This is Kit P's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kit P's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Kit P
Recent Activity
"accusing me of being a liar" If the shoe fits. "Most of us with research backgrounds..." In what? BS Bob thinks the local paper and junk science web sites is doing research. BS Bob makes up stuff about the nuke plant where I where. When you work at a nuke plant, you are subject to criminal penalties for making a material false statement. It was more than twenty years ago but even then I had a very impressive resume for working at a nuke plant. The nuke plant was closed for political reason. Now there are two very inefficient SSGT. SMUD did not do a very good job building those. My point is that BS both makes up facts and does not understand what he writes about. That is kind assumptions. Professional liars first state a true fact before making us stuff.
“Wind is replacing nuclear and coal Wind is replacing nuclear and coal” This is not true. How do I know? It is my forty years in the power industry. Just for the record, I do not have a phd just an engineering degree in the area of power generation. I got my degree after I had some experience making power at the hands on level in the navy. I liked making electricity. If you want to never have to work in a day in your life, find a job you like. Of course they do not tell you about all the mindless paper work. Notice BS Bob and mds do not bother to tell us there background. I provided a link that directly refuted BS Bob claims but mds suggest they are biased. Of course the the facts are not wrong. Of course the numbers are averages. Some nuke plants are higher and some plants some are lower. BS Bob chooses to look at the highest for nuclear and the lowest for wind without considering the reasons. The highest O&M cost per MWh for a nuke plant is small single unit plants. The other reason is that nukes plants shut down is that a high capital cost repair is needed and the cost over the remaining life of the nuke plant. I can also tell some of the reason some new wind-farms appear to offer lower cost power than older wind farms. One example is a project in the PNW. This project got $750,000,000 in TARP funds and a DOE loan guarantee. Investors are not risking their money. The power is not need in the PNW so it is being given away to California that has to meet an absurd RPS. The cost does not include transmission lines. Finally power is produced when it is needed the least. I race a sailboat in the area so I know the wind patterns. Since the nuke and coal plants in the area are still running as before, the wind power is only replacing natural gas. From the other BS Bob link on solar I get: “although the sample is small. ” Let me point out 'as low as $50/MWh' is not low when compared to being able to buy all the power we need on the PJM at $35/MWh. Furthermore, form BS Bob's link, the contracted power to close the PJM is almost $300/MWh. BS Bob points out that old nuke plants shut down. So what happens to wind and solar when it gets old. If it costs less to buy replacement power, wind and solar will not be repaired. This is the reason wind and solar will not replace coal or nuclear. The press release with a pictures has been issued a long time ago. That is is the only purpose of wind and solar. Making electricity is not high on the list if you look at individual project performance. BD Bob says, “SW 23% it's a couple pennies higher.” Each penny is $10/MWh or grater than the fuel cost of a nuke plant, What the link says. “best performing solar installations without tracking are more than 25 per cent. ” The best actual performance for the first year I have seen is 19% and PV degrades 10% the first few years assuming no failures. Now we are down to 17% in the SW. “substitute the 17.5% capacity factor for the less sunny Northeast ” BS Bob again makes up stuff. The actual performance I have seen for commercial is 10-13% (new). It is hard for BS Bob to grasp living in California. On cold winter nights, we do not have a Mojave Desert not that the sun shines at night there anyhow. Wind and solar does not work very well on nice days and it does not work at all when you really need. If it does not work it does not matter what it costs. So no, wind and solar is not replacing coal and nukes.
“but that does not mean that you are well informed. ” So BS Bob do you think that reading things on the internet you do not understand makes you well informed? BS Bob tell me the list of engineering classes you have taken related to power generation? BS Bob posted two links by people who do not produce power. “Roughly 13.1 gigawatts (GW) of new wind power capacity were connected to the U.S. grid in 2012, ” So, did wind suddenly become the economic choice of the power industry? Apparently not, wind construction died in 2013. Take away incentives and wind goes away. “That's less than the operating and maintenance costs of many paid off nuclear reactors. ” The reason I BS bob just makes up stuff is that I know my business. “The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2012 was 0.75 cents / kWh. The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2012 was 1.65 cents / kWh. ” http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle I am an advocate of renewable energy, especially biomass. I am not against incentives for wind and solar. Many advocates of wind and solar fantasize about renewable energy replacing things they do not like. The reason they do not like nuclear or coal is they believe junk science.
"Combine this with PHEVs, and it may be possible to de-carbonize transport." Wrong again, batteries are just an energy carrier. The source is fossil fuel.
@Jus7 “What really should be done is to shut down all the coal plants, convert all the natgas plant to rapid response that can be ramped up and down on demand. ” That is very irresponsible statement just like those made by renewable energy should be 100%. Have you ever seen a modern coal in operation? It is perfectly reasonable for France and California to not use coal use they have none. Demanding that Wyoming or West Virginia stop using coal is irresponsible. We in the US demanded that fossil power plants install pollution controls and the did. Calling fossil 'filthy' is ignorant. Get with the times
“No generator plant can pay the bills with 2¢/kWh, ” Most large nukes and hydroelectric do just that. “Also, at the moment power prices can go to zero, or even below. ” Just how many hours a year do think this happens?
@faq “Again, when people disagree, ” Well we disagree. What I have noticed blogging is that they have one set of rules for those they disagree with and another for those who agree with them. If you and I are having civil discussion and you want more information I will be happy provide one. It is been my experience that few bother to read the links I provide. So if I help you understand something better, let me know. While you are at it please provide an example that supports your position on RR wrt to the power industry. One of my rules is that if you state something it is up to you to defend it not me to prove you are wrong.
No one where I live are getting sick from pollution in China. Harvey if you want to solve a problem you address the root cause not rant about stuff you make up.
Actually I very proud of my accomplishment.
"deserved reputation" RR is about as far from the mainstream energy industry as you can get. He is clueless about power generation and safety. RR panders to the ignorant. "remain anonymous" Kit is my name. You think I should post my ssn and mother's maiden name? “We have to provide calculations, ” I do at work and furthermore they have to be correct. You are confusing winning an argument with being correct. I have a distinct disadvantage over someone trained to make legal arguments in a debate. Getting the correct takes more than doing the math you have to properly apply the science. One of the things I do at work is answer questions from the regulator. Yes, we get feedback and that is how you know you are wright or wrong. I got an award for an innovative answer to one question because when we got the question nobody had a clue how to answer it. I actually found the information I needed on the internet and then found an acceptable reference. The regulator questioned my statement that there would be no effect. They made me change 'no' to 'negligible' after explaining it in a phone call. I did not tell them the I researched the internet to become more knowledge than there experts. I do not have a problem with being wrong. That is one way we learn. It is very unlikely that a non-technical person will point out where I am wrong because the are just not trained to checfk the facts from the BS.
@E-P "I've been wanting a PHEV (although the acronym didn't exist then) since 1992. " Wanting something is a good enough reason for me. Why all the BS to justify buying what you want? What do you feel guilty about?
"Let's assume the US averages for night time charging..." That would be an incorrect assumption. Power does not come from averages is comes from specific power plants. Thsse links may help. http://www.pjm.com/ http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx The "REAL-TIME STATISTICS" tell me that the added demand is coming from coal.
“Sometimes I happen to notice a piece of misinformation he is pushing, ” How would Davemart know what is misinformation and correct it. The best I can tell Davemart is illiterate when it comes to science and engineering. “prejudices ” Do you mean like hydrogen fool cells?
I just checked my grid, PJM. Today our peak demand is 65,000 MWe below a hot summer day or could winter night. I want to congratulate Belgium on being able meet its power demand on a mild day. Of course we in the power industry have to meet our customer demands every day. “Electricity production in Belgium was about 78.6 billion kWh (TWh) in 2012. Of this, in TWh, 40.3 was from nuclear, 20.6 natural gas, 5.8 biofuels and wastes, 5.5 coal, 2.8 wind, 1.7 hydro, 1.7 solar, 0.6 other. Imports were net 9.9 Twh. Electricity consumption in Belgium has grown from 5800 kWh per capita in 1990 to about 7300 kWh in 2011. Nuclear energy typically provides half of the country's domestically-generated electricity” http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Belgium/ From the information provide above is clear that Alain's post is total BS. There is no '+wind+solar' if you consider that it is a quarter of the power they import. In Belgium, nuclear power is being taxed at punitive rate to subsidize wind and NG. I will repeat for slow learners like Alain, look at the number, wind and solar are shinny things to catch the eye of easily distracted moroons.
“Biggest hazard identified - mice stripping cabling. ” All PV systems have hazards of fire, electrocution, and becoming wind born missile hazards. This is why I am against idiots making their own power with systems sold by scam artist.
@BS Bob Tell me about your EV, or your PV system, or how much time you spent in China. BS Bob just makes up stuff. So BS Bob tell something that you have done in your life.
@Bernard I was commenting on the stupid things you said. This is not to say that Roger does not live in his own. Maybe you comment on things you actual know about. “Apparently this mandatory rehousing is part of "the American way of life." Not at all, I know of no such trend. America is a very mobile country. As an adult I have moved more than 30 times. One of the reasons for this that we are a country of immigrants. A growing population builds new housing. Once you have left your comfort zone, moving again for opportunity is easier. Second, returning WWII veteran were given GI Bill benefits to preclude the unrest after WWI. This transformed the middle class. The house my dad built after WWII in Ohio is still there. A little small by today's standards. The house in Seattle is still there. Because of the war, my dad knew more about airplanes than cars. Then he moved to California because he knew a lot about electronics. The house he bought in 1960 which is now called Silicon Valley, we could not afford. I have experience with two Midwestern 'rust belt' cities. One has transformed its economy with vibrant downtown and affordable suburbs. The other is die a slow death of jobs going to Asia. America is a very diverse place with lots of opportunities. The world often sees America through NYC and California media eyes. Most of America is about small towns where single family homes are affordable. There are cities where housing is very expensive and young families are forced to live in apartments. Energy cost and availability is usually not a big factor.
“The safety record of US Nuclear Power is commendable! However, safety is a relative term. ” The safety record is perfect. It is hard to improve perfect. But we are always trying. Not only am a nuclear safety expert but I am an industrial safety expert. To improve safety, you establish key performance indicators. For transportation safety, it is the number of traffic related deaths per miles driven. Yes, there have been great improvement. I ways like when people worry about nuke plant and then recommend riding a bike to save. In 2010, 800 died in biking accidents. When I was much younger, I actually rode my bike to work at a nuke. The margin to being killed by a passing car was 3 feet. Many people had a reason to drive down that road. To be filled by radiation at a nuke plant, I would have to go inside the containment building, inside the biological shield and stand next to an operating reactor. The margin to being killed by was 100 feet. Since I had not reason, to go in containment and the air lock is locked and alarmed, the risk is insignificant. New reactors are required to show core damage frequency is two orders of magnitude better. Let me explain this with an example. Warren Buffet drops by Bill Gate's house to watch a netflix video. The next day Bill Gates searches the seat cushions where Warren Buffet was sitting. Bill finds a quarter and is very excited about his new found wealth. Risk is a relative term while safety is an absolute and measurable term. Roger can understand a dead body along the road but the human mind can not handle risk of core damage every million hours of operation compared to core damage every 100 million hours of operation. My point is to put the relative term term of risk is the context of the result in measured in safety. If no one, including workers, are hurt; that is a perfect safety record. “those designs done many decades ago ” Those designs are the only things designed to achieve a perfect safety record for all foreseeable events. The process to achieve this has been known for at least 50 years. Nothing else is designed to these standards. To put in context the irrational fear of radiation let me provide a list of things not designed to nuclear standards. The houses we live in. The schools our children attend. The building you work in except if you work at a nuke plant. Industries without a perfect safety record for killing employees and neighbors: petroleum, NG, and refineries Chemical plants Coal mining The store that sell fertilizer to farmers in every small town “reduce cost ” One of things that is causing the cost to increase for other industries is new requirement for process safety. If the nuclear industry's results in a much lower rate of loss time accidents why not apply that to everything else.
Keep letting me know how your system works. “Let's wait and see what will happen. ” Based on science and 40 years of power industry experience it will not happen. “But with wind & solar exponancially expanding and prices dropping, ” Exponential growth is always followed by die off. That is what has happened to wind in 2013 in the US. “In France & Belgium it's already the case. ” Let me point out there are two choices for places without lots of fossil fuel. Import fossil fuel or build nukes. “Wind+solar ” Look at the number, wind and solar are shinny things to catch the eye of easily distracted moroons. If I was marketing a new nuke plants, I would put up a PV system and wind turbines on the site on the site. I would then have a web site that showed power production. If you look around, that is what is done. “The same counts for a electrolysis H2 plant. ” Again not true because these plants need large amounts of power. “Germany ” Every loon that talks about wind and solar always picks a place that is not like the rest of the world. “The environmental cost of wind & solar is peanuts compared to fossil. ” Of course that is not true either. Just for the record, if you are preparing an EIS for a major power project, you have to look at all the environmental impacts. The least of environmental impacts is ghg. “Audi already has a "synthetic natural gas" plant operational ” Again not true. There is a giant leap from press releases to doing something. If a new nuke plant design claims a 60 year life life and 95% capacity factor, it is not a big leap for current plants that are running longer than the 40 year design life at 90% CF which is 10% higher than design. “Don't tell the Audi company is run by a bunch of idiots who know nothing about economy. ” I will tell you it is just marketing and you would be gullible to believe otherwise. "synthetic natural gas" is a really bad idea from an engineering perspective. You do not say where you live Alain but you may want to take a road trip. Go to Washington state and look across the river at Boardman, Oregon. Which do yo like better, wind or coal? Then g down to the Mojave Desert and observe the solar plants on your way to Las Vegas to observe the strip. Tell me solar is not just some fantasy when put in context of how we use electricity. Again, my point is you have to get past press release and judge how things actually work.
@Arnold Thanks for the information. “NSW mid north coast ” Since you live in Australia, that explains why the terminology is different. Both Ohio (where I was born) and Australia produce cheap coal. Ohio is an industrial state. I happen to live in Virginia but my utility (American Electric Power) also produces power in Ohio. The generating cost for coal here is about 3 cents per kwh. My retail rate after transmission costs, taxes, taxes, and taxes is 11 cents per kwh. The only more I could save would be on the generating cost. I still gave to pay for service unless I would disconnect form the grid. If a I has a 2 kw system, I could save 14 cents per hour when the sun is shinning and the roof is not shaded by the 40 trees I have. It is my understand that Australia instituted a carbon tax that double the cost of brown coal. A huge feed in tariff was provided for PV. “returned a credit AU$51.95 ” Arnold do you like stealing from your neighbors with the help of the government? That is what it amounts to. Also the PV system will likely fail and not pay the cost of installing it. If you are lucky your house will not burn down when the system fails. This is no grid benefit for PV. Make up whatever story you want. There are lots of things you can do to reduce the amount of power you use. In California, I built a passive solar house that did not need heat or cooling. Thermal mass, a few more inches of roof over hangs, and low-e glass are very cost effective. When I live near Toledo, we did not need AC but had very cold winters. The house was large with lots of single pane windows to enjoy the view of the water. The house was built when power was very cheap and had straight resistant heating. I put in a air tight wood stove and had built a Florida room (enclosed with glass the porch with large French doors). My point is that there many low cost things to reduce your bill. PV on houses is a scam. Keep letting me know how your system works. Change my mind at the risk of needing a thick skin.
“Nuclear energy can be safe ” Nuclear power is safe. To date, four LWRs have suffered core damage and no one was hurt. Fuel cladding is just one of three barriers that must fail. It also takes time for fission to be transported where people can be harmed. The design of the Chernobyl reactor immediately released fission products to the environment. No one is building reactors without containments. “despite recommendation ” There are those blessed with 20/20 hindsight. Providing energy includes accepting risk because the risk from not having energy. It should also be noted that the tsunami caused property damage at the nuke plant but resulted in 20,000 deaths because people thought they were at a safe elevation. “passive-failsafe design ” There is no such thing as fail safe. Also LWR have passive features. “but if we could find a source like Rapier who's not part of the nuclear industry, that would be great. ” I am a nuclear safety expert. RR is a chemical engineer with experience in the petroleum industry. He has not experience producing power. The safety culture of the petroleum industry sucks as indicated by their record. Rod Adams is an English Major who the navy trained to supervise operation of navy PWRs. That makes Rod a smart fellow but he chose to not use what he learned for the commercial generation of power at stationary power plants. My main disagreement with Rod is his attacks on the rest of the power industry. As a navy officer, I was qualified to supervise the operation of 6 PWRs. After that I was a GE shift supervisor certifying SRO on four BWRs during initial power testing. I also have more than twenty years of experience with commercial PWRs. While id is true that nuclear has a very good safety and environmental record, the US power industry has a very good safety record. Safety is not an easy task. If you look at the USSR, for example, all aspects of safety were such that they did kill many people. “Chinook helicopter could have delivered portable generators from US military bases in Japan ” Follow 9/11, the nuke industry had to consider how we would respond to an even that might include a burning air plane. Additional emergency equipment was staged near the power plants to be brought in if something unexpected occurred. Reading the events reports from Japan it is clear that such equipment was at Japanese plants but it could not be installed fast enough because road and debris blocked the planned routes. After events in Japan, we recognized that natural disaster of unexpected magnitude could result in loss of power for a longer time. As part of FLEX strategies, the US nuclear industries are have established three emergency response centers to provide long term items like portable generators. About 20% of my time this has been of FLEX issues.
“Which is why I said that you produce hydrogen first, ” No, you did not produce any hydrogen. Bacteria produced hydrogen. This hydrogen is not available because other bacteria take the hydrogen and produce methane. Methane was produced by the bacteria working together. Also CO2, H2S, NH3OH, N2O2, and N2. “your powers of comprehension. ” Davemat does not comprehend science. He just says stuff.
@Alain “It is obvious ” You could not be more wrong. The power industry produced only the amount of power to meet demand. Wind, solar, wave, and tidal will never produce much power. While the potential energy is huge, the equipment to produce the power is not very practical. It also has the highest environmental impact. “So why not make H2 from the "free" electricity ? ” It is not free, you have to pay people like me to make. “Once cheap H2 is available ” That will never happen. Cheap is a relative term. Electricity is a very commodity when produce with hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The capital cost of the equipment is expensive. There is a history of consumer complaints when a new power project comes on line. A public utility build a new dam 50 years ago raising the cost of power to the customers to 3 cents per kwh. Today no one complain. Because of the cheap power an aluminum mill came to the area creating jobs. Then all the 'cheap' power was used up. Since natural gas was cheap gas plants were built but then the price of natural gas went. Now the aluminum mill is gone and the excess 'cheap' power is being sold at market rates.
@Davemart You are one of those people who 'avoided taking science classes'. Am I correct? You just say stuff without understanding chemistry of physics. In nature, one kind of bacteria produces hydrogen but then another immediately produces methane. Why would you want to use hydrogen as a fuel when methane is a better fuel? Chemistry 101! Just for the record, I did not take Chemistry 101 but the much harder chemistry for chemistry majors. “fungible ” Hydrogen is not fungible. “Currently it can power a car ” Why would you do that or BEV? The ICE using hydrocarbons is very practical. That is how I do it. I am an engieer, if I have a practical way to accomplish a task I do not go looking for a harder way. I do not have a problem with R&D finding a better way, but so far hydrogen is not it. I work a lot with hydrogen because of physical and chemical properties but only because there is no other practical choice. Hydrogen is a common industrial gas but not as an energy source. “So writing hydrogen off for transport seems premature ” I suppose it does for those who skipped science.
“This fact is just basic physics. ” There is lots of evidence that GCC poster avoided taking science classes when ever possible. There is a area of study called industrial ecology where nature is studied so that industrial systems can mimic nature. Plants take sunlight and make protein to for animals to eat or wood for building material like trees to lumber. Many things in science is very interesting but not the least big practicl from an engineering point of view. It is very practical to take sunlight and grow plants. Wood can be stored and easily used to produce energy when it is needed. While interesting, producing hydrogen from the sun rather than attaching the hydrogen to a carbon atom is rather silly.