Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[Trippy]

Not really much of an option for us.
Our population is growing faster than we can make those kind of improvements in electrical efficiency and at the same time we are trying to move part of our transportation energy from oil to electricity which will drive up demand even more.

To put this in perspective, we expect to grow by over 50 million people by 2030, or more than the population of New Zealand every two years.

Being a small nation does, I suppose, provide certain advantages.

Having said that, cultural differences do come into it, New Zealanders are less afraid of central government introducing legislation to ensure stuff gets done. We have publically funded healthcare, for example, however my family does have helath insurance, and I've made use of it in the past, because it means being able to bypass multi year waiting queues for 'optional' surgery.

In New Zealand, we have a number of initiatives being driven by the central government to encourage things like better home insulation, and more efficient heating in an effort to reduce energy consumption.

Addendum:
Much of NZ's power supply comes from Hydro projects in the South Island, unfortunately, Rainfall in NZ is very susceptable to the ENSO weather pattern, the end result being that at times the Hydro lakes start running dry, and NZer's have to save power or face rolling blackouts, and we do it, IIRC the goal is 10%, with a number of incentives offered by power companies, and even institutions such as radio stations (in the form of competitions to see who can save the most power).

 

[adoucette]

Being a small nation does, I suppose, provide certain advantages.

It does, and having so much hydro and geo power available is a big plus as well.

But, I don't think it's the size so much that matters, it's the rate of growth.

And interestingly New Zealand is growing faster than the US.

So is your use of Electricity.

New Zealand is growing population wise at a rate of 1.14 % per year, growing from 3.145 million in 1981 to 4.315 million in 2009 (I extrapolated to 4.365 in 2010, and at this rate, by 2030 you will have added 1.111 million more Kiwis, or 25% more than are on your islands today (god knows how many more sheep!))

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ntry:NZL&dl=en&hl=en&q=new+zealand+population

Your generation of electricity has gone from 23 gigawatt hours to 43 gWh over the same time frame, or about twice the rate of population growth, or 2.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_electricity_2011_provisional.png

This makes sense, although our electrical devices are becoming more efficient, over this timeframe the number of electrical devices we use on a daily basis continues to increase a bit faster as well as using electricity for things we used to use other forms of power for.

In comparison, the US population growth rate over the same time is just a tad less at .83 %, growing from 230 million in 1981 to 310 million in 2010, at our projected rate of growth we will add about 18% more people by 2030.

As to our electricity.

In 1981 we generated 296 gWhrs and by 2009 we generated 395 gWhrs, for a growth rate of 1.96%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/data.cfm#generation

So like NZ our electricity generation is also going up at ~ twice the rate on a percentage basis as our population.

Which means that over the next 20 years, for either of our countries to just keep their electricity generation FLAT, they would both have to increase efficiency/conservation at a rate of ~2% per year every year for the next 20 years which is a very ambitious target once the low hanging fruit are picked.

The reality is it won't be flat.

Indeed I expect the generation in both countries to continue to increase over this time frame and getting the rate of growth to be below our population growth would be a major achievement.

Arthur

 

[cosmictraveler]

Which means that over the next 20 years, for either of our countries to just keep their electricity generation FLAT, they would both have to increase efficiency/conservation at a rate of ~2% per year every year for the next 20 years which is a very ambitious target once the low hanging fruit are picked.

The reality is it won't be flat.

Indeed I expect the generation in both countries to continue to increase over this time frame and getting the rate of growth to be below our population growth would be a major achievement.

But if the use of more electric vehicles increases then they to be recharged which would lead to more power being needed.

 

[adoucette]

But if the use of more electric vehicles increases then they to be recharged which would lead to more power being needed.

Absolutely.

If the amount of EVs becomes significant then the amount of Electricity we generate will go up quite a bit.

Currently about 1% of our electricity goes into transportation and almost all of that is light rail.

The other issue is the numbers I gave earlier had to do with Generation of electricity.

To put that in perspective, in the US we Consume 40 Quadrillion BTUs of energy to produce 13 Quads of end use electricity, or essentialy 32% of what we started with.

Oil based transportation uses 25 Quads of end use energy, or 1 Quad = 4%.

So to replace 4% of our transportation will require about 3 Quads of electricity.

To put that in perspective, to replace 10% of our oil based transportation energy with electricity would take ~ the same amount as we put out today from our 104 Nuclear reactors.

So, if in 20 years, you want to have 10% of EV based transportation, then we need to build the equiv of ~5 nuclear reactors per year, every year for the next two decades, or you could install about 10,000 2 MW wind turbines every year. (their annual capacity factor is about 33%).

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

It does, and having so much hydro and geo power available is a big plus as well.

But, I don't think it's the size so much that matters, it's the rate of growth.

And interestingly New Zealand is growing faster than the US.

So is your use of Electricity.

New Zealand is growing population wise at a rate of 1.14 % per year, growing from 3.145 million in 1981 to 4.315 million in 2009 (I extrapolated to 4.365 in 2010, and at this rate, by 2030 you will have added 1.111 million more Kiwis, or 25% more than are on your islands today (god knows how many more sheep!))

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ntry:NZL&dl=en&hl=en&q=new+zealand+population

Your generation of electricity has gone from 23 gigawatt hours to 43 gWh over the same time frame, or about twice the rate of population growth, or 2.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_electricity_2011_provisional.png

This makes sense, although our electrical devices are becoming more efficient, over this timeframe the number of electrical devices we use on a daily basis continues to increase a bit faster as well as using electricity for things we used to use other forms of power for.

In comparison, the US population growth rate over the same time is just a tad less at .83 %, growing from 230 million in 1981 to 310 million in 2010, at our projected rate of growth we will add about 18% more people by 2030.

As to our electricity.

In 1981 we generated 296 gWhrs and by 2009 we generated 395 gWhrs, for a growth rate of 1.96%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/data.cfm#generation

So like NZ our electricity generation is also going up at ~ twice the rate on a percentage basis as our population.

Which means that over the next 20 years, for either of our countries to just keep their electricity generation FLAT, they would both have to increase efficiency/conservation at a rate of ~2% per year every year for the next 20 years which is a very ambitious target once the low hanging fruit are picked.

The reality is it won't be flat.

Indeed I expect the generation in both countries to continue to increase over this time frame and getting the rate of growth to be below our population growth would be a major achievement.

Arthur

A chunk of that will be Tiwai Point - not sure how much but as the article says, they added a prodcution line in the eighties. Tiwai Point is our single biggest consumer of electricity.

As far as sheep goes, it's dairy conversions that are becoming increasingly popular, so the number of sheep may well have decreased, but, it's probably still something absurd.

We have an ETS in place - I'm still not sure what I think about how that's been implemented,a lthough I have it in my head that it's being staged (I lack the motivation to look up the details and refresh my memory atm). However, New Zealand stands to be royally shafted by some of the ETS's that are being proposed/ are in place elsewhere.

Why? As a consequence of living at the arse end of nowhere, if you want our fresh beef, lamb and dairy products, then we need to fly it to you. Having said that, with some of the Asian markets opening up...

 

[iceaura]

We will keep running them, at low cost, zero CO2 and over 90% uptime, because there is no mess.

So all the waste, the next "six sigma event" (we've been seeing one every few years, and that was with new structures not being pushed for capacity), and the degradation of infrastructure so expensive to keep up, are not actually problems?

Because "low" doesn't really describe the cost of that stuff.

So, if in 20 years, you want to have 10% of EV based transportation, then we need to build the equiv of ~5 nuclear reactors per year, every year for the next two decades, or you could install about 10,000 2 MW wind turbines every year. (their annual capacity factor is about 33%).

People always leave thermal solar out of these calculations.

Along with off-peak charging efficiencies, realistic reliability calculations, and the obvious externalities (military, medical, etc).

I've told you before - you responded to my post in the first instance.

But I made a mistake, in my naivety - I assumed all you needed was an explanation of your misreading, as a reasonable person, and we could either return to my actual arguments or you could leave my posts out of your responses on other topics. Clearly I overestimated my ability to communicate - what I should have said was something you could follow and comprehend, using your own favored language, like this:

Get fucked you sanctimonious little bitch.

We all have our styles, and probably I should adapt to yours - eh?

 

[quadraphonics]

People always leave thermal solar out of these calculations.

Which is doubly weird, considering the massive ongoing expansion of thermal solar generation (both in the USA, and around the world).

 

[Trippy]

But I made a mistake, in my naivety - I assumed all you needed was an explanation of your misreading, as a reasonable person, and we could either return to my actual arguments or you could leave my posts out of your responses on other topics. Clearly I overestimated my ability to communicate - what I should have said was something you could follow and comprehend, using your own favored language, like this:
We all have our styles, and probably I should adapt to yours - eh?

I'm tempted to tell you to 'Grow up'. I could, just as easily, argue that I was talking down to your level with your comments like "moronic misreadings", your inability to substantiate your claims, and your refusal to give straight answers to direct questions. Not to mention the point that, once again, you have to take a comment out of its context in order to demonstrate a point.

I mean seriously.

You haven't actually explained how I misread anything, you have, quite simply, asserted that I have.

 

[Trippy]

But if the use of more electric vehicles increases then they to be recharged which would lead to more power being needed.

So, if in 20 years, you want to have 10% of EV based transportation, then we need to build the equiv of ~5 nuclear reactors per year, every year for the next two decades, or you could install about 10,000 2 MW wind turbines every year. (their annual capacity factor is about 33%).

People always leave thermal solar out of these calculations.

Along with off-peak charging efficiencies, realistic reliability calculations, and the obvious externalities (military, medical, etc).

Which is doubly weird, considering the massive ongoing expansion of thermal solar generation (both in the USA, and around the world).

What I find weird is that the original post was asking about the additional energy requirements of charging all of those electric vehicles.

 

[quadraphonics]

What I find weird is that the original post was asking about the additional energy requirements of charging all of those electric vehicles.

No it wasn't. It was talking about displacing gasoline energy with various carbon-neutral energy sources.

I guess you meant to write "additional electricity?" But still, probably we could afford to build some extra electrical generation, if we aren't spending a ton of money on oil. No?

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm tempted to tell you to 'Grow up'.

You tried that already.

But maybe it would work better on its own, without all the "fucking imbecile retard cunt-mouth whoreface" stuff. Since, you know, that's not terribly mature. Unless the implication is that iceaura is a gurgling toddler in this analogy, and you want him to grow up to your 3rd-grade level of discourse?

 

[Trippy]

You tried that already.

But maybe it would work better on its own, without all the "fucking imbecile retard cunt-mouth whoreface" stuff. Since, you know, that's not terribly mature. Unless the implication is that iceaura is a gurgling toddler in this analogy, and you want him to grow up to your 3rd-grade level of discourse?

I'm human.

I got fedup with being trolled, and had a screaming fit as a result of that (among other things).

:shrugs:

I'm already over it.

(and yes, I'm aware that, strictly speaking "I'm human" could be considered an appeal to nature, however...)

 

[Trippy]

No it wasn't. It was talking about displacing gasoline energy with various carbon-neutral energy sources.

I guess you meant to write "additional electricity?" But still, probably we could afford to build some extra electrical generation, if we aren't spending a ton of money on oil. No?

The initial comment that was made was on the energy requirements of recharging electric vehicles.
The post which was being commented on quantified the overall efficiency of power generation in the US, the amount of energy consumed by FF transportation, and derived a figure for the amount of extra electricity that would be required given a certain level on conversion, then named two specific sources to provid context for "X Quadrillion BTU's of electrical energy" that a layman would be able to follow - by relating it in terms of the number of wind turbines or nuclear power plants.

Hence my statement: "the original post was asking about the additional energy requirements of charging all of those electric vehicles."

Yes, I meant additional electricity and clearly you were able to infer that from the context presented, or the sentence structure.

Most of the time I will read a post several times to make sure that it says precisely what I want it to say, however sometimes for one reason or another I'm rushed and neglect to check my post, and instead of exercising discretion and refraining from posting, I post regardless. Sometimes I'm able to get back in time to be able to review it before it has been replied to, but sometimes, like this time, that's not the case.

To this:

But still, probably we could afford to build some extra electrical generation, if we aren't spending a ton of money on oil. No?

Yes, probably, however it has been my (unfortunate) experience that as people become more focused on the rights of the individual, the prevalence of the 'NIMBY' attitude seems to increase. People want to be able to lead a certain kind of lifestyle, however, in general, nobody want's to be confronted with the consequences of their choices. It's an attitude that I, personally have observed seeming to become increasingly prevalent in society. Nobody want's to make the sacrifices neccessary to generate the power required to support their lifestyle.

I can kind of understand it - environmentally, Hydro can be every bit as destructive as nuclear, for example. There's a town here in New Zealand that in essence had to be evacuated and relocated in order for a hydro dam to be built, because it was below the RL that the dam was designed to flood to. Wind turbines, you've got issues with birds, noise, and the fact that their unsitely. In NZ at least one Geothermal plant ran into difficulties because the steam it was extracting was changing the way a local geothermal field behaved, that was a significant tourist attraction. We've got a tidal power station being built, but first the power co has to prove, by a test run, that it's not going to upset the migratory patterns of the local fish stock. Solar - either PV or solar thermal are every bit as disruptive - the stations have to be built, and manned, ground space has to be devoted to them. The environment has to be disrupted, and it's going to disturb the local flora and fauna.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread - every form of power generation disrupts or destroys the environment, for the long term, the only difference between nuclear and solar is that the effects of nuclear are more obvious, and more obvious to the general public, then the effects of say, solar.

The only way to come close to a green solution would be for each and every house to generate the power it uses - each house being self sufficient for electricity and water and waste.

 

[adoucette]

So all the waste, the next "six sigma event" (we've been seeing one every few years, and that was with new structures not being pushed for capacity), and the degradation of infrastructure so expensive to keep up, are not actually problems?

Not really.

People always leave thermal solar out of these calculations.

I didn't leave anything out, I simply gave two EXAMPLES, not every possible example to show the relative magnitude of the additional electrical generation needed to power ~10% of our current oil based transportation system with electricity.

But if you need another example then instead of bitching that I "left them out" why don't you do the calculations on thermal solar and post them?

Or do you just like to bitch?

Along with off-peak charging efficiencies, realistic reliability calculations

Battery charging efficiency is the same peak or off peak.
What do you means with "realistic reliability calculations"?

 

[adoucette]

Which is doubly weird, considering the massive ongoing expansion of thermal solar generation (both in the USA, and around the world).

Massive expansion?

According to Wiki there are about 400 MW under construction and about 14,000 MW of CST projects being planned in the entire world, but given that CST has a capacity factor of only about 20%, that's only about the same as building 3 reactors or installing 5,000 2 MW turbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

In contrast to that amount of CST there are 65 Nuclear Reactors being built today that will produce over 55,000 MW of power

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

I can kind of understand it - environmentally, Hydro can be every bit as destructive as nuclear, for example. There's a town here in New Zealand that in essence had to be evacuated and relocated in order for a hydro dam to be built, because it was below the RL that the dam was designed to flood to. Wind turbines, you've got issues with birds, noise, and the fact that their unsitely. In NZ at least one Geothermal plant ran into difficulties because the steam it was extracting was changing the way a local geothermal field behaved, that was a significant tourist attraction. We've got a tidal power station being built, but first the power co has to prove, by a test run, that it's not going to upset the migratory patterns of the local fish stock. Solar - either PV or solar thermal are every bit as disruptive - the stations have to be built, and manned, ground space has to be devoted to them. The environment has to be disrupted, and it's going to disturb the local flora and fauna.

Well said.

I've recently been hearing growing complaints with wind power that is near to people due to "flicker". The large turbines with their massive blades often turn slowly and thus if they are between you and the sun they create a flickering effect which apparently is quite disturbing.

New regs are being written to keep them far enough away from existing housing to avoid this. It happens when the sun is relatively low in the sky, but can be a real pain in the winter, particularly at higher latitudes, for quite a distance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCA0_W9Qxs
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8df_1243196860

 

[Trippy]

Well said.

I've recently been hearing growing complaints with wind power that is near to people due to "flicker". The large turbines with their massive blades often turn slowly and thus if they are between you and the sun they create a flickering effect which apparently is quite disturbing.

New regs are being written to keep them far enough away from existing housing to avoid this. It happens when the sun is relatively low in the sky, but can be a real pain in the winter, particularly at higher latitudes, for quite a distance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCA0_W9Qxs
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8df_1243196860

Interesting - I'll admit to this much, I have more insite on how disturbing flickering can be than I would care to admit in public.

I don't know if it's a phenomenom you've encountered in the US, but here in NZ we've had protests over the proposed sitings of hydro projects, and wind turbine farms because of the amount of environmental disruption and outright damage they cause.

 

[adoucette]

I know for some it can cause seizures, but I don't think the flicker rate is high enough for that (??). I think it's more of a quality of life issue as it is real distracting.

 

[Trippy]

I know for some it can cause seizures, but I don't think the flicker rate is high enough for that (??). I think it's more of a quality of life issue as it is real distracting.

It's not neccessarily just about seizures though, for some people simply driving down an avenue of trees can be enough to cause problems - eg Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome.

I personally can't use a CRT monitor unless it's operating at at least 70 Hz.

Some of the things I mentioned (or alluded to) in my previous posts:
Project Aqua
Project Hayes

 

[iceaura]

the only difference between nuclear and solar is that the effects of nuclear are more obvious, and more obvious to the general public, then the effects of say, solar.

?
That, and the lack of a 25,000 year dangerous waste problem, the fact that if your thermal solar plant screws up somehow you wouldn't have to evacuate entire watersheds and idle thousands of square miles of farmland for centuries, the general inability of bad people to base truly threatening weapons programs on easily employed solar technology, the lack of reliance on depleting resources and uncertain supply lines and military defense of same, the easy recovery from the industrial scars of construction and fueling should that be desirable, the possible avoidance of the political dangers inherent in centralized power production, the much lower overall running costs contingent on these factors, the and so forth.

I didn't leave anything out, I simply gave two EXAMPLES, not every possible example

You left out thermal solar. People who do calculations like that, with that motive, always leave out thermal solar - every time on this forum, over multiple threads, for example. They include windmills, PV panels, hydropower, gas and coal, even fusion or space mirrors, but not thermal solar.

Along with off-peak charging efficiencies, realistic reliability calculations
”
Battery charging efficiency is the same peak or off peak.

Regular power plants run at lower efficiencies when not fully loaded, which is much of the time, and when in urgent demand peak loaded, much of the rest - that's one reason a straight projected ramp-up of power production capability to cover electric vehicles isn't accurate, and the attempted comparison with well-designed solar misleads - solar plants with adequate storage run closer to maximum efficiency all the time.

What do you means with "realistic reliability calculations"?

Something other than "90% capacity" mistaken to mean full production 90% of the time, for the twilight years of these Rube Goldberg nukes, would be a start.

The Europeans brag about improving to a little over 80% theoretical, assuming the operators are in control of all relevant factors:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/availability-improvements-in-nuclear-power
" The available energy generation is the energy that could have been produced under reference ambient conditions considering only limitations within control of plant management, i.e. plant equipment and personnel performance, and work control."