8m steelworks investment announced
Kirjoitettu 11.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista.
Former First Minister Jack McConnell has welcomed an A 8 million steelworks investment in an area steeped in the “proud history” of the industry.
Lähde: Topix
tulosta
Economics - Aug 10
Kirjoitettu 10.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista, Uutiset.
-Poor countries suffer a hangover for a party they didn’t attend
-Stoneleigh takes on John Williams: deflation it is
-America Goes Dark
-Co-operatives offer template for David Cameron’s big society
-And now for some good news
-France’s New Rural Ghettos
Lähde: Energy Bulletin
tulosta
Matthew Simmons: a tribute
Kirjoitettu 10.8.2010, kategoria Uutiset, Öljyhuippu.
Energy Investment banker and leading peak oil proponent Matthew Simmons died suddenly on Sunday [Aug. 8], following an apparent heart attack. While Simmons did not come up with the idea of peak oil – geophysicist M King Hubbert first published the theory in the 1950s — he arguably did more than anyone to publicize it. It was Simmons’ 2005 classic Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, that turned discussion of peak oil from a fringe environmental concern into something with business pages credibility.
Lähde: Energy Bulletin
tulosta
USPS Goes Green
Kirjoitettu 9.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista.
In strict adherence to guidelines released by the Department of Energy, the United States Postal Service gets on a fast track to reach the goal for energy reduction. Green roofs, green buildings and an optimally efficient management system of energy consumption form part of the energy-reduction strategy.
Power Guzzlers:
Use of air conditioning is one [...]
Posted in: Environment, Industry, Transportation
Lähde: Alternative Energy
tulosta
BA acts quickly on waste biofuel
Kirjoitettu 8.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista.
British Airways , which is preparing to become the first airline to buy jet fuel from a planned waste-to-biofuels plant in east London, is expected to scale up the project if it is successful.
Lähde: Topix
tulosta
Green energy needs public investment now
Kirjoitettu 8.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista.
In Russia, a seven-week-long heatwave has caused giant firestorms to break out across more than 114,000 hectares of the country.
Lähde: Topix
tulosta
The end of prevention
Kirjoitettu 8.8.2010, kategoria Uutiset, Öljyhuippu.
What if, a friend of mine proposed, we are not approaching a point that will tip us into a grand ecological catastrophe which we are called upon to prevent? What if we are in the middle of that catastrophe and it began some time ago?
Lähde: Energy Bulletin
tulosta
How music helped save New Orleans after Katrina
Kirjoitettu 8.8.2010, kategoria Sekalaista, Uutiset.
Even in the midst of their own gloom over Hurricane Katrina’s destruction where homes and neighborhoods were crushed and where there was little infrastructure and not much support from state or federal government, music helped many evacuees rebuild their lives with a strong hope in the future and a deep connection to a place they loved.
Lähde: Energy Bulletin
tulosta
Solar Costs Versus Nuclear
Kirjoitettu 7.8.2010, kategoria Polttoaineet, Sekalaista, Sähkö, Uutiset.
A recent story about how solar power plants are now more cost effective to build than nuclear power plants in Carolina has created quite a bit of buzz especially amongst staunch advocates of renewable technology. Here’s how the New York Times framed the issue on July 26th.
Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month.
Such a report might lead one to believe that it is more cost effective in the long run to build a solar power plant instead of a nuclear plant. While that might be the case in some instances in most scenarios it probably won’t be the case. Over the long run, when measured in cost per unit of output, nuclear plants are still less costly to consumers than solar power plants. There are a few reasons why this is the case.
- The Cost of Land – Solar plants require about 5 to 10 acres per megawatt of capacity. So if you were to size a solar plant and try to make it equivalent in capacity terms to one nuclear generating unit you would need at least 5,000 acres. A nuclear plant could be built on a couple of hundred acres or less.
- Actual Output of Power – Over the lifetime of a solar plant it will output far less electricity than a similarly sized nuclear power plant. A really good photovoltaic solar plant will offer a capacity factor of 15%, which means that on average you would get 150 megawatts of output from a solar plant. Nuclear plants have improved their performance in recent years to over 85% capacity factor, which means on average you get about five times the power from nuclear than you do from solar.
- The Cost of Reliability – A solar power plant cannot replace a conventional power plant and still maintain or improve reliability of power delivery. This is due to the fact that you can’t really predict exactly how much output you will get from a solar plant at any given time. When electricity is at its peak demand for a day you may or may not have solar power available in order to help you meet that demand. So you still need other forms of more reliable supply to help meet that demand. Nuclear plants can replace other types of plants, particularly baseload coal plants, because there is a high level of certainty that the power from the plant will be available. So the cost of having to continue to use legacy generation assets must be considered.
- Environmental Costs – The cost to the environment is in favor of solar plants, but not nearly as much as the margin between solar and fossil fuel powered generating facilities. They will use minimum water when compared with nuclear plants. But nuclear plants output no harmful emissions. And since nuclear plants also eliminate the need for certain older types of generation the environmental costs of nuclear could be seen as comparable to solar.
As you can see there are a number of strong arguments in favor of nuclear economics, especially when you consider power output over the long run. The Energy Information Administration currently estimates the construction costs of nuclear (on a national basis) as lower than solar photovoltaic by about $2,500 per kilowatt of capacity. Where the EIA does give solar an advantage is in the operations and maintenance costs of the solar facilities by $80 per kilowatt. In order to truly take advantage of those cost differences solar facilities would need to be able to scale up to much larger sizes than we are seeing right now. The baselines used by EIA compare a 5 megawatt solar photovoltaic against a 1,350 megawatt nuclear unit.
It’s true that there are other costs and pitfalls to nuclear projects that help to shrink the economic gap with solar power. The cost of all the needed approvals and permits for nuclear facilities continues to rise. The risk that the plant won’t ever get built, and thus all the upfront costs are lost is real. After all, a new nuclear facility hasn’t been constructed in the U.S. in over 30 years. In the past nuclear projects have been plagued by mismanagement and cost overages. But those incidents occurred at a time when the burden on the cost was borne by electricity ratepayers. In the era of competitive markets the shareholders of the companies that construct nuclear power will bear the majority of the risk. It’s also important to note that large solar facilities come with their own risks. Large solar power plant proposals for the California desert have been met with fierce opposition.
So is solar power cheaper than nuclear power? Perhaps in some circumstances but for the most part the answer is no. It is worth noting that after publishing their story on the cost of nuclear compared to solar in North Carolina the New York Times added an editors note to their article that includes the following statement.
…the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.
The Times’ editorial update highlights the importance of considering the many inputs and outputs that result from the construction and operation of power facilities. It’s a complicated subject. The information that is not presented is just as important as what is included in a particular study or report. Draw your own conclusions on the topic but I think that we have a ways to go before solar can truly challenge nuclear as a more economic source of electric power.
© Clean Energy Digest - visit Clean Energy Digest for more great content.
Lähde: Clean Energy Digest
tulosta
Renewables & efficiency - Aug 6
Kirjoitettu 6.8.2010, kategoria Uutiset, Öljyhuippu.
-Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show
-Scaling Up Solar: The Global Implications of a New Study that Says Solar Power Is Cost Competitive with Nuclear Power
-Free solar panels and cheaper bill offered in exchange for use of roof by electricity firm
-Unity College Gives Solar Panels From Carter White House to China
Lähde: Energy Bulletin
tulosta
