Britain to build Europe's first nuclear plant since Fukushima

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Britain to build Europe's first nuclear plant since Fukushima

By Karolin Schaps and Geert De Clercq
LONDON/PARIS | Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:36am EDT

(Reuters) - Britain is set to sign a deal with France's EDF for the first nuclear plant to start construction in Europe since Japan's Fukushima disaster raised safety concerns worldwide, at a cost estimated at around $23 billion.

Under the deal, to be announced on Monday, the French state-controlled utility will lead a consortium, including a Chinese group, to construct two European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPRs) designed by France's Areva.

Industry estimates, based on other nuclear projects, put the cost at around 14 billion pounds or more than 16 billion euros.

EDF's long-time partner China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), possibly in combination with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), is expected to have a 30 to 40 percent stake in the consortium, with Areva taking another 10 percent, according to newspapers including France's Les Echos and Britain's Sunday Telegraph.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/20/us-britain-nuclear-hinkley-idUSBRE99J06D20131020

[Cleita]

1. Wonderful.

What the world needs is one more nuke plant.

[PamW]

2. Some governments see things in perspective..

Some governments see things in perspective, and not as problems without solution.

May I remind people that Great Britain was the first country to introduce the jet airliner; the deHavilland Comet back in the 1950s. However, after a series of crashes of the Comet involving fuselage metal failure; Great Britain got out of the jet airliner business.

The problem with the Comet was that it had square passenger windows. Stress concentrates at corners; and that was what was happening with the Comets. It was a fixable problem; you round the corners; which is why when you have a window seat on an airliner, your window is shaped the way it is. With the rounded corners, no airliner has had a similar problem since.

Unfortunately for Great Britain, they ceded the entire commercial jet airliner industry to the USA. Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas ( later absorbed into Boeing ) owned the commercial jet airliner business, and the jobs that goes with them; for the next couple of decades. In the 1970s, the French Airbus company came on the scene, and now the commercial jet airliner market for the free world is shared by Boeing and Airbus; or the USA and France. There's no market ownership by Great Britain, when they were the ones that started the business.

Unfortunately, Great Britain "threw up its hands" and withdrew from the commercial jet airliner business because jet airliners were an unsolvable problem that was just going to lead to crashes and human carnage. Although jet airliners are not perfect, they are the safest way to travel on a per passenger-mile basis.

Great Britain "gave up" on jet airliners over accidents that were originally seen as a problem without solution. The problem was a design defect that was easily remedied with a redesign of the passenger windows.

This is why we need to let our policies be guided by science and not emotions. Sure one can look at a crashed airliner and see the human carnage and be emotionally tempted to do away with all airliners so that this won't happen again. However, if we don't let our emotions drive us, and instead are driven by science, then one realizes that we can prevent the airliner crashes with a window redesign; and still have airliners. The safety of those airliners has reduced the number of people that are killed in automobiles and/or trains, which would be the alternative if we didn't have airliners.

Great Britain, in essence, "shot itself in the foot" back in the 1950s by abandoning jet airliners and ceding that market to the USA. They evidently learned the lesson of the deHavilland Comet, and won't be repeating that mistake.

The country that didn't learn from Great Britain's mistake in the 1950s is Germany.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[wundermaus]

3. Find another way to boil water.

Seriously.
The largest fusion power generating system in the solar system already exists.
Use that one.

[PamW]

4. I'll let a scientist tell you what the problem is...

I'll let a scientist tell you what the problem is.

I've referenced this interview before; PBS's Frontline interviewing physicist Dr. Charles Till, who was Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory; and a LEADER among our best scientists in the field of energy at Argonne.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: What about Solar?

A: Solar? No.

Q: Wind?

A: No. Small amounts. Small amounts only. The simplest form of pencil calculation will tell you that. But you know, energy has to be produced for modern society on a huge scale. The only way you can do that is with energy sources that have concentrated energy in them: coal, oil, natural gas. And the quintessential example of it is nuclear, where the energy is so concentrated, you have something to work (with). With solar, your main problem is gathering it. In nuclear, it's there. It's been gathered.

That kind of sums it up. Even if you have a bunch of energy, you can't use it unless it is thermodynamically available under the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A bunch of energy at ambient temperature doesn't do you any good because it isn't thermodynamically available.

If you have a big chunk of iron sitting on your desk; there's a lot of energy there because the iron is a few hundred degrees Kelvin above absolute zero. But because that energy is at ambient temperature; you can't do anything with it. Unfortunately, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics wreaks havoc with a bunch of ill-considered ideas for energy generation, and puts some real physical limits on what we can / can not do. Sorry about that.

The good thing about science it that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[Demeter]

5. And I'll Let Max Planck rebut:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33–34 (as cited in T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Paraphrased variants:

Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus.

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.



Please note that Max Planck's career and life's work and INCOME wasn't dependent on commercializing nuclear fission....

[PamW]

6. You mean we have to let a generation of environmentalists die out?

Demeter,

You mean we have to let a generation of environmentalists die out?

The Laws of Physics are not just truths that we made up; they are Mother Nature's truths.

The Laws of Physics are the laws that Mother Nature herself obeys; and so can be considered ultimate truths.

More and more, I see the problem that we have a generation of environmentalists that were propagandized from childhood by the likes of "Captain Planet", David Suzuki, and Bill Nye. This generation of environmentalist learned an awful lot of crap that is at variance with the ultimate truth; the Laws of Physics.

I had hoped that the present generation of environmentalists could be retrained to adhere to the Laws of Physics. Now, I guess, the world will have to wait until this generation that grew up on "Captain Planet" and and won't let go of their fictional power rings; will have to die out before we get a generation of environmentalists that have a good grounding in science instead of cartoons.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[Demeter]

7. NO, I mean we have to let a generation of nuclear sell-outs die off

as you seem to be one of their fan club....I thought you might want to be prepared.

[FogerRox]

8. Sweetheart deal on price controls

The so-called strike price, over which EDF and Britain have wrangled for more than a year, is expected to be set at about 92 pounds per megawatt-hour, more than twice current market levels, and could be valid for 35 years, according to some media.

If British electricity market prices fall below the agreed threshold, EDF would be reimbursed for the difference, while it would have to pay back money in excess of the price

Its not clear the EU competition commission will ok the deal because of the price guarantees.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. £92.50 is the level they've set

Ministers and EDF have been in talks for more than a year about the minimum price the company will be paid for electricity produced at the site, which the government estimates will cost £16bn to build.

The two sides have now agreed the "strike price" of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of energy Hinkley C generates. This is almost twice the current wholesale cost of electricity.

This will fall to £89.50 for every megawatt hour of energy if EDF Group goes ahead with plans to develop a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Doing both would allow EDF to share costs across both projects.

Mr Davey said the deal was "competitive" with other large-scale clean energy and gas projects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218

At twice the current wholesale price, this implies the minister expects the price of gas to more than double. It is indexed to general inflation:

The new reactors, which will cost £14bn, are due to start operating in 2023 if built on time and will run for 35 years. They will be capable of producing 7% of the UK's electricity – equivalent to the amount used by 7m homes.

In details released on Monday morning, the strike price – the fixed price at which output will be sold – has been set at £89.50 per megawatt hour for electricity produced at the new power station. That price will be fully indexed to consumer price inflation. But the price, at 2012 prices, is dependent on EDF moving ahead with a second plant, Sizewell C, in Suffolk. If it decides not to proceed, another £3/MWh will be added to the strike price for Hinkley, bringing it up to £92.50/MWh.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/britain-nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf

That, or the minister is lying, of course.

[FBaggins]

18. The prediction for gas when the plant comes online is £74

£89.50 is "competitive" with that if you give any credit at all for the fact that it's essentially carbon free. There's also the problem that gas can't guarantee a strike price... because fuel costs are too high a proportion of their generating costs and natural gas prices can climb much faster than inflation (and has in the recent past).

If they start "fracking" and have the same level of "success" that we've seen here... that price could go way down. But it would still have a climate impact that renewables and nuclear don't share.

The strike price for "other large-scale clean energy... projects" is quite a bit higher.

The new reactors, which will cost £14bn, are due to start operating in 2023 if built on time and will run for 35 years.

Untrue. They're designed for an initial lifespan of 60 years - which could easily be extended for an additional 20. The 35 years is just the life of the strike price guarantee.

[FBaggins]

19. That's a sweetheart deal?

What then do you call £125 for solar, £105 for biomass, £155 for offshore wind, £105 for onshore wind, or £305 for tidal/wave?

[Yo_Mama]

22. It's a lot less than offshore wind is getting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10296527/Offshore-wind-farms-need-higher-subsidies-says-government-adviser.html

There are of course arguments for and against the project, but I honestly would not consider the price one of them. Wholesale price does not have much to do with this type of project. Especially with wind, wholesale prices can drop very low at times because you will have big surges in production. And it's correlated. So windfarms are guaranteed a certain price in order to ensure they get built. Otherwise when a windfarm was producing the most power, it might be selling the power for astonishingly little on the market.

The reason to build large non-renewable projects is to have baseload power for the lows, which is a serious consideration in the UK.

[PamW]

9. Then the analogy doesn't hold....

Both Dr. Till and I are scientists; and the reason that we hold the opinions that we do has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a "nuclear sell-out".

The opinions of Dr. Till and I both about nuclear and about renewables are based on well-founded science.

No less than the National Academy of Science states that we can count on renewables for no more than about 20% of our electric production.

We are going to need an "all of the above" strategy, including nuclear; if we are going to meet demand without excessive emissions of GHG.

That's what the Obama Administration is pursuing right now - ALL of the above including nuclear. Don't you think that Obama would have been receptive to an "all renewables" strategy? Then why has the Obama Administration been pursuing an "all of the above" strategy; especially since his first Secretary of Energy was the former Director a national laboratory that was big in the renewables field.

The reason is that Obama's first Secretary of Energy, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Dr. Steven Chu; advised President Obama of the scientific fact that an "all renewable" plan is a non-starter that is doomed to failure because it runs afoul of a number of physical laws. Dr. Chu recommended the "all of the above" strategy.

President Obama's new Secretary of Energy, MIT Physics Professor, Dr. Ernest Moniz knows that Physics just as well as Dr. Chu, and there's no deviation from the "all of the above" strategy planned.

You may be a member of the clan that thinks we can do it all with renewables; and doesn't believe that the laws of physics are going to stand in your way. You are not alone; there are others. That's why I sign my posts with the following.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

10. No scientist would pervert a study like you have here.

"No less than the National Academy of Science states that we can count on renewables for no more than about 20% of our electric production."

As you well know, that is simply untrue. The (now outdated) NAS study states that there are no recognized barriers to a penetration of up to about 20% renewables, but to move beyond and up to penetrations of about 50% would probably require specific policies that are friendlier to renewables than is currently the general norm.
ABOVE 50% they predict a need to restructure the grid in a fashion that places pre-emimence on the way variable generation is managed - ie, more storage and deployment of 'smart grid' technologies.

At no point do they EVER state we can "count on renewables for no more than 20% of our electric production".

No ethical person would make that statement about that report.

[PamW]

12. WRONG!

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 10:57 AM - Edit history (3)

kristopher,

The latest NAS study is from 2009; which kristopher now calls "outdated". How often do you think the laws of physics change?

All I can say is "Where is your university degree in physics or engineering?"

Please tell us what credentials you have for understanding what the National Academy of Science says.

It's as if there is a report from the American Medical Association, and your doctor tells you what it means, and your friend down the street who has no medical degree, no medical training, no familiarity with medicine whatsoever, tells you that the AMA study says the exact opposite of what your doctor tells you it says.

Who would the intelligent person believe with regard to an AMA report; the doctor; or the person without any medical knowledge whatsoever?

Then the person without medical knowledge complains about how unethical the doctor is. Sigh.

Face it; the scientists are just NOT on your side on this issue. BTW have you seen this from ABC News today:

"Wind Turbine Syndrome" Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wind-turbine-syndrome-blamed-mysterious-symptoms-cape-cod/story?id=20591168

Evidently wind power is very good at annoying people. I guess it's OK if it's not near you. Just as long as it's somebody else's backyard.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse

PamW

[caraher]

14. The credentials required are English language comprehension

You don't need a degree, real or imaginary, to discover kristopher is right about what NAS reported in 2009. After discussing many ways to get to 20% renewables quickly, and potentially following that up with a further substantial increase the NAS report goes on to say

Integrating renewables at a much greater level so that they account, say, for more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation would require scientific advances and major changes in electricity production and use. It would also necessitate the deployment of electricity storage technologies to offset renewables’ intermittency. More details on deployment are available in Chapter 6 in Part 2 of this report, and an extensive discussion is presented in the panel report Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009a).

So far from saying 20% is a cap, they actually say 50% is NOT a cap, but something that would require a lot of changes. No surprise there. And this is mostly engineering and economics, not physics...

[PamW]

15. WRONG too!!

caraher states
So far from saying 20% is a cap, they actually say 50% is NOT a cap, but something that would require a lot of changes. No surprise there. And this is mostly engineering and economics, not physics...

Evidently caraher didn't understand the NAS 2009 report; or understood it as BADLY as kristopher did.

The 20% is the limit if we are going to have an electric system that in any way resembles what we have now; where we have sufficient power on demand at all times, and that power is clean 60 Hz AC power.

You can have 50% penetration by renewables if one is willing to accept a power system that is NOT always there when you need it; or doesn't always have sufficient capacity or the power delivered by the system isn't clean AC; but is crapped up by loads of harmonics, reactive power, and other CRAP.

We discussed recently how one of kristopher's favorite schemes necessary to provide the backup power to unreliable renewables, namely V2G, Vehicle to Grid' would be responsible for loads of crappy power on the power lines, and harmonics from the inverters needed to convert battery DC to AC. The switching power supplies in computers may take this crappy power in stride; but electronics that use linear power supplies like stereo amps and the like won't be liking the crappy power that comes from inverters.

I have to disagree with the above that the only requirement is English. NO - one needs the technical competence to know what is meant when the English words say "..would require a lot of changes".

Although, the harmonics and reactive power can be mitigated to a degree; but not totally eliminated; the basic problem that renewables have is not one of engineering.

The main problem that renewables have is that we do NOT have a throttle on Mother Nature. Renewables are NOT "dispatchable"; they can't deliver on command. When you get your power from Mother Nature, you have to be content with what Mother Nature is offering at the time. If Mother Nature "slacks off" on the power generation because a cloud is shading the solar array, or the wind died down that was powering your turbines; then you can't command Mother Nature to pick up the slack.

That's a basic Physics problem; which is why NONE of the scenarios that the NAS offered as possible deployment scenarios had renewables with any greater penetration than 20%.

I'm sorry you don't like what the scientists are saying; but neither do the climate deniers.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[caraher]

16. Specifically which laws of physics are being violated?

It's remarkable how you can speak with such self-asserted authority about what's in the report without referring to the actual words of the report:

Between now and 2020, there are no technological constraints to accelerated deployment of the major renewable resources with existing technologies.

Sure, increasing renewables requires upgrading our aged, dilapidated power grid. I'm not sure what purported laws of nature this goes against. Somehow the NAS report - written by scientists with known credentials, unlike anyone posting in an online forum - seems to say the variability issue is anything but insurmountable:

Balancing wind with multiple renewable resources—including solar, which does not normally peak when wind does, and baseload power from geothermal and biomass—could mitigate the temporal variability in generation. Reaching the goal of 20 percent nonhydropower renewables by 2035 could be achieved by adding 9.5 GW per year of wind power and a total of 70 GW of solar PV and 13 GW each of geothermal and biomass. Using multiple renewable resources to reach this level would take advantage of the geographical variability in the resource base.

It's true that they didn't spell out in detail scenarios that go beyond 20%, but that scarcely implies they regard that as an absolute limit but reflects the assessments available. The same NAS report also talks about a 12-20% increase in nuclear by 2020. Does that mean they think that's the most nuclear could supply?

To quote a "real scientist (TM):" I'm sorry you don't like what the scientists are saying; but neither do the climate deniers.

[PamW]

17. Conservation of Energy

caraher,

Notice that everything you quote above is talking about how to meet the 20% that the NAS says we can do!

Evidently you didn't read the whole report if you missed the parts where they told you that 20% was the limit.

The main problem is the Law of Conservation of Energy. The generators on the grid have to match the demand instant by instant; not averaged over a day or a few hours; but by the instant.

Suppose the renewable generators are putting out 1 Gw(e) = 1,000,000,000 watts. However, suppose the demand goes up by just 1 watt; so the demand is 1,000,000,001 watts. Suppose the renewables are "maxed out" - they are generating all the energy that they are receiving from Mother Nature. It's just that the demand exceeds that by 1 watt.

Therefore, in a single second, the renewable generators will have put 1,000,000,000 Joules of energy into the grid. However, the load will have received 1,000,000,001 Joules of energy from the grid. In other words, the load will have received 1 Joule more than the renewable generators provided.

Where did that extra 1 Joule of energy come from? The generators didn't create it. The grid can't create it.

It's a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy - it is creating energy out of nothing.

Mother Nature won't allow that; and before she lets that happen; she will COLLAPSE the grid because it's about to violate Conservation of Energy.

This is what the "greenies" don't tell you; their system can't respond to demand like the dispatchable power sources of coal, gas, hydro and nuclear can. The renewables need the dispatchable power sources of coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear to do the load following that renewables are INCAPABLE of doing. In order for the system to be stable; the dispatchable load followers have to out number the non-dispatchable renewables by about 4:1; hence 80% dispatchable generators, and 20% non-dispatchable renewables.

It's all there in the report. Evidently, you didn't understand it when you read it. That's why having a degree in the sciences is necessary.

See also:

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

The NAS report doesn't present the 12-20% as a limit; besides nuclear power exceeds the 20% now; and in the recent past nuclear exceeded 25%.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[caraher]

20. 20% is at most a rough limit with no grid upgrades and no storage

It's remarkable how you have so much to say about what the NAS actually says without quoting anything from any of their reports. Does this sound like a claim of a hard limit? From page 23 of "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments"

In the period from 2020 to 2035, it is reasonable to envision that continued and even further accelerated deployment could potentially result in non-hydroelectric renewables providing, collectively, 20 percent or more of domestic electricity generation by 2035. In the third timeframe, beyond 2035, continued development of renewable electricity technologies could potentially provide lower costs and result in further increases in the percentage of renewable electricity generated from renewable resources. However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity.

NREL has studied even higher levels of renewables, though they only look at hour-by-hour fluctuations. They think 80% renewables by 2050 is possible. But I don't suppose you believe anything from NREL.

Incidentally, your hectoring about the need for degrees in hard sciences is wasted on me. I know what degrees I hold. You don't, nor do I know what degrees you may hold, no matter what you may assert. Such is the internet. Incidentally, argument from authority is generally considered a logical fallacy, and has particularly bad reputation among those who know the history of science. I also know that my first-year undergraduate students who do not yet have college degrees are perfectly capable of reading and comprehending these reports.

Yes, conservation of energy applies, as always, but while there are certainly important load management issues to be faced for any electric power system (with or without renewables), the fanciful "1 watt over the limit" scenario you describe has nothing to do with real-world limitations. It's certainly true that an energy source can't magically produce more than some hard limit just because there is more demand. But this scarcely amounts to a physics-based rebuttal to the notion that some combination of an advanced grid, large-scale storage, and designing systems to take advantage of "geographic averaging" locally-fluctuating resources can manage this quite effectively. Yes, it's not your father's electric grid, but isn't that the whole point?

[FBaggins]

21. That's not "at most"... it's exactly what they're saying.

It's the "rough limit" of a system without storage and grid upgrades. It could be a bit higher or lower than that based specific circumstances. Say you had a local grid that centered on the Hoover Dam. You could go way above 20% variable renewables with no trouble at all. In other areas with little flexible generation (say with heavy coal and nuclear penetration), it could be well below that figure.

But at a national level... they're saying that 20% is the rough limit absent significant storage, scientific advances and large changes in not just how power is produced, but also how it's used. We haven't made those advances... nor do we have an economical option for storage anywhere near the amounts required. You can look back over years of posts and see kristopher imagining that large-scale storage technologies are essentially "off the shelf" and will be ready to go when we're ready to use them... but that simply isn't the case.

Re-read posts 9 & 10. Nobody has claimed a hard impenetrable limit. One poster has said that the report says that "We" (the same "we" that does not have the required technology or storage... or plans for a grid that changes how power is used) can't "count on" renewables for more than 20%. The other person claims that the report says that penetrations between 20-50% require only "policies that are friendlier to renewables" and it's only for penetration above 50% that significant storage and grid enhancements are required.

The first is far closer to an accurate reading than the second.

A quote you may have missed:

Higher levels of penetration of intermittent renewables (above about 20 percent) would require batteries, compressed air energy storage, or other methods of storing energy such as conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels. Improved meteorological forecasting could also facilitate increased integration of solar and wind power. Hence, though improvements in the grid and related technologies are necessary and valuable for other objectives, significant integration of renewable electricity will not occur without increases in transmission capacity as well as other grid management improvements.

Incidentally, your hectoring about the need for degrees in hard sciences is wasted on me. I know what degrees I hold. You don't, nor do I know what degrees you may hold, no matter what you may assert. Such is the internet.

This much is true. However, it is also true that those with a solid scientific background usually have little trouble spotting those whose perception of "science" is driven more by their preferred policy decisions... rather than the other way around.

Incidentally, argument from authority is generally considered a logical fallacy

When the poster says "I know what I'm talking about and you don't"... that's true. When the poster can actually back up the claims with verifiable science (as Pam has done scores of times)... it isn't.

[PamW]

24. Try to find the 1992 National Academy Energy Study

caraher states
It's remarkable how you have so much to say about what the NAS actually says without quoting anything from any of their reports. Does this sound like a claim of a hard limit?

The National Academy of Sciences has been doing these energy studies every 5 years or so for a couple decades now. The 20% limit originally appeared as a result of the 1992 NAS energy study, and has been reiterated in subsequent studies. Unfortunately, 1992 was before the Academy or anyone else was putting things out on the Internet. ( At that time, it was mostly for e-mail )

You make the oft quoted ERROR of saying that quoting authority is a logical fallacy. The fallacy is quoting a false authority, and while a good authority can still make mistakes, scholars do consider quoting good authority as a way to bolster one's argument:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

caraher states
But this scarcely amounts to a physics-based rebuttal to the notion that some combination of an advanced grid, large-scale storage, and designing systems to take advantage of "geographic averaging" locally-fluctuating resources can manage this quite effectively.

The above conclusively demonstrates that you don't understand a physics-based rebuttal. Although I chose the 1 Joule discrepancy on purpose to be an illustration; the fact of the matter is the Laws of Physics don't even allow the creation of ONE Joule of energy out of nothing. If one can show the creation of ANY amount of energy above the limits of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; then you have made a CONCLUSIVE physics-based rebuttal; because the Laws of Physics don't permit it.

The references above to "advanced grid, geographic averaging"...and the like is nothing but unscientific handwaving.

The grid always has to be in balance. This is akin to the balancing of forces in an aircraft. As an analogy, there were many, many, people that attempted heavier than air flight prior to the Wright Brothers. They were all failures mostly because they were aerodynamically unstable. The true accomplishment of the Wright Brothers wasn't the use of wings or propellers; but the engineering insight that the craft has to be aerodynamically stable.

I can describe for you how all dispatchable power plants have a feedback circuit on the turbine generator to control speed, and that serves to balance the output and demand. If demand from the grid increases, there's more current flow in the generator's armature. Via Lenz's Law, that increased current in a loop in a magnetic field means there is an increase in the amount of torque required to turn the generator at constant speed. If there's no increase in torque from the turbine, the turbine generator will start to slow down. The feedback circuit picks that up, and opens the throttle valve on the turbine, and also increases fuel flow to whatever heat source is powering the turbine.

That feedback which relies on the ability to control the turbine throttle is the key to making a stable system. Solar arrays and wind turbines just plain do NOT have throttles. They can only supply what Mother Nature is offering at the time. They are VOID of a mechanism to give them stability on a power grid; all the handwaving arguments of "smart grids, and geographic averaging", notwithstanding.

The renewables community has yet to develop the systems that would make high reliance on renewables possible; so all the claims that renewables are ready to take over the lion's share of our electric generation, all we have to do is build it, is just plain not true.

I'm told that Maine has a large installation of wind turbines to about 50% of their demand; but Maine is still linked to one of the large regional grids for stability. ( The 20% is 20% of a standalone grid; not 20% of State, or 20% of a city, or 20% of a neighborhood. It's 20% of something that can stand alone. ) When Maine disconnects from the regional grid and is self-sufficient on that 50% wind power and whatever else; THEN we can talk. However, to say that wind power is ready to shoulder the load of the national grids is just premature.

Additionally, I wish when people talk about "smart grids" and the like; they would please tell us what capabilities the smart grid has and how that capability mitigates the problem. "Smart grid" is tossed around like some magic word that solves all problems. That's the difference between the scientists and others. The non-scientists accept some vacuous claim that computers or "smart grids" will solve all problems. Scientists are different. We use computers in our work, and know what can and can not be solved with computers. One doesn't get points for using "buzz words" with me; you have to be able to explain it.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[FogerRox]

26. Well said & well sourced.

[FogerRox]

27. Well said K.

[wundermaus]

23. So many assumptions... I am sad for you.

You think you know it all.
You think you are a scientist, too?
Maybe you are.
Maybe you are not.
I could care less.
I'm no scientist... but if I were, I would know that there is more that I don't know than what I do know.
If I were a scientist I would be humbled, and in a state of awe and wonder:
To think I know something when we could just as well know nothing at all.
Seems strange to be lectured to like a child that I know nothing of science, of physics, of technology.
It amuses me that so many assumptions are made and so little is truly known.
We don't need to make electricity by splitting atoms... or fusing them together.
We have everything we need already.
The sun is our ultimate source of energy in this solar system.
Everything you and I are and ever will be is a result of that star shining on this planet.
Nature is generous to those who work with her.
And she is unforgiving of those who seek to rape her.
We waste so much, surely I would have expected you to lecture me on energy efficiency and conservation.
Atomic energy seems like an ideal solution to our gluttonous appetite for energy but to me, it is as deadly and disruptive of life as anything imaginable.
I hope you reliance on science is based on more than just your mind.
I hope it is based on the love of life.
If you assume your facts of science are valid why waste your time trying to convince me?
I am not convinced you are even in the ball park.
So build your nuclear power plants.
Just remember - 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima are scientific fact,too.
I pray we are not around to witness the ensuing folly of such a path with so many warning signs along the way.
"Nuclear Energy - What could go wrong?" - me

[PamW]

25. So is the Hindenberg

wundermaus states
Just remember - 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima are scientific fact,too.

So is the explosion and crash of the Hindenberg.

However, we still fly in airliners, and nobody is calling for them to be banned.

We learn from mistakes; so we don't make them again.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[hunter]

13. Look, the only way we can sustain modern industrial society without fossil fuels is nuclear power.

There is no choice. You cannot economically power electric steel, aluminum, and copper refineries, or most other modern heavy industry with wind or solar.



You cannot power your electric cars or high speed rail economically with wind or solar.

Most of us do not make enough money to power air conditioning in our homes or big box stores with wind or solar energy. Certainly not our automobiles.

I don't make enough money to buy an electric automobile or the solar panels to power it. I feel happy when I pay off a single medical debt. My credit rating is in the toilet. My credit cards were canceled years ago because I mistakingly brought my wallet to an Emergency Room. (Advice from Hunter: If you ever have to visit the E.R. throw away your wallet first. Aim for the nearest storm drain if you are bleeding or suffering chest pains. You are already in a place beyond money. Here in the U.S.A. the Fates own you once shit happens. And you will quickly learn your "good" insurance sucks.)



I'm not fond of nuclear power so that's why I'm a Luddite. My most excellent means of transportation are walking and sailing. Bicycling and horses are pretty good too, for you more modern sort of folks. I figure if I don't have shoes I'll grow calluses. It was good enough for my ancestors who ALL managed to walk or sail away from trouble and reproduce.

Humans populated the entire planet without fossil fuels. I like to think we could choose much lower energy lifestyles without abandoning the very finest fruits of our technologies. I don't tend to buy things. I pay for an internet connection, I have a trash-canned single core computer running Linux, and here I am.

We could throw away the cars, the airlines, the air conditioned big box stores, the parking lots, all the fossil fuels, our "consumer society" entirely, and keep only the good stuff like medicine, high education, arts, and world wide communication networks. That would be a better world, but I have zero expectations it will happen.

The shit storms will continue.