ronwagn

Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

Recommended Posts

On 10/9/2021 at 2:46 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Did you actually read it? It tells a story of a nuclear waste storage site, whose entire history has been marred by a string of accidents and which employs 10,000 people to do nothing much and is getting decommissioned ASAP, anyway.

How is any of this remotely close to the Russian vision of "closed loop" nuclear energy, free of nuclear waste altogether and which has just arrived?

Yes of course I read it. It is the history of nuclear problems in Great Britain. I know nothing of closed loop nuclear energy that you are talking about. Please provide a reference. 

Russia has a pretty dismal history of nuclear problems also. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Boat said:

I remember reading about a couple of nuke installations that were built downstream of dams around 15 years ago.  Later they discovered fault lines found by new tech in the area. Who knows how many of these impending disasters are out there we seem to escape. So far. I quit looking for this type of information as I got older. I don’t feel as indestructible. 
Speaking of that has anyone heard about how the flooding in China has affected solar, wind, coal and nat gas? All you here about is Australia. 

All I know is that this has been a disastrous flooding year around large areas of China. I just posted an article as a reply to my own topic. Last night, it shows a nightmare of new flooding. It is under geopolitics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2021 at 3:28 AM, JoMack said:

Actually, the TXRRC is looking at  SWD.  The solution to decreased flaring is pipelines.  

SWD is another acronym with more than one meaning. What is your usage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yes of course I read it. It is the history of nuclear problems in Great Britain. I know nothing of closed loop nuclear energy that you are talking about. Please provide a reference. 

Russia has a pretty dismal history of nuclear problems also. 

One hop away from the link I already gave (again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_Fuel )

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/TVEL-outlines-innovation-in-nuclear-fuel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reference. I am surprised that I do not see more nuclear plants in Russia and China. More so in China, since Russia has oil, gas, and coal to use or sell in great abundance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Thanks for the reference. I am surprised that I do not see more nuclear plants in Russia and China. More so in China, since Russia has oil, gas, and coal to use or sell in great abundance. 

Nukes give baseload. Russia does not need more baseload, because there is neither a significant population growth nor growth in industrial output. The same argument applies to large hydro dams - AFAIK, there is only one currently in construction domestically. They cannot move any more coal to China/Asia than they already do without a capacity expansion of Amur-Yakutsk railroad branch. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur–Yakutsk_Mainline

The only ones who can quickly ramp up coal exports turned out to be the Mongols. They got themselves some BelAZ trucks (some of the largest in the world, with up to 450t capacity) and have been sighted driving them through the steppes in the general direction of China. I think their coal might still be extracted by hand all the while. Roundeye infrastructure development is obviously grossly overrated :)

I think the oil & gas pipeline situation has already been discussed in length. Rosatom got about a third of global order book for new nukes, in places like Bangladesh and Turkey.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2021 at 11:23 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Why would Russia "ask a hefty price" for a pipeline which has already been paid for? All that needs to be done is certifying it ASAP and letting it do its thing, preferably without the moronic 50% capacity cap which is already in effect on NorthStream1 (as a measure of "solidarity" with Poland, apparently)

It was the crazy Stockholm arbitrage cases brought by Poland and Ukraine which made Gazprom pay fines to the tune of several billion for alleged overcharges and tie all new long-term contracts to the spot price for LNG instead of oil. The EU got what they asked for - Gazprom is reporting a price of some $270/m^3 on its long-term contracts that it is serving now, instead of nearly $1.5K spot now. The way it looks now, it is actually more profitable for Gazprom to NOT open the NS2. Couple of years of such spot prices and the investment of some $10 bln is fully amortized.

It is possible that the extra profit from Europeans insisting on spot prices included in contracts will exceed the cost of North Stream II this year alone.  In the longer run, consumer would switch to burning crude if such prices were persisting.  I think that in Europe, natural gas was twice cheaper that crude oil as power stations input, but now it is more expensive.  In short term, switching from one fuel to another may be impossible, natural gas is easiest to use, so many power plants cannot switch to crude oil without extra investments.

 Mind you, last year Gasprom was clobbered by low prices, and "long term thinking" Eu-ans (not ALL Europeans are in EU!) thought that they have excellent strategy.  This year this strategy seems poor.  Without NATO (and EU as appendage) picking fights, a workable solution giving sufficient reliability to both producers and consumers could be worked out -- neither gains too much in the long run by beggaring the other.

Someone (in Russian) was explaining today the benefits of infrastructure that is not used.  North Stream II that is not used puts under question the validity of investing in oil (boilers? I am hazy on details here).  That slows down the escape from NG as a fuel, and makes for more robust revenues in coming years.  Similarly, facilities for importing LNG were putting pressure on piped gas prices -- until LNG shortage became global, something that has little to do with Russia.  But most of the time they do.  (Now Gasprom plows the extra revenue into yet another pipeline, Yamal to East China, so in the future it can choose between two huge markets dependent on prices or convenience of contracts, it will be profitable even if never used.)

It is my understanding that the most dire weakness of "Neo-liberal" regulations in electricity markets is the issue of reserve capacity -- who pays for it, who gets money from it, and regulations when it can be used.  Without "special conditions", reserve capacity is not used, hence no revenue.  Shutting it down is rational for the owners.  But when frost, global deficit etc. comes, it is great to have.  That connects to another discussion today, that we cannot RELY on renewable energy.  For times when renewals provide less energy than projections, we could burn stockpiled coal, and still save CO2 emissions in the long run (electricity storage consumes energy, and it is either expensive or expensive like hell, and "storage" that could tidy you over a year of bad weather is not realistic at all.   

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Thanks for the reference. I am surprised that I do not see more nuclear plants in Russia and China. More so in China, since Russia has oil, gas, and coal to use or sell in great abundance. 

Russias 38 Nuclear Power Stations are relativ young. They started about 10 years later compared to Europe. End of 1979 compared to mid 1960. And there are huge Hydro Power Stations. Lena, Jenissei, Wolga, Irtish are Rivers between 3600 and 5500 km length. There are many more. Underdeveloped is Russias Eastern Part with Power Stations.

A big installed base was in Ukraine which was used till 2014 without any problems.

Gas and Coal Power is widely installed especially in the East and Sibiria region. (Sibiria 7x the size of Alaska)

Wind and Solar are very tricky there. If you find People to maintain by -50 Celsius wind Power, distributed over 500 km with a bad road network. Those are not reliable enough for Russia. Till about 2000 they shut down warm Water in Moscow for two three weeks for maintenance of all those Pipesystems.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Maher installed a solar system and then had to wait 3 years to be allowed to turn it on. Government bureaucracy will not allow any timely solutions until all the proper graft is paid.

What CAN be done and what will be ALLOWED are two different things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 6:27 AM, nsdp said:

Sebastion , the accounting principles that apply to utility projects are something that s foreign to you. Your estimate of costs  at Kursk for new nuclear construction look lit a list of materials only. They clearly omit AFUDC and intangible overheads that are capitalized not expensed in the current year. These drive the cost per kw over $35,000/kw name plate. "Georgia Power's share of the total project capital cost forecast is now 27 BILLION Dollars.  for 2500mw.  That is only a few percentage points of the cost of Hinkley Point.

Plant Vogtle expansion cost tops $27B as more delays unveiled https://www.wrdw.com/2021/07/29/plant-vogtle-expansion-cost-ps-27b-more-delays-unveiled/  Then you will have about $1.6 billion per year in fuel replacement costs and interest  payment of$ 2 billion annually.

You could buy a new wind farm every year for nuke plant operating expense only while not repaying the bond holders anything.

Plant Vogtle

 

This just shows that the #greens were able to lobby the legislator to pass law after law and regulation after regulation, useless, and often counterproductive for nuclear safety, but very burdensome making nuclear extremely expensive and especially stifling innovation. Which was their objective. In Russia on the other hand they have mastered both high temperature reactor (great for making hydrogen) and fast breeder technology (thus able to turn all nuclear "waste" into energy). Good job, "capitalist" West!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

SWD is another acronym with more than one meaning. What is your usage?

Salt Water Disposal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Nukes give baseload. Russia does not need more baseload, because there is neither a significant population growth nor growth in industrial output. The same argument applies to large hydro dams - AFAIK, there is only one currently in construction domestically. They cannot move any more coal to China/Asia than they already do without a capacity expansion of Amur-Yakutsk railroad branch. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur–Yakutsk_Mainline

The only ones who can quickly ramp up coal exports turned out to be the Mongols. They got themselves some BelAZ trucks (some of the largest in the world, with up to 450t capacity) and have been sighted driving them through the steppes in the general direction of China. I think their coal might still be extracted by hand all the while. Roundeye infrastructure development is obviously grossly overrated :)

I think the oil & gas pipeline situation has already been discussed in length. Rosatom got about a third of global order book for new nukes, in places like Bangladesh and Turkey.

A 500 MW coal plant will need about one of those trucks EVERY HOUR at full load (+/-, depends on coal quality)..

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 5:37 PM, notsonice said:

Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.????

 

what a load of babble, you do not post anything to back this up.....Reality Hurricane Ida shutdown 10 percent of the US oil and nat gas production causing a spike in prices in nat gas starting on Aug 26th from $4 to 0ver $5.30...... Dependable Nat Gas?????? Looks like we are all paying the price for being to reliant on Nat gas. Figure it out the cost of renewables did not go up , Nat gas did.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

A 500 MW coal plant will need about one of those trucks EVERY HOUR at full load (+/-, depends on coal quality)..

Place is not an issue in Russia. They get 2-3 full loads by Railway/Ships So that a Month or two is covered. In Yakutia everything must be in Place end of September for the next five Months.

Trucks are not safe enough in that Region.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starschy said:

Place is not an issue in Russia. They get 2-3 full loads by Railway/Ships So that a Month or two is covered. In Yakutia everything must be in Place end of September for the next five Months.

Trucks are not safe enough in that Region.

Are their icebreakers useful in those months, to deliver coal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

Bill Maher installed a solar system and then had to wait 3 years to be allowed to turn it on. Government bureaucracy will not allow any timely solutions until all the proper graft is paid.

What CAN be done and what will be ALLOWED are two different things.

Couldn't he use it solo on his own property?! That should be a lawsuit IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new story by Irena Slav is basically an update on the one that started this topic. Will America make the mistakes that Europe already has? Of course we are or were energy independent prior to the Biden policies being enacted. Should Democrats be worried for their future elections? I think so. Even the 90% media support they get will not blind the public to rising energy prices and all the other failures of this administration.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Is-America-Doomed-To-Replicate-Europes-Energy-Crisis.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2021 at 9:16 PM, Starschy said:

Fact is that Russia delivers around 45% Gas to Europe and not Fake News 80% as claimed here.

Eurostat is a prime Source:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_recent_developments#Main_suppliers_of_natural_gas_and_petroleum_oils_to_the_EU

It's 'only' about 45% total, but it's about 80% of the imported portion of the supply to Europe. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 3:37 PM, notsonice said:

Does anyone know what the energy LOSS is on pumped hydro? 75 -85% for the round trip. For batteries 80  to 90 % depending on the battery type. Relatively the same. The real factor for pu eeds to be in gigawatt hours not megawatt hours. s not megawatt hours. mped hydro is the availability of suitable sites (not very many good sites in the world)

Can be as high as 90% depending on low long you hold the charge. If I gave you batteries  from one year ago do you really think that it still holds more than 25% of the original charge? Storage  needs to be in gigawatt hours not megawatt houts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2021 at 4:00 PM, ronwagn said:

The immediate need is to ramp up natural gas development and use while ALSO developing wind and solar. It is foolish to try to meet the need by ignoring natural gas and burning coal in China, India, Africa, etc. 

 Ron there are somewhere  "About 783,000 unplugged oil wells across Texas have been abandoned by their owners,"https://www.reformaustin.org/environment/abandoned-oil-wells-may-cost-texas-taxpayers-117-billion/  Thatbe fixed foirst or the rest won't matter.  needs to  That  needs to be fixed first or the rest wont matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, Robert Ziegler said:

This just shows that the #greens were able to lobby the legislator to pass law after law and regulation after regulation, useless, and often counterproductive for nuclear safety, but very burdensome making nuclear extremely expensive and especially stifling innovation. Which was their objective. In Russia on the other hand they have mastered both high temperature reactor (great for making hydrogen) and fast breeder technology (thus able to turn all nuclear "waste" into energy). Good job, "capitalist" West!

r. Ziegler an outstanding statement of ignorance. The accounting principles had ben in place for 50 years when I started working for HL&P in 1971. Cases had already reached the Us Supreme Court 50 years before that. Bluefield Water Works v. Public Service Comm'n, 262 U.S. 679 (1923).  Wipe off your belly button may be you will see better.

Edited by nsdp
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2021 at 12:11 PM, Piotr Berman said:

It is possible that the extra profit from Europeans insisting on spot prices included in contracts will exceed the cost of North Stream II this year alone.  In the longer run, consumer would switch to burning crude if such prices were persisting.  I think that in Europe, natural gas was twice cheaper that crude oil as power stations input, but now it is more expensive.  In short term, switching from one fuel to another may be impossible, natural gas is easiest to use, so many power plants cannot switch to crude oil without extra investments.

 Mind you, last year Gasprom was clobbered by low prices, and "long term thinking" Eu-ans (not ALL Europeans are in EU!) thought that they have excellent strategy.  This year this strategy seems poor.  Without NATO (and EU as appendage) picking fights, a workable solution giving sufficient reliability to both producers and consumers could be worked out -- neither gains too much in the long run by beggaring the other.

Someone (in Russian) was explaining today the benefits of infrastructure that is not used.  North Stream II that is not used puts under question the validity of investing in oil (boilers? I am hazy on details here).  That slows down the escape from NG as a fuel, and makes for more robust revenues in coming years.  Similarly, facilities for importing LNG were putting pressure on piped gas prices -- until LNG shortage became global, something that has little to do with Russia.  But most of the time they do.  (Now Gasprom plows the extra revenue into yet another pipeline, Yamal to East China, so in the future it can choose between two huge markets dependent on prices or convenience of contracts, it will be profitable even if never used.)

It is my understanding that the most dire weakness of "Neo-liberal" regulations in electricity markets is the issue of reserve capacity -- who pays for it, who gets money from it, and regulations when it can be used.  Without "special conditions", reserve capacity is not used, hence no revenue.  Shutting it down is rational for the owners.  But when frost, global deficit etc. comes, it is great to have.  That connects to another discussion today, that we cannot RELY on renewable energy.  For times when renewals provide less energy than projections, we could burn stockpiled coal, and still save CO2 emissions in the long run (electricity storage consumes energy, and it is either expensive or expensive like hell, and "storage" that could tidy you over a year of bad weather is not realistic at all.   

 

 

If only it were that simple. The whole reason that India and China have no coal stockpiled is because they thought the price would keep falling and somehow suppliers would still supply? Same is true for oil and gas. No country is willing to pay a fair price so there is a lack of investment. Then the price skyrockets and producers get greedy and over-invest, which crushes the price again.... and so the cycle repeats. But when you have major economic events such as the GFC and covid, this complicates the cycle and distorts it further, making investment decisions nigh impossible. My point is, it is similar for electricity grids. Power producers that rely on coal don't even bother to stockpile it, prefer "just-in-time" delivery, and fossil fuels become just as unreliable as renewable energy when poorly managed? Whether it is the queues for petrol in the UK, or the sky-high prices for coal and LNG around the planet right now, clearly nobody is interested in paying the cost of something simple to store like coal, let alone more expensive to store things like natural gas, or even electricity in batteries or as pumped hydro? That is a market failure and a failure of government IMHO. Governments set the rules. In China, they have just realised that electricity prices must rise so that power companies can actually make a profit. Otherwise, there is no incentive to keep the lights on. Governments around the world have been trying to suppress energy prices and have been sending both utilitiy companies and coal, oil, and gas companies to the wall. Very stupid of them and now everybody is paying the price. They ain't seen nothing yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Are their icebreakers useful in those months, to deliver coal?

No, Icebreakers are the last option when rivers are frozen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.