The
recent abandonment of the two nuclear reactors under construction in South
Carolina deserves some scrutiny with regards to our energy technologies and
policy. There were two main reasons for
scrapping the 45% completed projects: cost overruns, and falling behind
construction schedule.
Each reactor would have been able to churn out 1000
megawatts (1 million kw) of electricity per hour, 24/7, for about 85% of each
year. That’s a lot of electricity. We measure our own residential usage in
kilowatt/hours. The original
construction cost estimate back in 2006 was $4 billion per reactor. The most recent estimate is over $12 billion
per reactor. This translates into
construction costs of $12,000/kw of installed capacity. Comparing that to what is available today,
new natural gas generation is coming in at about $1000-1500/kw capacity. PG&E in Humboldt County recently built a
new 160MW state of the art natural gas facility for $250m. This is just the
cost to build the power plant, and does not take into account the cost of the
fuel, the operation and maintenance of the facilities, and in the case of
nuclear, the equally expensive future decommissioning costs, and the unknown
storage and maintenance costs of the radioactive wastes. That being said, it is important to realize
that the biggest problem with nuclear plants already in operation, and new ones
proposed, is that they cannot compete on the open market with the currently
cheap price of natural gas. That is why
so many of the old nuclear plants are now being scheduled for retirement…too
expensive to do the upgrades and the maintenance required.
But
true to form, the powers that be in the energy world have been/are very
reluctant to discuss the other major player today…the significance of
renewables in this economic equation.
We've passed the point of saying solar is too expensive, too
intermittent, and incapable of ramping up fast enough to meet our increasing
(?) electricity demands. Solar prices
(the focus here is on photovoltaics) have decreased dramatically in the past 5+
years. The magic number bantered around
for decades, has been 50 cents/watt for solar panels to be competitive. That means the equipment for the plant would
have to cost $500/kw. Add to that the
cost of installation, and you can then compare total construction costs. We're way past that…panels now cost between
25-35 cents/watt, and estimates are that those costs will be reduced even more
by new technology using new materials and increasing efficiency. Spain just installed a 100MW plant for 65
cents/watt…$650/kw INSTALLED. A friend
works for a major international company that manufactures and installs large
scale PV tracking systems, and he just finished a project in Mexico…965MW for
under $1/watt. He now is being transferred
to Australia for two years because of the growing market there. Tunisia is in the planning stage of 4,500MW
in the Sahara Desert, with three transmission lines sending that electricity to
Europe. Lots of sun in Tunisia! And Australia! And the US!
I
am fortunate to have a lot of friends “on the inside” who are working and are
knowledgeable of what is really going on.
The “fake” news media…actually, most of the media has shied away from
reporting on the tremendous gains solar is making not only here, but throughout
the world. In 2016, The US installed
14,626 MW of solar with a total of over 40,000MW nationwide. This is mainly large-scale commercial
projects, and does not include residential solar which is difficult to tally
because of the small size of those systems.
But those small and diverse systems on residential roofs, churches,
schools, parking lots, ballparks, etc. do add up, and will continue to push the
ramping up of our solar capacity to meet the new electricity demands in
transportation and communications. The wind industry installed 8,203 MW in the
US (2,611) in 2016, bringing the combined capacity total to 82,143MW. All this data is readily available from
government and industry sources, but rarely makes the mainstream media.
Here
are several points to put all this in perspective.
1.
Renewables
are by far way cheaper than building new nuclear power plants. Enter the argument that the sun doesn’t
always shine or the wind doesn’t always blow, and the 1/3rd rule
comes into play…it takes about 3X the capacity of renewables to match the
constant output of a nuclear or fossil power plant over a long period of
time. Even so, construction costs still
favor renewables. And the big
argument/dilemma is the need for constant base-load power, and the role of
renewables and natural gas meeting peak load demand, which varies from
geographic area and season. With the
advent of new smart technology in our management of the national grid, with
changes in electricity demand due to efficiency, and with the soon to come
introduction of battery and other storage systems, the base-load plants become
unnecessary and expensive.
2.
A
1000MW plant takes 10+ years to build, and when it comes on line it would
generate 1000+/- MW each hour that it runs.
If it has a lifetime expectancy of 30 years, it would produce some 7
million MW hours. A lot of
electricity. The US installed 8,203 MW
of solar last year, which will produce 8,203MW each hour that the sun
shines…the ball park figure is 8 hours/day for 1/3 of the year. Those facilities would crank out about 2
million MWH. True…no comparison
here…BUT if the US were to install 8,000MW of solar EACH year, the total output
would be exponential…the 2016 installations would produce 240,000MW capacity
over 30 years, and each additional new installation would contribute an
additional equal amount EACH YEAR!
Large renewable projects take 2-3 years to construct, providing many
jobs, and can be tailored to specific geographic needs. New nuclear takes decades to plan and construct,
and is limited to a geographic area.
The potential is overwhelming.
3.
Another
major component in this discussion, which receives little lip service, is that
the fuel for renewables is FREE. That
is the major stumbling block in our current capitalistic system. There is no profit to come from exploration,
extraction, processing, and transportation.
Once you've built the solar plant (like you build a nuclear or fossil
fuel plant), it operates with a minimum of maintenance, expense, and
oversight. In 1990, my colleague and I
tour several megawatt sized PV installations in Southern California. We were not able to talk to anyone about
those projects because the gates were locked and there was nobody there! Yet the plants were fully operating on
line. That was 27 years ago, and the
technology has improved greatly. Much
is made of the fact that natural gas is cheap…will it stay cheap? It is definitely a transition fuel, which
has its place as a compliment to renewable generation, but the big unknown as to
its availability and future cost pales in relationship to the sun.
4.
The
"hard" energy folks propose a lot of misstatements and untruths about
solar PV cells. Since there are no
moving parts (just electrons), they should last forever. Degradation due to the glass encapsulating
materials and the external framework and wiring is vastly improving. New cells are guaranteed to maintain 90% of
their output at the end of 20 years.
Systems are warranted for 25+ years. New cells with new technology are
on the immediate horizon, with estimates of 10 cents/watt coming soon. This, of course, impacts manufacturing
companies…the only way they will be able to make a profit will be through mass
production…selling a lot of product at a low cost. This is all part of the economic dilemma. Others argue about
production processes, which do use nasty chemicals. As with any manufacturing procedure, waste products are produced
and have to be regulated to protect air, water, land, and people
resources. These wastes are nothing
compared to the high-level and low-level wastes created by the nuclear industry
fuel cycle, the coal industry, and the tar-sands and fracking technologies
5.
A
last piece of this discussion must include the concept of technology change and
time. It is admirable to strive for
50%, 100% renewable for electricity generation, for electric cars replacing gas
engines, and for a modern efficient grid to run everything. This transition will take time, and we also
need to realize that it is really not necessary or even possible to do
completely away with burning fossil fuels, or even implementing new nuclear
technologies as they are developed. We
need to be guided by the appropriate application of technology to the needs of
energy demand, and address the full assessment of environmental, geographic,
social, and economic impacts. What I
am hearing is that there are amazing new technologies coming very soon…cheaper,
more efficient, easier to use energy technologies. A lot of these cut out the middleman…the oil and energy
companies, the big utilities, the traditional Wall Street investors, and the
huge lobby interests. It's politics at
its pinnacle. Why is Massachusetts
moving forward on renewable implementation, while next door, Maine is almost
outlawing solar systems? Why are
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico…the entire South where the sun really shines, not
leaping forward in developing their renewable resources? There is an enormous potential for not only
cheap abundant energy, but also for clean jobs, and even lots of money to be
made. Politics and Dark Money! It's where we are today, but stay tuned,
because things can change very rapidly in today's world.
A
few recent reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment