Dominion should explore alternative energy solutions

They really do not care about the enviroment or the customers there totally profit driven and since there is no one to compete the do as they please at our expense.

stop wrote:

They really do not care about the enviroment or the customers there totally profit driven and since there is no one to compete the do as they please at our expense.

Establish an evil enemy and then a victim and then politicize, lie and bully?
We fear left wing extremism more than corporate America.

canada what would you know of the subject?

Another do-gooder with an unworkable solution. Put solar on your house.

Dominion is just trying to supply the energy we need.

Dominion should build only nuclear. The external costs for dangerous coal are too high. The external costs of coal affect both health and environment. PV solar is not a viable option. While the cost may have come down by 80%, when subsidies are exclude the kWh cost is in the range of 22 cents to 40 cents. If you are looking to solar, thermal solar may be worth watching. If you are looking for the safest,lowest cost and smallest carbon foot print nuclear power is the energy source that you want.

John is good at saying things in just a few words, but why not see the big picture for what it is. Here goes.

Geez, so many fallacies and so little space. I hardly know where to begin, so let’s start with the bogus cost analyses of the biased editorialist and self appointed spokesman for anti-nuclear propaganda, Professor Culker of Hampton University, Hampton, VA.

He says $3B for a nuke,$1.6B for a coal plant and only $9K for a solar unit. What’s confusing about what to love or hate? Well, in the first place, the throwing out of large numbers without perspective is done so strictly to discourage the mathematically challenged from following along. So let’s sort it out point-by-point on a true comparative basis and see how it works out. It’s just adding, multiplying and dividing, but if you need help, ask an 8th grader to guide you along.

1) Present estimated cost per kw of installed capacity of nuclear, coal and solar:

Nuclear:$3B for 1,520,000 kw =$1974 per kw of installed capacity
Coal:$1.6B for 585,000 kw =$2735 per kw of installed capacity
Solar:$9,000 for 1 kw =$9,000 per kw of installed capacity

History is not a good indicator for cost increases for nuclear and coal because no designer expected to redesign nuke and coal plants after they were first built, or started to be built, and nobody expected to be forced into paying Carter’s 18 to 20% interest on construction debts. Nevertheless, you can expect obstructionism and interventionism against C&N to raise their cost so you should adjust C&N $$$ higher to perhaps around $3000 per kw of installed capacity.(That's being more than fail to coal) Meanwhile solar installation cost may come down (or not) but let’s say $7500 per kw in the next 10 years or so for a fair estimation.

Then the total cost for equal capacities of 1520 MW, as adjusted above become:
Nuclear:$3000/kw X 1,520,000 kw =$4.56 B
Coal:$3000 X 1,520,000 =$4.56 B
Solar $7500 X 1,520,000 =$11.4 B
Remember, that’s adjusting C&N up and solar down, and we see that solar capacity is still >double the cost of C&N capacity.

2) Considering the CAPACITY FACTORS of each at N =.9 (low compared to 2007 actual of .918), C =.74 (steadily declining as more scrubbers are installed) and S =.17 in VA (by Culker’s own estimate 4 hours out of 24 hours of availability), the yearly deliverable electricity in kwh for each, is as follows:

Nuclear kwh = 1,520,000 X 24 X 365 X .9 = 12 billion (B) kwh per year
Coal kwh = 585,000 X 24 X 365 X .74 = 3.8 B kwh per year
Solar kwh = 1 X 24 X 365 X .17 = 1,500 kwh per year (generously rounded up)

Adjusted for annual kwh per kw of capacity, that is as follows:
Nuclear: 7,895 kwh
Coal: 6496 kwh
Solar: 1,500 kwh

3) Considering the total cost in a lifetime of 60 years…. a wild estimate considering that coal will be likely be phased out, a nuke plant should last 80+ years, and a solar panel’s lifetime is only around 15 thereby estimate replacing the initial solar panels at least 4 times in 60 years. The fuel cost of nuclear and coal delivered to the plant is roughly the same at around 2 cents per kwh and the fuel for solar is free (the ONLY part that’s free). Maintenance will be ignored for simplicity because ALL have similar maintenance per kwh delivered. So the expected cost per kwh amortized over 60 years including capital (construction) costs and fuel is as follows:

Nuclear:($3000/kw X 1,520,000 kw +$0.02/kwh X 12 X 10E9 X 60 kwh) divided by (12X10E9 X 60 kwh)= 2.6 cents per kwh
Coal:(3000 X 585,000 + 0.02 X 3.8 X 10E9 X 60)/(3.8 X 10 E9 X 60)= 2.7 cents per kwh
Solar:($7500 X 4 + 0) divided by (1500 X 60)= 33 cents per kwh

So we see that cost competitiveness bears against solar and favorably to C&N.
(continued in next post)

(Continuing….) Where was I? Oh yeah, let’s don’t forget the environmental cost. Nuclear and solar are equal on air pollution and coal is out the ball game.

Jobs: more nukes, more jobs. Not just at the local nuclear plant but in the surrounding industries which are supported by more nukes.

Cost of manufacturing of components for any kind of plant? Approximately the same per unit of deliverables.

On nuclear waste?
Point: Culker’s parroted anti-nuke lie – the waste is dangerous and can’t be stored safely.
Counterpoint: the waste is dangerous only if ingested but it won’t be ingested because it is well sealed and can be safely isolated for 100’s of thousands of years.

And who will pay? It won’t matter which choice is made and it won’t matter how creatively the cost is spread out to look good for the gullible, the cost will be born by YOU the citizen ratepayers and taxpayers.

And why should Dominion buy everyone a solar unit for their rooftop anyway, instead of building more generators?
Easy answers here too:

1) Building solar panels on private rooftops is not the responsibility of a public utility and there would be zero cost recovery if they did. In fact if they did, it would effectively be a plan for going out of business and then who would supply the back-up power needed?
2) Both coal and nuke plants are baseloaders and solar power is intermittent (at least Culker admits to only 4 hours per day of solar generation). But where is the electricity to come from for the other 20 hours? You got it, the utility’s baseloaders, and peakers not your neighbor’s rooftops. Baseloaders are absolutely necessary no matter how many MWs of solar capacity are built.

And finally, the question,‘does VA really need more electricity?’
The answer is most emphatically, YES. Even though conservation and better efficiency of distribution are a must, we are faced with ever-increasing numbers of people, not just of our own birthrates but the birthrates of all the foreigners who see America as the country of choice and it won’t matter if they are legal or not – they will use electricity. Consider also that as fossil fuels become more scarce, the transportation and industrial sectors will shift to the obvious alternative – electricity – whether by hybrid electro-mechanical with plug-in assist or by direct plug-in, the demand for electricity will rise far beyond present day growth estimates – conservation or not.

Bring back the tax credit for solar panels on houses.

stop wrote:

They really do not care about the enviroment or the customers there totally profit driven and since there is no one to compete the do as they please at our expense.

Do you ever know what you are talking about or do you just troll around and stick your BS post in? It's obvious that you don't have a clue on this subject.

Booner wrote:

John is good at saying things in just a few words, but why not see the big picture for what it is. Here goes.
Geez, so many fallacies and so little space. I hardly know where to begin, so let’s start with the bogus cost analyses of the biased editorialist and self appointed spokesman for anti-nuclear propaganda, Professor Culker of Hampton University, Hampton, VA.

Booner Thanks for taking on Professor Culker. I was giving some thought to doing so too, as professor to professor. I know his type only too well. It is always refreshing to get an analytical presentation from an engineer. Thanks for laying it all out. I hope that Professor Culker can digest it. Cost benefit and risk benefit analyses are so often overlooked. I do not have the time in a public lecture to build as detailed case as you do, but I owe to my audience to have the case well in mind and to handle the questions that follow.

I will be giving an invited public lecture at our city library a week from Monday. The title is: Nuclear Power the convenient solution to Al Gore's inconvenient truth

The PR blurb is as follows:
This presentation has two goals. The first is to debunk the fears generated by anti-nukes about nuclear power. The second is to unveil a plan to move our nation toward an energy path which frees us from dependence on oil and coal.
The fossil fuel energy path is vulnerable, dirty, and expensive. Our continued dependence on this dangerous fuel source raises the threat of catastrophic climate change. Another issue is the serious health affects caused by coal power plants. Also, foreign oil dependence, diminishing petroleum supply, and wars over oil, pose serious threats to our national security and prosperity. For all these reasons we urgently need alternative energy paths to replace fossil fuels. The only currently available emission-free energy source with adequate capacity to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power. We must conquer our fears concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reject unrealistic suggestions that renewable energy sources and conservation can replace fossil fuel. However, renewable resources and conservation make valuable supplementary contributions to the reduction of dependence on fossil fuel.

Jack wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you ever know what you are talking about or do you just troll around and stick your BS post in? It's obvious that you don't have a clue on this subject.

I farted

Booner wrote:

(Continuing….)...Point: Culker’s parroted anti-nuke lie – the waste is dangerous and can’t be stored safely.
Counterpoint: the waste is dangerous only if ingested ...

OK, we will store nuke waste at your house.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Booner Thanks for taking on Professor Culker. I was giving some thought to doing so too, as professor to professor. I know his type only too well. It is always refreshing to get an analytical presentation from an engineer. Thanks for laying it all out. I hope that Professor Culker can digest it. Cost benefit and risk benefit analyses are so often overlooked. I do not have the time in a public lecture to build as detailed case as you do, but I owe to my audience to have the case well in mind and to handle the questions that follow.
I will be giving an invited public lecture at our city library a week from Monday. The title is: Nuclear Power the convenient solution to Al Gore's inconvenient truth
The PR blurb is as follows:
This presentation has two goals. The first is to debunk the fears generated by anti-nukes about nuclear power. The second is to unveil a plan to move our nation toward an energy path which frees us from dependence on oil and coal.
The fossil fuel energy path is vulnerable, dirty, and expensive. Our continued dependence on this dangerous fuel source raises the threat of catastrophic climate change. Another issue is the serious health affects caused by coal power plants. Also, foreign oil dependence, diminishing petroleum supply, and wars over oil, pose serious threats to our national security and prosperity. For all these reasons we urgently need alternative energy paths to replace fossil fuels. The only currently available emission-free energy source with adequate capacity to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power. We must conquer our fears concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reject unrealistic suggestions that renewable energy sources and conservation can replace fossil fuel. However, renewable resources and conservation make valuable supplementary contributions to the reduction of dependence on fossil fuel.

I concur with your approach although I think you should strenuously attack the vacuous fear campaign of the anti-nukes. Fear is the common theme which holds them all together, without which they would have no position at all. Nuclear waste can be handled safely, nobody is going to eat it and nuclear power is not only highly proliferation resistant, nuclear power consumes weapons grade material, ridding it forever.

marcaurelius wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, we will store nuke waste at your house.

I said nuclear waste can be handled and stored stored safely. Residential houses are not the place the place for it but I would not object to a long-term storage or reprocessing facility nearby.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Booner Thanks for taking on Professor Culker. I was giving some thought to doing so too, as professor to professor. I know his type only too well. It is always refreshing to get an analytical presentation from an engineer. Thanks for laying it all out. I hope that Professor Culker can digest it. Cost benefit and risk benefit analyses are so often overlooked. I do not have the time in a public lecture to build as detailed case as you do, but I owe to my audience to have the case well in mind and to handle the questions that follow.
I will be giving an invited public lecture at our city library a week from Monday. The title is: Nuclear Power the convenient solution to Al Gore's inconvenient truth
The PR blurb is as follows:
This presentation has two goals. The first is to debunk the fears generated by anti-nukes about nuclear power. The second is to unveil a plan to move our nation toward an energy path which frees us from dependence on oil and coal.
The fossil fuel energy path is vulnerable, dirty, and expensive. Our continued dependence on this dangerous fuel source raises the threat of catastrophic climate change. Another issue is the serious health affects caused by coal power plants. Also, foreign oil dependence, diminishing petroleum supply, and wars over oil, pose serious threats to our national security and prosperity. For all these reasons we urgently need alternative energy paths to replace fossil fuels. The only currently available emission-free energy source with adequate capacity to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power. We must conquer our fears concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reject unrealistic suggestions that renewable energy sources and conservation can replace fossil fuel. However, renewable resources and conservation make valuable supplementary contributions to the reduction of dependence on fossil fuel.

I can tell you one more thing about discussing your views in the presence of anti-nukes. They are pros at this and will stoop to the lowest levels to be heard. You may think that your calm and assured reasoning will prevail against madness, but that would be a naive approach. I have seen open discussions and viewed tapes of debates and when they are losing ground on logic and reason they will interrupt hysterically and attempt to shout you down with well-practiced shrillness. They even dramatically crack their voices in feigned emotion to show everyone just how sincere are their fears. Don't buy it. If you get interrupted stand your ground.

O.K. Booner, it was all good until point three above. Where did you get 15 year lifespan for solar? Where did you get a nuke plant should last 80+ years? Is this the Booner THEORY in practice? Solar has had slight increases in effiency and longevity over the years. Still there are old style solar panels making power today,that were made in the early 70's. A lot of off gridders have a hodge poge of panels and inverters in their systems from years gone by. Your bias is as obvious as good ol' professor Culker. Unless that supposed 'new' system being developed in Canada that uses multiple reactions and a short high intensity pulse to create enough heat to be called a fusion reaction works well enough to supplant nuclear fission as a power source. Nuclear will be necessary for the foreseeable future. Of course let's not install large power storage facilities to enhance the grid for smoother power flow from intermittant generating sources. Put more peaker plants online that seems to be the standard utility mantra.

There is a thread in the Global Warming area that states that some new energy sources can be used by harnessing the methane gas from landfills. Basically recycling on several levels. Dominion only cares about themselves and the wallet.

Solarman wrote:

O.K. Booner, it was all good until point three above.......

Lifespan of solar panels? As I recall you said 20 years and my neighbor's water heater solar panels and/or associated equipment lasted barely 10 years. So I split the difference.
Nuke plant lifetime? The present generation was originally licensed for 40 years and they nearly all have been approved for another 20 years with a clause in the regulations acknowledging that a well kept and well managed plant could get an additional 20 years on top of that, making a possible total of 80 years. The newer generations of reactors will be designed upon lessons learned from existing and they are looking at 60-year licenses with the possibility of extensions. Not a reality at the moment but no reason to think otherwise. My long-term bet is 100 years. Yeah, yeah, I'm an optimist, but it's not out of the question.
I admit that past solar performance, like the nukes, is not an accurate measure of future performance, perhaps I was being too harsh. Solar technology will improve and costs will be lowered over time but overall run-times probably will not improve for obvious reasons and the cost will have to come down by at least a factor of 5 and maybe even to 10 before it is truly competitive. Keep in mind the cost of each kwh of nuclear is also coming down or I should say holding steady in an environment of escalating costs of nearly everything else.
Yup, I sure am biased toward nuclear, but my bias is better than Culker's because I do not lie when it comes to presenting my facts. In fact, the bases of my calcs came from the numbers provided by the good ol' Prof himself and we obviouly have different conclusions....and I push for nuclear for one reason only -- because it is so good. Culker is in a world of publish or perish and my guess is that his employers wouldn't let a pro-nuclear stand see the light of day.
Like you I don't have much faith in fusion, but some very serious and smart people do, so I think it will come to pass someday. We should not hold our breath in anticipation.
Large power storage systems seem to be the imaginary force keeping the dream alive to put solar on the grid. My challenge to that is if they are the real answer why not just develop them ASAP and keep them charged with available excess power at night from baseload sources. That would be far more dependable and we would not need to build so many more renewables on the mistaken belief that new generation alone is the answer, much less the notion that renewables with push out nuclear.
Meanwhile the popular notion is that giant batteries exist and they are only kept off the grid because of the abundance of nuclear and coal. Nothing could be further from the truth. If such large storage units did exist, they would and should be in place now. The grid could have used a few in the 2003 blackouts.
Interesting you mention peakers. Every time a new block of solar panels is put on the grid, and given that under current CA law the utility must purchase that few hours of energy, an equal amount of utility generated energy must drop by reducing power for that length of time. The ONLY outcome of that is a greater dependency on peakers which means more and more must be purchased and in order to recover the costs, the rates must go up. The whole scheme is self defeating.
I know you are benefitting from a deal like that and I don't blame you for doing it. I just think that overall it is a bad policy that will die as soon as too many people start doing it. On the plus side it does buy a lot of experience and knowledge of solar technology and that will drive improvements, which are sorely needed.
In closing, must say that I respect your honesty in all of the correspondence in these past few months. Thanks for your thoughtful input.

Booner wrote:

<quoted text>
I said nuclear waste can be handled and stored stored safely. Residential houses are not the place the place for it but I would not object to a long-term storage or reprocessing facility nearby.

Alabama would be a good place for nuclear
waste, I guess.

Booner wrote:

<quoted text>
I said nuclear waste can be handled and stored stored safely. Residential houses are not the place the place for it but I would not object to a long-term storage or reprocessing facility nearby.

You must have faith!!! Didn't the Pentagon try to tell people that radioactive fallout was good for people in the 40's? They are poo-pooing radiation now.