$36 Trillion for Clean Energy, IEA reports.

[Old Rocks]

And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?

Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,

 

[bripat9643]

Has anybody mentioned the cost of Solar and Wind, lately. This OP is old, I bet the cost is much more, today.

Photographer: Kimimasa Mayama
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT


Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1

Looking very good for wind and solar

What does your bullshit chart even measure? There's no explanation of the vertical axis

LOL So, another denier that cannot read a simple chart. The y axis is billions of dollars invested, the x the year. Sheesh, that is one damned simple chart.

It doesn't say "invested," dumbass. You just assume that's what it means.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

As more delays beset Hinckley C, Paul Willson, head of innovation for power generation at WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, looks at small modular nuclear reactors

The UK is en route to becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, after chancellor George Osborne announced support for the technology through a £250m research and development programme. A competition has since been launched by the Department for Energy & Climate Change to identify the best-value small modular reactor design for the UK.

Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, has that 38 companies had submitted expressions of interest to participate in the competition. They are being notified whther they have been approved for the next phase. Bidders are understood to include the American groups Westinghouse and Bechtel, as well as CNNC, a Chinese state-controlled company, and a Korean-led consortium linked to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Britain’s Rolls-Royce is also involved as part of NuScale Power, a US-led group headed by Fluor, another US engineering giant.

This scale of spending clearly demonstrates the government’s commitment to the British nuclear industry and will help secure the UK’s low-carbon energy supply.

Searching for the best design, are they? So, this is basic research, not a production program. And how many decades before they find that best design? Pie in the sky bullshit.

the designs already exist it's just a matter of choosing one

but you would rather waste money on a power supply that only produces 25% of its installed capacity

If we hadn't shut down our nuclear program like we did we'd be decades ahead of our current position which is basically the stone age of nuclear power

The designs already exist. The checks in the mail. From the 1950's. Nuclear will be so cheap that we won't even have to meter it. And it is failsafe.

Sorry, the nuclear industries delivery on it's promises leave a lot to be desired. Every damned nuke has comes in over cost by several factors, and, usually, way behind schedule.

you can't think beyond obsolete light water reactors.

The promise of a self limiting reactor has already been fulfilled but the program was shut down because idiots like John Kerry thought a Hollywood movie was reality

We ran an IFR for years with multiple shut down runs and the design was proven to be self limiting. If we had stayed committed to nuclear that design would be far more refined and newer designs would be available. But we are unable to even consider anything but an obsolete light water reactor for construction because the NRC is petrified

It's our own fault and we need to rectify it instead of thinking that wind power can deliver

 

[Skull Pilot]

And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?

Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,

yes it's better to waste money on a power supply that under performs it's capacity by 75%

and BTW that has already been proven even though you deny it

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.

and the only nuclear power you are using as a comparison in the obsolete light water reactor

and if you want to talk unmet promises take a look at wind in the UK and Germany yet you are damn keen to repeat their blunders

 

[SSDD]

No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.

and the only nuclear power you are using as a comparison in the obsolete light water reactor

and if you want to talk unmet promises take a look at wind in the UK and Germany yet you are damn keen to repeat their blunders

Don't forget australia....living in black out after blackout...

 

[elektra]

Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.

That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.

Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.

Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.

The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.

LOL

except for 2016, in which nuclear power was the largest new generating capacity. All the Wind Mills and Solar panels installed last year do not equal the output of Watts Bar II, at that, Watts Bar II will operate for the next 50 years. We will be lucky to get 8 years of any Wind Turbine installed last year, the same for the solar panels.

 

[elektra]

No, I am not denying it. What I am saying, and you have made no attempt to disprove, is that even doing that, it is less costly than nuclear in the form of delivered kw/hrs. And it is considerably cheaper to build. And it is an existing technology, not pie in the sky. We have been bit several times already by the unmet promises of the nuclear industry. No reason to be bit again.

Wrong again Old Liar, it is not less costly, that is why it is funded by the Government, everything having to do with Wind Turbines and Solar Panels is funded by the government. Even the land is given by the government or paid for with my tax dollars.

"unmet promises"? No other industry has suffered as many regulations and frivolous lawsuits as Nuclear Power. Yet, Nuclear power has increased in the USA. Nuclear Power has delivered on its promises, it is simply a shame that the government and people like Old Crock have stolen much, through lawsuits and regulations, which drive the cost through the roof.

It cost over $10,000 simply to hire an employee they need to do maintenance at a Nuclear power plant. It takes typically at least 1 month to conduct the security background check and over a week of safety classes. Classes that have nothing to do with Nuclear power although there are some specific to nuclear power.

But Old Crock knows nothing about this, or is willfully ignorant.

For some trades, in Nuclear Power, we are required to be certified for our job, at the cost of thousands of dollars. Ultrasound techs require a $15,000 certification. Yet that same tech does not need that certification to inspect the bolts on the base of Wind Turbine towers, which break?

Unmet? Nope, Nuclear Power is simply a great example of how the Leftists fight to make America weak.

 

[elektra]

The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

As more delays beset Hinckley C, Paul Willson, head of innovation for power generation at WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, looks at small modular nuclear reactors

The UK is en route to becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, after chancellor George Osborne announced support for the technology through a £250m research and development programme. A competition has since been launched by the Department for Energy & Climate Change to identify the best-value small modular reactor design for the UK.

Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, has that 38 companies had submitted expressions of interest to participate in the competition. They are being notified whther they have been approved for the next phase. Bidders are understood to include the American groups Westinghouse and Bechtel, as well as CNNC, a Chinese state-controlled company, and a Korean-led consortium linked to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Britain’s Rolls-Royce is also involved as part of NuScale Power, a US-led group headed by Fluor, another US engineering giant.

This scale of spending clearly demonstrates the government’s commitment to the British nuclear industry and will help secure the UK’s low-carbon energy supply.

Searching for the best design, are they? So, this is basic research, not a production program. And how many decades before they find that best design? Pie in the sky bullshit.

the designs already exist it's just a matter of choosing one

but you would rather waste money on a power supply that only produces 25% of its installed capacity

If we hadn't shut down our nuclear program like we did we'd be decades ahead of our current position which is basically the stone age of nuclear power

The designs already exist. The checks in the mail. From the 1950's. Nuclear will be so cheap that we won't even have to meter it. And it is failsafe.

Sorry, the nuclear industries delivery on it's promises leave a lot to be desired. Every damned nuke has comes in over cost by several factors, and, usually, way behind schedule.

you can't think beyond obsolete light water reactors.

The promise of a self limiting reactor has already been fulfilled but the program was shut down because idiots like John Kerry thought a Hollywood movie was reality

We ran an IFR for years with multiple shut down runs and the design was proven to be self limiting. If we had stayed committed to nuclear that design would be far more refined and newer designs would be available. But we are unable to even consider anything but an obsolete light water reactor for construction because the NRC is petrified

It's our own fault and we need to rectify it instead of thinking that wind power can deliver

Light Water Reactors are far from obsolete. If anything Light Water Reactors have proven themselves reliable and sustainable, beyond what was believed when they were first designed. Light Water Reactors Output has increased in the last 10 years, it has not decreased. The life of the reactor has exceeded that which they expected, by decades. Reactors that the designers thought would need replacing in 20 years, operate for 40 years.

Hardly obsolete.

The fuel can be recycled, and used again, if anything that is where we fail. That hardly makes Light Water Reactors Obsolete.

 

[elektra]

And we can buy one of these marvels at present, where? Link please. No pie in the sky promises, a working module right now, where can a utility get one right now?

Pie in the sky. Not buying it until one is built and demonstrated to be feasable, both in safety and cost. Until then, we know what works and costs the least, and it is not nuclear.,

$44 Trillion for Solar and Wind and you think that cost is less than Nuclear Power? That is on top of everything already spent, which is how much? Can you tell us in one simple figure the total cost spent on Solar and Wind in the last 30 years and what percentage of our power that has bought us?

 

[Crick]

Why don't you start with a baseline? How much would it cost in today's dollars to replace the country's total coal and natural gas power capacity?

 

[elektra]

Why don't you start with a baseline? How much would it cost in today's dollars to replace the country's total coal and natural gas power capacity?

Okay, let us take a look at your comment.
1. The country's total coal and natural gas power supply does not need replacing, it is already built.
2. The Solar and Wind proposed will not replace coal or natural gas.
3. Solar and Wind requires a complete re-engineering of our electrical grid.

In today's dollars, spending the money on Solar and Wind, you will never replace coal and natural gas, all that will be done is you will turn the USA into a Third World Nation. You can not replace Coal and Natural gas with something that does not work.

How many three legged horses will it take to replace your car? The question is no different.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.

That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.

Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.

Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.

The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.

LOL

except for 2016, in which nuclear power was the largest new generating capacity. All the Wind Mills and Solar panels installed last year do not equal the output of Watts Bar II, at that, Watts Bar II will operate for the next 50 years. We will be lucky to get 8 years of any Wind Turbine installed last year, the same for the solar panels.

Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia

The Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation. It is located on a 1,770-acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee, near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 1,200,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.

The plant, construction of which began in 1973, has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactor units: Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015. Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts. Unit 2 is the most recent civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States and the first new reactor to enter service in the United States after a 20 year hiatus.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Republished March 2, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to correct an error in the text.

Electric generating facilities expect to add more than 26 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid during 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: solar (9.5 GW), natural gas (8.0 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up 93% of total additions. If actual additions ultimately reflect these plans, 2016 will be the first year in which utility-scale solar additions exceed additions from any other single energy source.

These values reflect reported additions and retirements, not model projections. This year, as is the case in many years, expected capacity additions in December are much higher than in any other month. This typically happens because of the expiration of federal, state, or local tax credits on December 31, or because of how respondents complete the survey. Many projects expected to begin operation sometime in 2016 are conservatively estimated for a December completion date.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.

 

[elektra]

Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.

Solar is producing how much electricity tonight? Tomorrow night? How much will Wind produce tomorrow? Or the next day?

And, to point out the obvious, you are using "SCHEDULED" additions to try and make your point! How about showing us that actual amount delivered to customers!

Scheduled Additions? Go back to your rocking chair you old fool.

 

[elektra]

Ms. Elektra, you are so full of shit. 1.16 gigawatts of electricity for Watts Bar 11. Solar, 9.5 gigawatts, wind, 6.8 gigawatts. Once again, we have someone like Silly Billy pulling stinky 'facts' out of their ass.

I wonder what they mean by, GW? So many figures misrepresented and undefined. Here is nice figure from Old Crock's favorite link, wikipedia.
Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia

Estimated generation 17,975 GW·h

TVA's Watts Bar produces more electricity than all of the Wind and Solar combined, in Old Crock's colored picture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UK learned their lesson and is funding a small reactor program that will be a boon to their country and their economy when after wind power fails here like it did there and we buy the British reactors because we were too stupid to invest in them urselves

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

Rethinking nuclear - why modular reactors are the future

As more delays beset Hinckley C, Paul Willson, head of innovation for power generation at WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, looks at small modular nuclear reactors

The UK is en route to becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, after chancellor George Osborne announced support for the technology through a £250m research and development programme. A competition has since been launched by the Department for Energy & Climate Change to identify the best-value small modular reactor design for the UK.

Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, has that 38 companies had submitted expressions of interest to participate in the competition. They are being notified whther they have been approved for the next phase. Bidders are understood to include the American groups Westinghouse and Bechtel, as well as CNNC, a Chinese state-controlled company, and a Korean-led consortium linked to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Britain’s Rolls-Royce is also involved as part of NuScale Power, a US-led group headed by Fluor, another US engineering giant.

This scale of spending clearly demonstrates the government’s commitment to the British nuclear industry and will help secure the UK’s low-carbon energy supply.

Searching for the best design, are they? So, this is basic research, not a production program. And how many decades before they find that best design? Pie in the sky bullshit.

the designs already exist it's just a matter of choosing one

but you would rather waste money on a power supply that only produces 25% of its installed capacity

If we hadn't shut down our nuclear program like we did we'd be decades ahead of our current position which is basically the stone age of nuclear power

The designs already exist. The checks in the mail. From the 1950's. Nuclear will be so cheap that we won't even have to meter it. And it is failsafe.

Sorry, the nuclear industries delivery on it's promises leave a lot to be desired. Every damned nuke has comes in over cost by several factors, and, usually, way behind schedule.

you can't think beyond obsolete light water reactors.

The promise of a self limiting reactor has already been fulfilled but the program was shut down because idiots like John Kerry thought a Hollywood movie was reality

We ran an IFR for years with multiple shut down runs and the design was proven to be self limiting. If we had stayed committed to nuclear that design would be far more refined and newer designs would be available. But we are unable to even consider anything but an obsolete light water reactor for construction because the NRC is petrified

It's our own fault and we need to rectify it instead of thinking that wind power can deliver

Light Water Reactors are far from obsolete. If anything Light Water Reactors have proven themselves reliable and sustainable, beyond what was believed when they were first designed. Light Water Reactors Output has increased in the last 10 years, it has not decreased. The life of the reactor has exceeded that which they expected, by decades. Reactors that the designers thought would need replacing in 20 years, operate for 40 years.

Hardly obsolete.

The fuel can be recycled, and used again, if anything that is where we fail. That hardly makes Light Water Reactors Obsolete.

there are too many design limitations. LWRs have to be located near large bodies of water, and they run under pressure and are not self limiting


Those 3 reasons alone make them obsolete in comparisons to reactors that do not need huge amounts of water for cooling, run at atmosphere thus reducing the need for all the concrete and steel for containment and are walk away safe because they are self limiting

 

[Crick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW·h

TVA's Watts Bar produces more electricity than all of the Wind and Solar combined, in Old Crock's colored picture.

9.5 and 6.8 = 16.3 GW

Watts Bar's two plants have capacities of 1.167 GW and 1.165 GW or 2.332 GW total. Last time I checked, 16.3 was larger than 2.332, by a factor of just under 700%

A GW, by the way, is a giga-watt or a billion watts.

 

[elektra]

9.5 and 6.8 = 16.3 GW

Watts Bar's two plants have capacities of 1.167 GW and 1.165 GW or 2.332 GW total. Last time I checked, 16.3 was larger than 2.332, by a factor of just under 700%

A GW, by the way, is a giga-watt or a billion watts.

Sure, but the industry does not use GW? GW means nothing.
From my post, which is linked, Watts Bar produces 17,975 GW·h.
That is more than the 16.3 gwh that you claim was produced by solar and wind. Last night at midnight to 1am, what did Watts Bar produce produce, 17,975 gwh, what did Wind and Solar produce last night, from midnight to 1am? Solar zero, Wind, less than half of what Wind is capable of? 1/4 of its rated output, maybe less than 1% of its output, I guess we really do not know, cause the wind did not blow everywhere last night.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ms. Electra, you are so silly. kw is power. kw/hr is energy. 16.3 gw producing for even 1/4 of the time will produce more than 1.16 gw producing all the time. So the gw/hr of the solar and wind is greater than that of the Watts Bar 2 plant.