oystla Member
  • Member since Apr 19th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by oystla


    Because it's unsustainable environmental fiasco.

    ........determined to ignore elementary laws of economics?

    fiasco ?


    In 2018 solar alone globally delivered 455 TWh electricity and wind delivered 1128 TWh.


    In 2019 I believe the same numbers will read 585 TWh and 1270 TWh.


    A Nice growth that is 😉


    The global CO2 intensity in 2019 was 442 tonn CO2 pr. TWh.


    THIS MEANS: in 2019 solar and wind resulted in 820 000 tonn CO2 avoided from Coal and Gas generators.


    And we now see UNSUBSIDISED solar plants being built Even in UK, which is not the best solar place on the globe.


    To me it is clear: if not LENR arrives, then then solar and storage will take over the world within 15 years 😁.

    We already discussed it here. If the solar and wind plants would really save life environment, then they would also generate subsidizes instead of consuming them (into account of fossil-fuel based energetics indeed). Not accidentally Denmark has most expensive (=most environmentally demanding) electricity from all Western Europe countries, because it also has most renewables in its portfolio. The saving nature with "renewables" is like saving coal by buying Bugatti Veyron...


    electricprices.gif

    Oh dear,


    The table you show and claim you make is a long lived Internet myth that has nothing to do with reality vs.renewables.


    The table you show is NOT market price, but power price to consumer AFTER tax.


    Taxes on the market price of power varies from country to country.


    Taxes is used to run the society, like in Denmark free healthcare, free University, paied maternity leave, unemployment benefits etc....


    So the REAL truth is that Nuclear France has higher MARKET price of power than renewable Denmark. Just because France has chosen less taxes on Power, the end price is lower.


    So renewables result on LOWER market price than nuclear or Even coal these days.


    And Denmark also has the highest prices (i.e taxes) on New cars in Europe, but that too has nothing to do with renewables 😉

    A documentary that was recently published for free in YouTube focused in the biomass energy industry as a part of the green energy movement.


    It’s hard to watch and will probably shatter many illusions, but is inline with what Alan Smith is saying, that the biomass industry is just a money making scheme.



    If anything, this documentary makes The case for LENR being even more necessary than most would want to acknowledge.

    I agree on biomass and biofuel. It is not sustainable and should be banned.


    But Moore is Completely wrong on solar and wind in the movie.


    The info was old from 2005 and 2010, which has nothing to do with present status and technology. A lot of misinformation on solar and wind.


    State of art in solar technology will last for 40 years and the New bifacial panels can be combined with farming when designed accordingly.


    Danish research is now developing a 20MW wind turbine not using rear earth metals in the generator.

    So technology is developping exponentially fast.


    But it would be nice if LENR could be part of the game of course.


    Moore said after the movie was released that it really was about too many humans on earth, and that humans consume too much.


    In that case it was a strange movie, that should have had another content in Focus.

    One bunch of idiots discovering that sea water from a tsunami can take down a nuclear reactor's ancillary cooling systems in a known earthquake zone, ditto for ITER in France and Hinckley in the UK is known to flood too. Does the Atomic Energy Authority go out of its way to locate the worst possible sites to build these expensive white elephants? We have an adequate energy source under our feet and more energy coming from the sun than we know what to do with. Just a matter of shoving solar panels on all rooting spaces which should be supplied free of charge by all governments worlwide. Storage batteries included.

    And the worst thing is that they knew this type of tsunami could happen after the Indonesia tsunami in 2004. They had Even made reports and recommendations to strenghten the nuclear safety of the Japanese plants. But they delayed and delayed due to high cost related.

    And at the end the most expensive desision on was just that- the Delay.:/

    The Fukushima reactor died directly during the earth quake. 3 months before end of live ... The stability of the reactors internal self sustain energy cooling pipe was the main problem. The steel was rated for a 5.5 earth quake at the beginning of the operation but after 40 years best case is 4.5, due the neutron capture degradation. Also the vessel cracked for the same reason. So it finally was a triple kill event with the flooding. The crack of the main vessel would have been a "minor problem" if they would have had enough refill water ready.

    Today Japanese reactors must withstand an 8 fold stronger shock! What is equivalent to the whole building vertically falling down by 2 meters ! But still not enough after 40 years...

    I remember many claims and theory of causes back in the days. I'm not sure what was proven or not wrt burst of piping and pressure vessels, but I remembered the backup generator design, which was flooded and caused complete Loss of emergency power.


    Some more info in this article

    https://www.nei.org/resources/…ystems-fukushima-response

    This article says the French reactors were built in the 1970s and they are "paid for." Maybe they are, but the maintenance and staffing costs are still high..

    There are several issues with old nuclear plants:


    - When they pass 40 years, they have certainly passed their design life time. Which means they would need to apply for extension that would be a very costly, complicated and time consuming process.


    - maintenance starts to get a real issue. Spare parts tends to go out of production after 20+ years, which means they need to start changing out expensive large components. Nuclear plants are very complex plants with many utility systems, so changing out aging components will be complicated and expensive.


    Also the steam system have been subjected to aging, which means whole piping systems could be required to be changed out.


    Most important would be that old plants 35+ years do not comply with the present day safety in design requirements, so one might question If it is wise to keep them going If they cannot take a terror attack or natural Disaster, like flooding. Some French old plants are along rivers, and flooding have been a question.


    Flooding was also a critical issue in Fukushima, where the back up generators where placed int he basement of the reactor buildings. An Absolutely crazy design. The generators where flooded, and the safety valves that needed back up power to function, failed to operate as required.


    That was actually a strange design. Offfshore Oil and Gas platforms use Generally hydraulic systems to actuate safety valves, since they also then have an accumulator close to the valve that can operate the valve several times even If the hydraulic main supply system fails.


    Here are some more news on the French situation

    https://bellona.org/news/nucle…reliance-on-nuclear-power





    Of course: the country subsidizing expensive electric cars and/or expensive electricity of offshore wind plants would need high taxes for covering this cost.
    But does it make "renewables" more energetically effective? This is just my point.

    No, Denmark has always had high taxes, to cover Free healthcare, Free Universities, Payed maternity leave, unemployment benefits etc. Etc.


    You know, all the social benefits US citizens wished they had in these days of Corona 😉


    Wind power in Denmark no longer require subsidies to be profitable investments.

    There were dozens alternative reactor designs with nice passive safety features. Good news there are few startups developing them so I a guess than economics is not as bad.


    What I get form renewable energy manifestos is that it we could go 100% if we cut consumption by 30%. Really? Can you grow economy and cut consumption? That is not happening. Secondly we is going to finance baseload power facilities idling on a sunny/windy day and working full blast on a sweltering windless night once in a while.

    Economics of new reactor deisgns and ideas are yet to be proven. Yes they talk about SMR as the Solution, but Small Modular Reactor will probably be more expensive, not less in my opinion. So we will see If or when they deliver.


    No, we do not need to CUT consumption to go 100% renewable.

    Hydro power, solar, wind and storage systems is all what is needed to supply the globe with all ITS needs.


    Natural gas should be used as an intermidaiate source to remove coal before we have all the renewables in place to take over and remove also gas.


    Of course I would prefer LENR would soon arrive to be part of the game...


    Zephir, as I explained earlier your claim is wrong.


    And I will repeat:

    "

    Ah, this is another myth roaming the internet of high costs in renewable countries.


    But the truth is the opposite.


    What these figures fails to explain is Taxes. Denmark is a high tax country where everything is taxed high, like cars are EXTREMELY expensive to buy caused by taxes, compared to prices in the neighbour Germany.


    AND taxes is used to drive the society, like free healthcare, free Universities, paied maternity leave, paied unemplyoment benefits etc. etc.


    AND taxes vary from country to country, like low electricity tax in France and high in Germany and Denmark.


    SO: If you made the same comparison of electricity costs PRE TAX, you would find that market cost of power is HIGHER in Nuclear France than in Germany and Denmark.


    So Renewables has in effect lowered the market price.


    Also to note is that Nuclear France has NO government fund to replace old Nuclear plants with new ones, while Germany has used electricity taxes to build a large fund for funding of future energy systems, being the dream of FUSION or improved Renewable technologies.

    "

    If Germany decided to develop safe nuclear reactor designs after Fukushima, they would be using clean energy (still) Instead of using coal and buying more natural gas from Russians.

    I agree what that did was a nonsense, Wyttenbach


    Safety comes at a cost. This is clearly evident by the ongoing nuclear projects in Flamanville France, in Finland and in UK Hinkley Point project.


    They are all the latest and safest designs, and are being built at an absolutely Crazy CAPEX.


    The one in Finland and in France is now at above 9 USD pr. Watt electric installed capacity. And Hinkley Point have agreed an electricity cost twice the market cost of power.


    You now get large solar PV plants at below 1USD pr. watt installed capacity.


    EDIT; The above values are investment CAPEX factors that also decides the final electricity cost pr. KWh for profitability.


    When and if LENR arrives we can remove much of the costly safety systems that makes traditional nuclear power uneconomic.

    Hi everyone,


    Just found this analysis that Disected the BS movie from Michael Moore and Jeff Biggs


    As I stated earlier and is confirmed here, the Moore movie presents a lot of outdated claims, which is NOT facts by present day.


    The analysis reveals that renewable information from 2005 and 2010 is used as "facts" in the movie, which is absolutely no longer are part of present facts, and was not real facts back then..


    And "Just have think" also agrees with me on biomass and biofuel, good.


    any countries with renewables providing base load yet? Are Germans still as exited about renewables as they were 10 years ago?


    Yes Norway has done 100% renewable for 100+ years.


    And Hydro Power in Norway could probably become a large scale battery for all of Europe.


    There are already several cables to/from Norway - Europe, and more is being built as we speak. So Norway will become Europes battery at some time in the future..


    So all we would need is Solar + wind + Pumped Hydro as storage.


    Some batteries should be added for fast acting grid stability as done i Australia with huge success ;-)

    Renewables should be called 'Intermittablels'. We need to add materials needed to manufacture storage or transmission (there is always sunlight somewhere, there is always 5 o'clock somewhere, blah blah) to Zephyr's numbers.

    While the tech itself is feasible as a niche or supplement it only exist now due to massive subsidies and the fact that traditional produce base load.


    As I showed in above trend, Solar and Wind now supply 9% of annual global electricity supply.


    Hardly a niche product anymore.


    And no, in the Sunny places on the globe, NO subsidies are required for solar, same for wind many places.


    AND cost for solar and wind is still falling.

    The so-called "renewables" just convert fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis. A shift to "renewables" will only replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass.


    To put things into simple perspective, just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminum. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase our fossil energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it!


    Zephir, the idea of coming shortage of metals is yet another internet myth. There are no shortage the coming 100 years. And After that we have surely startet mining asteroids ;-)


    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2017/05/170502114002.htm


    You are also wrong on the wind and solar share. These sources produce electricity, and you confuse with all other sources like liquid fuels used for Planes, Ships etc.. We have to compare bananas with bananas ;);)


    The figure below is the share of global electricity for wind and solar the last 25 years. And this illustrates the FORCE of EXPONENTIAL growth. You are not aware of it before it suddenly takes over everything, just as a the Corona virus...


    And since the trend will continue the next decade, solar and wind will push out coal within a decade.


    Also LENR will have to go through an exponential curve if or when it arrives on the stage....



    Hi Ruby,


    In my last reply on energy density I forgot to comment on your concern of "dead landscape."


    I do agree that when building renewables we need to consider the environmental impacts, both during construction, operation and after end of life of the plant.


    But this is politics and regulations that needs to be in place when plants are built.


    Like in my country Norway, there are strict regulations of what studies and documentations that needs to be in place when applying for a concession for a wind power plant in the mountains.


    One such document is a thorough evaluation of all consequences for the nature and surroundings. If there is any rare birds nesting in the area, it is almost certain that the concession wont be given.


    At the end the government rules if the benefits outweighs the disadvantages or not, and concession may or may not be given.


    One of our oldest plants is 20 years old and consist of 68 turbines of 2 MW size. It is still running, but today probably some 5 MW sized turbines would have been used instead, which means you only need some 27 to get the same power. AND the additional benefit if higher capacity factor for larger turbines, i.e. higher annual production.


    Also there is a large amount of eagles in the same area, and is able to thrive and grow even if some have been killed by the turbines during the 20 years in operation. BUT ALL human activities have some disadvantages for nature. I think Humans have just become too many on this earth, that is probably the biggest problem...


    Anyhow, some countries do not have the same strict regulations and conservation of nature..... as far as I know Trump has removed a lot of the environmental regulations in the US that was put in place by previous presidents. That is a shame, since this opens up for some real rape of nature.,.


    regards

    Lande

    This is also nice example. Denmark sports with largest portion of renewable electricity in its portfolio "thanks" to its offshore wind plants. Not quite occidentally it also has most expensive electricity from whole EU. How is that possible, if it generates electricity "for free"?


    electricprices.gif


    Ah, this is another myth roaming the internet of high costs in renewable countries.


    But the truth is the opposite.


    What these figures fails to explain is Taxes. Denmark is a high tax country where everything is taxed high, like cars are EXTREMELY expensive to buy caused by taxes, compared to prices in the neighbour Germany.


    AND taxes is used to drive the society, like free healthcare, free Universities, paied maternity leave, paied unemplyoment benefits etc. etc.


    AND taxes vary from country to country, like low electricity tax in France and high in Germany and Denmark.


    SO: If you made the same comparison of electricity costs PRE TAX, you would find that market cost of power is HIGHER in Nuclear France than in Germany and Denmark.


    So Renewables has in effect lowered the market price.


    Also to note is that Nuclear France has NO government fund to replace old Nuclear plants with new ones, while Germany has used electricity taxes to build a large fund for funding of future energy systems, being the dream of FUSION or improved Renewable technologies.