a worldwide interconnected grid so that solar generated power can literally be sent to the dark side of the earth from the bright side, but the cost and complexity of that is truly mind boggling. I suspect battery storage, as infeasible as that is, is still more feasible than a grid that can transport energy from one side of the earth to the other reliably.

I do think we should focus more on geothermal and hydro, but hydro is problematic in that it affects fish and other species and getting a new dam permitted these days is as hard or harder than getting a nuke permitted. The power generation company that I serve on the board for has both a hydro facility and a nuclear facility and we could not build either again in today’s regulatory climate.

And geothermal is hugely expensive in parts of the world that aren’t Iceland and also has potential serious environmental issues, not completely unlike fracking. If we start drilling deep wells under every house in America, who knows what that will do to the earth’s crust in regard to releasing stress (aka earthquakes) as with fracking. And who knows what pulling that much heat from the subsurface of the earth many do to the global climate? You are now pulling heat from the earth and expelling it to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate and this almost certainly will have some side effects at some point.

An interesting discussion to be sure and this highlights the complexity of energy generation and use.

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

@Voyager Texas has high levels of renewables without issues. Their winter freeze was gas caused. That baseload disappeared (so did nuclear for what it’s worth). 

I wasn’t referring to the winter freeze issue as that was a completely different mismanagement issue. I was referring to this issue: https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-texas-grid-should-pass-its-test-this-week-but-the-problems-are-not-fixed/

Hot_water_fan

I wasn’t referring to the winter freeze issue as that was a completely different mismanagement issue. I was referring to this issue: https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-texas-grid-should-pass-its-test-this-week-but-the-problems-are-not-fixed/

That doesn't bother me in the slightest - ERCOT is energy only, so expect no $ for sitting around, you have to produce to cash in. Gas turbines can pencil with low utilization, so no reason not to add more solar and wind if it brings prices down. This is where storage can really help gas, coal and nuclear. You would think a free market organization would support competition!

Voyager

Hot_water_fan said:

I wasn’t referring to the winter freeze issue as that was a completely different mismanagement issue. I was referring to this issue: https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-texas-grid-should-pass-its-test-this-week-but-the-problems-are-not-fixed/

That doesn't bother me in the slightest - ERCOT is energy only, so expect no $ for sitting around, you have to produce to cash in. Gas turbines can pencil with low utilization, so no reason not to add more solar and wind if it brings prices down. This is where storage can really help gas, coal and nuclear. You would think a free market organization would support competition!

Did you read the article? I am all for competition and lower prices, but this won’t happen until the subsidies stop. However, I am also for grid reliability and that is deteriorating rapidly in both CA and TX.

Hot_water_fan

I read the article and it seems like they're a free market organization complaining about the free market in Texas of all places.

For example, the author complains that wind and solar "often have guaranteed offtake contracts with large commercial and industrial users or municipal power utilities". The horror! A bilateral contract between a buyer and a seller!

Take away all solar and wind subsidies in Texas and it still gets built, 0 marginal costs beat high cost gas right now, which is why electricity prices are going up. The market is energy only, those are the rules and those that disagree can exit the market. Reliability IS priced in, just in the form of temporary high prices up to $5000/Mwh. That should be a sufficient incentive to build capacity, even if the utilization of that asset is low.

ERCOT just set multiple load records this month with no reliability issues and pretty unremarkable prices. The 2022 ERCOT grid looks different than the grid of previous generations and that's okay!