And by the way, fuck your nuclear energy.

Love you sweety.

night after losing power, according to a statement by Entergy, the plant's owner.

Authorities said there is no danger and backup diesel generators are powering safety systems.

"The plant is in a safe, secure condition and will remain on backup power supply until off-site power is restored," the statement said.

An unusual event is the lowest of four classifications of emergencies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2013/02/pilgrim_nuclear_shuts_down_in.html

20 year payback for a northern latitude seems pretty good. Germany, which is farther north than Massachusetts, is getting nearly half its power from solar.

--imm

Not when the asset isn't expected to last much longer than that.

Germany, which is farther north than Massachusetts, is getting nearly half its power from solar.

lol. It most certainly is not. Not even close.

They approached those levels for some peak limited times. Sorry about that.

Current thin film PVCs pay back in 3-5 years, last for 30 (nominally.)

--imm

The thin-film payback you're probably thinking of is how long it takes for the units to produce as much electricity as it took to make them.

It takes much longer than that to pay back the cost of the unit plus installation.

If they paid for themselves in 3-5 years, everyone would have them.

You were right about the energy-to-make-them numbers. That info was out of date. It's closer to a year now.

And I got some more numbers on including cost and installation. Depending on incentives and utility costs, states vary from 4 years to 19 years for complete pay back. http://1bog.org/blog/infographic-how-much-does-solar-cost/

Since none have time limits, and most run 30 years with no problem, that's lots of electricity for free! Which deal is better? (No nukes are free.)

--imm

Let’s take a look at one of the examples in that link. We’ll use Massachusetts since that’s the state in the OP.

They claim that a system (no word on specifics) will cost you $7,061 after incentives and will save you $57/month and $13,719 over twenty years. But they also say that it will pay for itself in four years.

Their math is off somewhere. You can’t pay back $7,000 in four years at $57/month.

But let’s take it a little farther. The average cost for electricity in MA is a bit under 15 cents / kwh. Saving $57/month implies and average production of almost 400 kwh/month. With a capacity factor of 10%, that means that you’re talking about a 6 kw system.

You’re doing pretty well if you can install a residential solar system of that size for under about $25,000. So there would have to be some pretty huge incentives to knock your final cost down to $7,000 (and of course… someone is paying for those incentives)

Of course we can tweak some of those assumptions (some may top 10% CF if their house is in the right place) but there's no way that the system will ever pay back $25,000 over it's lifespan. And that's before we even start to talk about the financing/opportunity costs involved. If you finance $7,000 at just 5%, the first $29/month is going to pay interest on the loan.

There are real world cases where consumer solar cells can pay for themselves (including financing costs and incentives) - but you're not going to find them in New England.


A good rule of thumb should be "DON'T stick 'em where the sun don't shine"

Another good rule of thumb should be to not trust solar installers to tell you how much you're going to save. They don't lose their corporate profit motive just because they're in a clear energy industry.

to run up costs? Your data set is incomplete.

Of course it shutdown when it got snow dumped on top of it. That is sort of a fact of life for small scale local solar. Would you suggest a rooftop nuke instead?

Small, sealed canister nukes that run maintenance free for 10-20 years at a time.

Nukes that incinerate their own ashes in situ. (And can be easily configured to burn the ashes of previous generations as well.)

Nukes that go from hot to cold at the flick of a switch, AND that is also the ONLY possible failure mode.

Nukes which can safely be run at temperatures so insanely high that hydrogen and oxygen are literally waste products.

Nukes which must be externally energised to burn their fuel one discrete and very subcritical gram at a time.

You forgot that that they cost absolutely nothing.

You present a false choice between nuclear and solar.

Germany has 30 Gigawatts of capacity from solar sources. We should do likewise.

meaning it actually generates less than 3GW average. About 3% of Germany's total power generation.

It means burning more coal, and making a bad problem worse.

where a huge area is still access-restricted because the radiation levels are still too high, nearly 2 years after the Dai-ichi explosions.

The following article in the Wall Street Journal was written by University of California - Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller, the author of the book "Physics for Future Presidents":

The Panic Over Fukushima

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html

Denver has particularly high natural radioactivity. It comes primarily from radioactive radon gas, emitted from tiny concentrations of uranium found in local granite. If you live there, you get, on average, an extra dose of .3 rem of radiation per year (on top of the .62 rem that the average American absorbs annually from various sources). A rem is the unit of measure used to gauge radiation damage to human tissue.
...
But over the following weeks and months, the fear grew that the ultimate victims of this damaged nuke would number in the thousands or tens of thousands. The "hot spots" in Japan that frightened many people showed radiation at the level of .1 rem, a number quite small compared with the average excess dose that people happily live with in Denver.

What explains the disparity? Why this enormous difference in what is considered an acceptable level of exposure to radiation?

Professor Muller accurately points out that the additional radiation levels around Fukushima that are deemed "unacceptable" are actually one-third the additional natural radiation levels to be found in Denver, which we deem "acceptable". Go figure! When people "think" with their politics instead of their brains, it doesn't have to make sense logically.

PamW

than anyone else in this forum--

If the levels within the 20km/12-mile zone were so benign, the Japanese government would not hesitate to let people back in. Really. Residents have been clamoring to get back to their homes, but most places within that zone are still multiples of what the natural radiation levels used to be.

For example, here, about 500 feet above sea level 100 miles south of the Dai-ichi complex, the natural radiation level is about 0.09 to 0.1 microsievert per hour. Converted into millisieverts per year (the usual unit used for Denver), that would be approximately 0.7-0.8 millisievert, compared to 10 millisieverts of radon as an annual dose in Denver. However, this map and accompanying graph, which were compiled from February 2013 data, show that there are many hotspots in Fukushima that have much higher radiation levels than Denver (shown with red or darker squares in the map). The hottest spot is the Ottozawa district of Okuma Town, which is still registering more than 30 microsieverts per hour-- which is more than 300 times higher than the ambient radiation level in my city, and more than 26 times higher than the annual dose in Denver.

http://new.atmc.jp/pref.cgi?p=07

Just wanted to say that many here have not forgotten about the catastrophe you and your neighbors are living through. We feel awful that people have been displaced from their homes that they may never be safe in again.

And that we wish the best for all of Japan in these trying times.

Around my area, things have pretty much returned to normal, I think. But farther north, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The new Abe government, which came into power last December, has pledged to speed up the rebuilding process. The prime minister visited some of the disaster areas recently and really seems to have an interest in getting things back on track.

On the other hand, there was a news item last November, I think, about the government gating roads leading into the areas with the highest radiation levels, so that is far from resolved. And of course, the nuclear power complex itself is still an awful mess.

Art has replied to you. Are you going to answer him, ever?

I mean, this Muller fellow you are quoting has been shown to be a dumb ass nuke-loving liar when it comes to the real world around Fukushima. Let me ask you, what kind of a scientist post such lies as Muller did? How do the rest of you scientists let him get away with such lies?

RobertEarl,

Who is Muller? He's Professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Physics Department.

http://physics.berkeley.edu/index.php?option=com_dept_management&act=people&Itemid=299&task=view&id=11

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/muller.html

http://muller.lbl.gov/

Do you think they hire "dumb ass nuke loving liars" at Berkeley?

Art is correct that there are hot spots that people shouldn't be let back in. However, he also showed that the bulk of the area has radiation levels that are a factor of 10 lower than Denver ( Muller conservatively says 3 ).

So if the bulk of the area is down a factor of 10 from Denver, and we allow people to live in Denver; then why the difference for Fukushima?

See - Professor Muller was correct all along; and you just called him a "dumb ass"

Well - I just consider the source.

PamW

He is just not telling the truth.

As for Art... he lives 100 miles from Fukushima and that is where the 10 less than Denver comes from. But as you can see in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=406584

Art says they did scrape dirt from places that had much higher readings.

I do apologize for calling Muller a dumb ass liar, he is a very smart liar, IMO.

build new nukes. Oh, yes, a "cheap" source of energy that we taxpayers must guarantee so if the project isn't completed/doesn't work, the nuke industry won't have to pay a dime.

They'll settle for less but $60 billion was the early number. Even Obama agreed but after Fuku he is pushing for about $30 billion.

wholesale price for peak hour electricity is
typically 5 cents per kwh
in the winter to 10 in the summer.

so unless you use the power yourself as an
avoided purchase at 13, that number is wrong

The idea is to reduce CO2 emissions. I certainly wouldn't want that 260,546 kWh produced by filthy coal.

Two Thursdays ago, in January would you believe, our 5.6 kW system produced 26 kWh but we used 23 kWh. The excess 3 kWh we produced went back into the grid, probably to my Conservative neighbor's house who had initial "concerns" about my panels. Duhhh!!

For the year, the system is producing 75 percent of our electricity.

The naysayers are BSing. Solar does save money and prevents CO2.

You have to be fucking kidding to post this garbage, when...

Snowstorm shuts down Massachusetts nuclear plant

Your "commentary" is the most one-sided propaganda crapola that is consistently posted on a "liberal" board. Your naked hatred of alternative energy is as sick as the hatred of the Tea Party for democracy. You give no quarter, and I expect none. Because you are an ideologue, not a scientist.

Just FYI, I never read any of your shamelessly slanted content.

You won't be hearing from me again.

But I just had to say that you are a complete ass.

At Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

After ten years of your relentless hatred, I must comment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=36116

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

'you are a complete ass' - attacking the messenger, not the message. Over the line.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Meh. OP asked for it. I am in full agreement with arendt on this one.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm going to bed.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter - what you alerted on is something that I would vote 99% of the time to hide, but I am voting to nullify this one and I hope at least two other jurors join me. The OP clearly had this coming. WTF is wrong with someone who makes it their mission to attack renewable energy? That kind of attitude is going to kill us all. If you are going to say that kind of stuff, you better be able to find us a new planet to occupy. Since I dont think OP can do that, I think what arendt said speaks for many of us. - SL
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

I see you're very proud you've killed my alert (an alert which was justified).

What you can't do is refute the post below, which shows this piece of shit solar installation will take 100 years to pay for itself. Facts suck, don't they?

"In another failure for the extremely expensive and essentially useless solar industry,"

That isn't merely a criticism of this individual solar facility, its an attack on the whole industry and what it represents.

Now, I don't know what planet that you expect that you and your progeny will be able to inhabit in the coming decades and beyond, but I am kind of fond of this one. Over the top attacks on solar and other efforts to provide us power via renewable energy aren't just wrong, they are crazy to the point of ultimately being suicidal.

And I am glad this is being kicked. People need to see this OP.

What it represents is a colossal waste of money, and I'm also quite proud of attacking that.

Especially when countries like Germany are grossly exacerbating global warming by chasing their ignorant, hysteria-induced pipe dream.

The Case Against the Nuclear Renaissance?

You should. Then get back to us.

"This publication focuses on the appalling attempt..."

Why would I waste my time reading such a biased source? The failure of the large majority of anti-nuclear sentiment rests on emotional appeals which have no basis in science. "Appalling" indicates something which is non-factual. So does "slaying the Nuclear Dragon". These documents, though they serve as confirmation for your fears and are probably comforting, are nothing on which to base policy.

Since you didn't read it you do not know about the MANY FACTS that were well sourced and documented. Too bad. For someone who claims to eschew emotional appeals, that is exactly what you're basing YOUR policy direction on.

You shouldn't either. It's fearmongering nonsense.

onedit: written by "Gerry Mander", evidently someone who's so proud of his work he's afraid to take credit for it.

I have been wanting to say something like this for years regarding this poster. But you say it so well......

$700,000 to install and only $34,340 of electricity produced in just over 5 years. By my calculations, that's more than 100 years to payback.

because it's solar. It's renewable.

It is a simplistic calculation that is from a person known to misrepresent data. This means that all numbers in any such calculation presented by the poster must be verified for accuracy. Even without doing that, however, we know that the calculation is in error because it is based on a supposed retail price of electricity when the actual output of solar installations (particularly in the summer) should be weighed against the wholesale costs of peaking power - some of the most expensive electricity out there and frequently running 10X-16X the average retail cost.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/superstorm_sandy_puts_njs_oyst.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

and thanks for kick.

and radiation induced cancers take years to develop.

yup

You can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

snip

There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses.[citation needed] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none[26] to 100.[27] On 16 December 2011, Japanese authorities declared the plant to be stable, although it would take decades to decontaminate the surrounding areas and to decommission the plant altogether.[28] On 5 July 2012, the Japanese National Diet appointed The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) submitted its inquiry report to the Japanese Diet,[29] while the government appointed Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company submitted its final report to the Japanese government on 23 July 2012.[30] Tepco admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[31][32][33][34]

http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MJytDG6o

So a predicted maximum of 100 (lifetime). Lifetime expectancy of 85 years, about 15,000 deaths/year from coal gives us...about 13,000x less dangerous than coal.

Is that the point you were trying to make?

You aren't very well informed and I'm tired of your propaganda.

I'll put mine in science.