Could this be the end of "Clean Coal"?

[Subduction Zone]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Further price reductions are forecast. It will take an investment to change from fossil fuels, but it appears that it will not only pay off ecologically, but economically too.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Further price reductions are forecast. It will take an investment to change from fossil fuels, but it appears that it will not only pay off ecologically, but economically too.

I wonder if after millions of people have batteries how they're going to dispose of all the battery acid , plates, and the casings. Of course they'll be building a slew of new power plants to supplement an already overtaxed grid and the practice of rolling blackouts to balance the load. I suspect any new power plants won't exactly run on solar and batteries.

Moral of the story, "Save on one end, pay through the other".

 

[Salvador]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Further price reductions are forecast. It will take an investment to change from fossil fuels, but it appears that it will not only pay off ecologically, but economically too.

There might be an abundance of solar energy and plenty of space for large solar-farms in the desert of southern California, but that doesn't mean there'd be the same abundance of solar energy and plentiful space for large solar farms to produce an economically feasible source of energy for central Illinois. Nuclear energy is the most economical source of non-fossil energy based on the climate and cost of land around me here in Illinois.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/8...energy-is-the-future-in-illinois-and-globally

 

[The Reverend Bob]

how they're going to dispose of all the battery acid

Lithium-ion batteries.

 

[David T]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Further price reductions are forecast. It will take an investment to change from fossil fuels, but it appears that it will not only pay off ecologically, but economically too.

Oh that is sad day. I am sorry to hear that. Maybe we out law non smoking or and seat belts to balance out the increase in population that this creates.

That in and of itself i call it a life tax.. More life here ok well less life there. More more is really bad. I call that self evident.

 

[Brickjectivity]

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Lots of new battery technologies are appearing, so its going to be confusing for the industries to choose. Often they will hold back until its clear which technology will dominate, be cost effective and not cause problems. Nobody wants to buy something and then find out its already antiquated. Batteries compete on how much energy the hold per volume, how toxic they are, how long they last, how much care they need and how expensive they are. Until these are all known about most of the new batteries there will be some reticence.

Further price reductions are forecast.

Double the years unless there is already a clear leader.

Nuclear energy is the most economical source of non-fossil energy based on the climate and cost of land around me here in Illinois.

Nuclear is sensitive, because the plants only last a certain amount of time before they are no longer workable. Taking them apart can cost as much as putting them together and is more dangerous. Take the cost of the plant and at least double it. You build it, and then you're stuck with it even after it stops running. It just sits there, and you've lost land and its all contaminated.

Anyways what is going on with fission research? I heard that there were newer and better reactor designs now.

What about thorium salt plants? We keep hearing about those, but nobody opts for them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Lithium-ion batteries.

Yeah and that stuff is expensive, so it will probably get recycled.

 

[SugarOcean]

The end of clean coal began when its myth was invented. If people wake up now after all this time, Amen!
The Myth of Clean Coal

 

[Salvador]

Nuclear is sensitive, because the plants only last a certain amount of time before they are no longer workable. Taking them apart can cost as much as putting them together and is more dangerous. Take the cost of the plant and at least double it. You build it, and then you're stuck with it even after it stops running. It just sits there, and you've lost land and its all contaminated.

...." the improvements in reactor technology in third generation reactors are intended to result in a longer operational life (designed for 60 years of operation, extendable to 100+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and reactor pressure vessel replacement) compared with currently used Generation II reactors (designed for 40 years of operation, extendable to 60+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and pressure vessel replacement)"

New material promises 120-year reactor lives". www.world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved 8 June 2017

Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors | Generation III+ Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 8 June 2017.

What about thorium salt plants? We keep hearing about those, but nobody opts for them.

"Thorium fuel is a bit harder to prepare. Thorium dioxide melts at 550 degrees higher temperatures than traditional Uranium dioxide, so very high temperatures are required to produce high-quality solid fuel. Additionally, Th is quite inert, making it difficult to chemically process. This is irrelevant for fluid-fueled reactors discussed below.

Irradiated Thorium is more dangerously radioactive in the short term. The Th-U cycle invariably produces some U-232, which decays to Tl-208, which has a 2.6 MeV gamma ray decay mode. Bi-212 also causes problems. These gamma rays are very hard to shield, requiring more expensive spent fuel handling and/or reprocessing.

Thorium doesn’t work as well as U-Pu in a fast reactor. While U-233 an excellent fuel in the thermal spectrum, it is between U-235 and Pu-239 in the fast spectrum. So for reactors that require excellent neutron economy (such as breed-and-burn concepts), Thorium is not ideal."

Thorium As Nuclear Fuel: the good and the bad

 

[sun rise]

There might be an abundance of solar energy and plenty of space for large solar-farms in the desert of southern California, but that doesn't mean there'd be the same abundance of solar energy and plentiful space for large solar farms to produce an economically feasible source of energy for central Illinois. Nuclear energy is the most economical source of non-fossil energy based on the climate and cost of land around me here in Illinois.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/8...energy-is-the-future-in-illinois-and-globally

Nucler power is the most expensive power there is.

 

[Salvador]

Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid

" It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel."

Further price reductions are forecast. It will take an investment to change from fossil fuels, but it appears that it will not only pay off ecologically, but economically too.

Haze high in the atmosphere from a powerful volcanic eruption could significantly diminish the global net energy output of solar panels; whereas, energy from nuclear reactors, those being away from a volcanic blast, would not be diminished by volcanic activity. In this scenario of an enormously powerful volcanic eruption, nuclear power would be a more dependable source of energy than would solar energy.

 

[Salvador]

Nucler power is the most expensive power there is.

Citation there needed please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The end of clean coal began when its myth was invented. If people wake up now after all this time, Amen!
The Myth of Clean Coal

Yep, that is one of the reasons that I used scare quotes when I used the term clean coal. Coal is the "dirtiest" of energies from start to end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haze high in the atmosphere from a powerful volcanic eruption could significantly diminish the global net energy output of solar panels; whereas, energy from nuclear reactors, those being away from a volcanic blast, would not be diminished by volcanic activity. In this scenario of an enormously powerful volcanic eruption, nuclear power would be a more dependable source of energy than would solar energy.

Citation needed. That would have to be one heck of a volcano to have a serious effect on power production. We would have other worries at that point.

 

[Salvador]

Nucler power is the most expensive power there is.

"Consider the two of most debated plants right now, Germany’s Solar PV and Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 Nuclear Plant. Germany’s Solar PV costs around 130 billion dollars while Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 costs only 31 billion dollars (considering a 20-year lifetime for both the plants). . The energy costs will be much lower as time passes but even after 20 years, nuclear power plant is cheaper.

Right now, solar energy costs about 32 ¢/kWh. On the other hand, nuclear energy costs about 7 ¢/kWh. The efficiency of a nuclear plant is in the region of 33%. A solar plant has an uninspiring 11-15% efficiency.

On an average, a nuclear plant has a 60-year lifetime. A solar plant has only 30-40 year lifetime. Initial investments are also low in nuclear power plants. Add to this, low maintenance costs of nuclear power plants.

Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 produces 47 TWh more than Germany’s Solar PV over the course of 20 years. However, the lifetime electricity production of Germany’s Solar PV is higher than Finland’s Olkiluoto 3. This means that you get more electricity from solar plants in 40 years when compared with a nuclear plant operational for 60 years.

The myth that solar plants will become cheaper than nuclear plants in the next five years still exits. It is highly unlikely. To drop solar PV prices further, one has to go for a larger manufacturing scale.

Considering all the statistical data, it is much more profitable to produce electricity using a nuclear power plant."

All the statistics mentioned above are from thebreakthrough.org.

Solar vs Nuclear: What Energy Future are we headed for?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Consider the two of most debated plants right now, Germany’s Solar PV and Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 Nuclear Plant. Germany’s Solar PV costs around 130 billion dollars while Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 costs only 31 billion dollars (considering a 20-year lifetime for both the plants). . The energy costs will be much lower as time passes but even after 20 years, nuclear power plant is cheaper.

Right now, solar energy costs about 32 ¢/kWh. On the other hand, nuclear energy costs about 7 ¢/kWh. The efficiency of a nuclear plant is in the region of 33%. A solar plant has an uninspiring 11-15% efficiency.

On an average, a nuclear plant has a 60-year lifetime. A solar plant has only 30-40 year lifetime. Initial investments are also low in nuclear power plants. Add to this, low maintenance costs of nuclear power plants.


Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 produces 47 TWh more than Germany’s Solar PV over the course of 20 years. However, the lifetime electricity production of Germany’s Solar PV is higher than Finland’s Olkiluoto 3. This means that you get more electricity from solar plants in 40 years when compared with a nuclear plant operational for 60 years.

The myth that solar plants will become cheaper than nuclear plants in the next five years still exits. It is highly unlikely. To drop solar PV prices further, one has to go for a larger manufacturing scale.

Considering all the statistical data, it is much more profitable to produce electricity using a nuclear power plant."

All the statistics mentioned above are from thebreakthrough.org.

Solar vs Nuclear: What Energy Future are we headed for?

And I think the point of the article that I linked is that recently solar power has dropped significantly and is projected to drop even more as the technology develops. I do not see the same projections for nuclear power. I am a fan of nuclear power over various alternatives, but if solar is cleaner and cheaper we should be celebrating.

This, by the way, is the way to lower our carbon footprint in the most efficient way. Find alternatives that are cheaper. It is still a good idea to tax carbon use and use that to drive the switch to clean fuels. After all the price we pay for natural gas, oil, and coal does not reflect the negative effects of it.

 

[Salvador]

Citation needed. That would have to be one heck of a volcano to have a serious effect on power production. We would have other worries at that point.

"The longest-lasting and potentially most dangerous effect of very large volcanic eruptions comes from the injection of sulphurous gases into the stratosphere which then react with water to form sulphate aerosol. The aerosol scatters incoming shortwave radiation leading to a complex pattern of surface cooling."

The potential impact of super-volcanic eruptions on the Earth’s atmosphere Bethan Harris Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading

Weather 63(8) · August 2008 with 357 Reads
DOI: 10.1002/wea.263

RMetS Journals

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The longest-lasting and potentially most dangerous effect of very large volcanic eruptions comes from the injection of sulphurous gases into the stratosphere which then react with water to form sulphate aerosol. The aerosol scatters incoming shortwave radiation leading to a complex pattern of surface cooling."

The potential impact of super-volcanic eruptions on the Earth’s atmosphere Bethan Harris Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading

Weather 63(8) · August 2008 with 357 Reads
DOI: 10.1002/wea.263

RMetS Journals

I thought that you were referring to that. Like I said, if that unlikely event happened the drop in solar power would be the least of our worries.

 

[SugarOcean]

Yep, that is one of the reasons that I used scare quotes when I used the term clean coal. Coal is the "dirtiest" of energies from start to end.

Yes, I noticed the "" .
That's why I added the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I noticed the "" .
That's why I added the article.

This gives me a brilliant idea! When we start our next war we can fight it using "Clean Nuclear Weapons". After all rather than having Truth In Advertising too many people see Advertising As Truth. This opens up a whole world of opportunities in the ad biz: Healthy Transfats, Nutritious Pesticides. I am going to be a billionaire! Muah! Ha! Haaa!