Nuclear no match for Renewables

[furpile]

1) We have ample coal backup to do load following in case it is needed. Having 10-20GW of renewables means that GW of coal generation simply doesn't need to be run.

But that's the whole point, coal stations don't last forever. The nuclear stations are not to increase our capacity but to take over from coal. Half of our coal stations need to be decommissioned in the next 20 years or so, what happens then? We cannot build more coal stations, so can SA run on a pure renewable infrastructure? I really want your opinion on this, can SA's electricity network work with only renewable sources? Once most of our coal stations are taken off line, and even Medupi and Kusile is shut down in a few decades.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Woohoo! I got a rather begrudgingly worded, but yes I was right out of you.



Onto the next bits -


As has been shown repeatedly, Renewables can be built fast. < 1 year build times from start of construction are not uncommon even in South Africa.

Obviously you have never worked with South African constructors and contractors 1 year is pipe dreaming.

It makes far more sense to build distributed generation close to where it is required, rather than large monolithic builds that take decades.

I agree that is what no one is suggesting with nuclear, what is suggested is that if SA goes nuclear that provision be made for future reactors like Eskom did with ALL their power stations. Basically start with smaller containments since we both agree that we cannot afford and probably dont need large scale nuclear stations.

Storage *isn't* an issue in South Africa.
Our current generation is largely Coal based, with a touch of Hydro, and quite a bit of diesel/gas (Anker) which is used rather badly to keep the grid on at silly prices.

South Africa made commitments at COP21 and Copenhagen to adress climate change, meaning we need to get rid of our coal stations, if it was purely a concern of cost then coal stations would win handsdown. In terms of safety it is argueable as Eskom has bad standards currently, in terms of environmental impacts - take a drive with me to some of the plants that I worked on. It is disgusting to say the least. We need to get rid of it.

1) We have ample coal backup to do load following in case it is needed. Having 10-20GW of renewables means that GW of coal generation simply doesn't need to be run.

Discussed above

2) Electricity demand strongly follows the daytime demand curve. While we do have consumer demand at early evening, this can be covered with existing generation (it currently is anyway).

not with our ageing coal power stations, in the coming years I doubt we will even be able to meet night time demand currently from my experience SA has 1 properly run safe power station and that is at Matimba in Elisras, Kusili and Madupi might do the trick, but given the BEE tender rubbish going on I doubt we will get our money's worth. (Obviously this is also a concern if we go nuclear, however so is it if we go Solar).

3) Renewables would largely cover Anker's generation, which then leaves Eskom with some money to upgrade the grid, instead of spending money on BEE hairdresser diesel.

The fact is that Eskom is so bankrupted and the grid is in a mess as it is as the moment the taxpayer will have to bail them out, for that we can blame the government. I dont see this as a viability, I would like to see private renewable companies compete, however to date they have not managed to do so, even the Stellenbosch project is currently not viable.

There are a few other reasons, but I've covered them ad-infinitum in this thread already, I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

That is the problem you have repeated yourself, but not said much.

 

[Nicodeamus]

But that's the whole point, coal stations don't last forever. The nuclear stations are not to increase our capacity but to take over from coal. Half of our coal stations need to be decommissioned in the next 20 years or so, what happens then? We cannot build more coal stations, so can SA run on a pure renewable infrastructure? I really want your opinion on this, can SA's electricity network work with only renewable sources? Once most of our coal stations are taken off line, and even Medupi and Kusile is shut down in a few decades.

I would like to point out that the French stations are built with a 60 years lifetime. Koeberg will probably last for about 50 years in total in EDF has talked of introducing the lifespan to 80 years for newly build stations (however this is going to be to expensive in my opinion, but maybe the French might get it right).

 

[itareanlnotani]

But that's the whole point, coal stations don't last forever. The nuclear stations are not to increase our capacity but to take over from coal. Half of our coal stations need to be decommissioned in the next 20 years or so, what happens then? We cannot build more coal stations, so can SA run on a pure renewable infrastructure? I really want your opinion on this, can SA's electricity network work with only renewable sources? Once most of our coal stations are taken off line, and even Medupi and Kusile is shut down in a few decades.

Change doesn't happen overnight.

We build more infrastructure - renewables, we improve grid infrastructure (as thats another huge issue waiting to happen), we add more hydro storage.

We're already doing the hydro (covered in thread).
The germans have loaned us billions to upgrade the infrastructure (although whether Eskom is actually using the money for that is another issue).

If we would have spent 1/10th the money we've been literally pissing away burning Diesel each month on Wind or Solar PV, we'd already have reduced the need for burning that Diesel. ANC related business people are making BEE $$$$ selling diesel, so who gives a **** about the environment.

Reaching 100% renewables isn't feasible. Reaching 60-80% is though, and thats what we should be aiming for at a minimum.
If storage is the issue (and thats contentious), then we should be going forward on Grand Inga hydro.

I think we should be investing heavily in Wind. Overcapacity would be a good thing for wind for us. Nameplate capacity is typically 30%, we should be building multiples of nameplate capacity. Wind is the cheapest generation available to us.

Solar PV is the next most expensive, but it also follows our use patterns extremely well. We get up and work when the sun comes up, and we stop when it goes down.

Lots of Wind, then Solar PV in that order, in the order of 20GW worth. We can have that up and running within 5 years or so, less if we fast track the paperwork. The paperwork is the time consuming thing, not the build. You'll note that the government dicking about during the first few REIPP's screwed up the finances for a number of bids.

Gas is the next most expensive source. We should be improving Richards Bay to allow for import, which I think was happening, but again, lots of corruption and incompetence there. Running Anker on gas for peaking (i.e. when its needed, vs all the bloody time) would be using it as designed, vs using it to keep the lights on as a political measure, damn the expense.

Coal is the next most expensive from that. Its highly polluting though, and if carbon credit costs ever become a thing here, will rapidly be priced out of the market. We do have massive amounts of coal though, so I do foresee us having significant coal capacity for the next 40-50 years or so, regardless of carbon costs. Eskom already ignores environmental laws for most of its coal power stations, and coal scrubbing to remove sulphur is too expensive, and a high user of water (which we don't have enough of). So lots of pollution in the foreseeable future.

Nuclear is hideously expensive up front, but allegedly low cost to run. We can't afford it though, especially at R17 / $.
We can revisit that when we're back at R7 to the dollar, but even then it was touch and go.


So, my views are - a mixed grid, lots of wind, lots of solar, and as much hydro as we can add.
If in a few years more storage becomes feasible at grid scale, we can add more.
Thats for the Eskom side of things.

For the consumer side, I foresee more people adding solar as Eskom gets ever more expensive.
This will accelerate as the price increase go on.

While I often use Germany as an example, our real comparison should be Australia.
Australia's grid with massive solar penetration is where we should be headed. They're finding that they don't need as much coal generation as they've been building, so are being left with white elephant coal stations no-one wants. We don't want to be in the same situation for Nuclear.

http://reneweconomy.com.au is worth reading for an overview of the Australian market. Lots of parallels to us.


Also worth reading is our goverments own IRP plan (2013 update)
http://www.doe-irp.co.za/content/IRP2010_updatea.pdf

They note that Nuclear is too expensive, and we should look to Hydro, and also note that Solar and Wind have dropped precipitously pricewise. If we ever got a fair 2014 or 2015 update, it would note that has dropped radically since the 2013 IRP, which again makes other options even more ludicrous.

 

[HavocXphere]

The same? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Power_Pool

And which of those countries on the list do you propose absorb SA fluctuations? They are all connected to SA as a fall back because their sht is even less stable. Hell two of those have asked for emergency power from SA this week. Even if one of them was stable enough they're all *tiny* compared to SA.

We can balance within the country i.e. Northern Cape, Western Cape, Gauteng etc.

The sun goes down in both Gauteng and Cape Town at the same time. Peak usage times are identical, not spread over multiple timezones. It'll help with balancing wind fluctuations a bit I guess.

It also means you need to install much more capacity than you actually need as a portion will be out of action at any given time.

What is the 2nd sentence in that very topic:

" In general it is not economical for large thermal installations such as nuclear power plants to practice load following[citation needed]."

Which is talking about old plants. If the French plants can shift 5% per minute then nuclear plants can definitely load follow.

If the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing, and the hydro dams are empty, and the CSP storage is empty you crank up some load following coal plants. Its not a *****ing issue.

So now you're keeping coal plants on stand-by as well. Big ones I should add. :erm:

 

[itareanlnotani]

Obviously you have never worked with South African constructors and contractors 1 year is pipe dreaming.

Here's an example.

http://www.scatecsolar.com/Portfolio/South-Africa/Kalkbult-South-Africa-75-MW
The 75 MW power plant was completed in record time (January 2013 – September 2013) and was grid connected three months earlier than planned.

another one

http://www.scatecsolar.com/Portfolio/South-Africa/Dreunberg-South-Africa-75-MW
Construction start aug 2013, operation start aug 2014.

There are many more.
Quite a few of the solar PV builds are ahead of build time. i.e. built faster than expected.

I agree that is what no one is suggesting with nuclear, what is suggested is that if SA goes nuclear that provision be made for future reactors like Eskom did with ALL their power stations. Basically start with smaller containments since we both agree that we cannot afford and probably dont need large scale nuclear stations.

Small scale Nuclear is even more unfeasible cost-wise unfortunately.

South Africa made commitments at COP21 and Copenhagen to adress climate change, meaning we need to get rid of our coal stations, if it was purely a concern of cost then coal stations would win handsdown. In terms of safety it is argueable as Eskom has bad standards currently, in terms of environmental impacts - take a drive with me to some of the plants that I worked on. It is disgusting to say the least. We need to get rid of it.


not with our ageing coal power stations, in the coming years I doubt we will even be able to meet night time demand currently from my experience SA has 1 properly run safe power station and that is at Matimba in Elisras, Kusili and Madupi might do the trick, but given the BEE tender rubbish going on I doubt we will get our money's worth. (Obviously this is also a concern if we go nuclear, however so is it if we go Solar).

Discussed above, and we concur.

The fact is that Eskom is so bankrupted and the grid is in a mess as it is as the moment the taxpayer will have to bail them out, for that we can blame the government. I dont see this as a viability, I would like to see private renewable companies compete, however to date they have not managed to do so, even the Stellenbosch project is currently not viable.

If Eskom opened up the grid to private generation we would see. Right now they're the only game in town.

That is the problem you have repeated yourself, but not said much.

I've said plenty, but you have your own opinion. I have mine though, so its all good.

 

[Nicodeamus]

You seriously cannot compare a 75 MW plant to the French EPRS that has 900 1500 and even more MW depending on the design?

Small scale Nuclear is even more unfeasible cost-wise unfortunately.

It is not unfeasible, the same can be said for solar, construction wise it is always better to build a large scale plant. However SA historically has not followed this approach, mainly because we did not have the money to do it, the Eskom stations in the low veld and the 2 new stations are build in a way to allow different stages of power generation units to come online. It helps a bit for maintenance as well, but overall it is more expensive. Even if we go Solar SA will probably follow this route, build the stations when you get money and when you can afford it.

 

[itareanlnotani]

You seriously cannot compare a 75 MW plant to the French EPRS that has 900 1500 and even more MW depending on the design?

It is not unfeasible, the same can be said for solar, construction wise it is always better to build a large scale plant. However SA historically has not followed this approach, mainly because we did not have the money to do it, the Eskom stations in the low veld and the 2 new stations are build in a way to allow different stages of power generation units to come online. It helps a bit for maintenance as well, but overall it is more expensive. Even if we go Solar SA will probably follow this route, build the stations when you get money and when you can afford it.

Yes, I can.

Solar PV is quite modular, *and* scalable. You throw more people at it, and you build faster.
Nuclear construction projects don't scale very well apparently (looking at every single build).

Example larger Solar build:

Solar Star -
Started 2013, completed 2015. Contributing to Grid in 2013 onwards.

579MW solar plant in California -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star

Overview of some of the larger builds in the states here - https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-spe...of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yes, I can.

Solar PV is quite modular, *and* scalable. You throw more people at it, and you build faster.
Nuclear construction projects don't scale very well apparently (looking at every single build).

Not exactly, I have not worked on Solar projects personally, but normally the larger the project becomes the more skilled the people need to be and the better the planning i.e. cheap labour doesnt cut it any more. Obviously it would be easier to build Solar sites than nuclear sites which require more safety and higher standards.

Example larger Solar build:

Solar Star -
Started 2013, completed 2015. Contributing to Grid in 2013 onwards.

579MW solar plant in California -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star

Overview of some of the larger builds in the states here - https://gigaom.com/2015/01/20/a-spe...of-a-mega-solar-panel-farm-why-its-important/

Many of the large sites in the US and spain was largely depended on government subsidies given that it wasn't feasible at the time, I am not sure if that is still the case.

As I said earlier I am not against Solar power I would like to see more solar personally, but in terms of replacing coal I do not see solar being able to do that (it cant in Germany yet and France in my mind has the best balance).

What is also neglected is the medical industry in france where a lot of sterilization techniques have been developed on the backbone of their industry market. The French often (and rightfully so) brag that every element in the periodic table is used in the nuclear industry in one way or another. A lot of the fuel cycle and plutonium also is being used in the medical industry (and other minerals ) this benefit also needs to be taken into account. SA has the possibility of establishing industries like this, if once again proper planning is done, although I doubt our ANC government has such good foresight.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Not exactly, I have not worked on Solar projects personally, but normally the larger the project becomes the more skilled the people need to be and the better the planning i.e. cheap labour doesnt cut it any more. Obviously it would be easier to build Solar sites than nuclear sites which require more safety and higher standards.


Many of the large sites in the US and spain was largely depended on government subsidies given that it wasn't feasible at the time, I am not sure if that is still the case.

As I said earlier I am not against Solar power I would like to see more solar personally, but in terms of replacing coal I do not see solar being able to do that (it cant in Germany yet and France in my mind has the best balance).

What is also neglected is the medical industry in france where a lot of sterilization techniques have been developed on the backbone of their industry market. The French often (and rightfully so) brag that every element in the periodic table is used in the nuclear industry in one way or another. A lot of the fuel cycle and plutonium also is being used in the medical industry (and other minerals ) this benefit also needs to be taken into account. SA has the possibility of establishing industries like this, if once again proper planning is done, although I doubt our ANC government has such good foresight.

If you can build one solar plant in 1 year or less, you can parallel build 5 or 6 in one year or less.

i.e. 100MW solar generally takes about 1 year or less to build in South Africa.
Building 500MW solar would still take about 1 year to build. You run 5 phases in parallel.
Wind is even faster to build.

Nuclear or Large Coal generally takes 5-20 years to build.
You can likely build 1 power station in 5-20 years. Or 5 in 10-30 years (as the production capacity for steam containment is limited per year for Nuclear).

Infrastructure to support either takes longer to build, as Eskom is far far behind schedule.
Wind and Solar can be built close to requirements though.

Nuclear has to be built in certain locations, as we don't have adequate water supplies to run it otherwise.
Coal is typically built close to mining vs close to requirements, as shipping the coal to the plant is a major cost.

I'm not in that industry though.

I have been inside a few Nuclear plants though (in Shanghai Qinshan - I toured the inside of the Candu plant, and visited the French one).
Had machine guns pointed at me too the 2nd time we visited!

What is also neglected is the medical industry in france where a lot of sterilization techniques have been developed on the backbone of their industry market. The French often (and rightfully so) brag that every element in the periodic table is used in the nuclear industry in one way or another. A lot of the fuel cycle and plutonium also is being used in the medical industry (and other minerals ) this benefit also needs to be taken into account. SA has the possibility of establishing industries like this, if once again proper planning is done, although I doubt our ANC government has such good foresight.

Sadly I have one word for you on that topic - PBMR...

 

[Nicodeamus]

The only real requirement for nuclear is to build it next to a water source, a river is preferred for the tertiary cooling loop, however in SA we do not have as many rivers as in France hence we build it next to the ocean (which poses some problems with the concrete being subjected to an aggressive environment, however this is not a big issue if you have a proper technologist). If you want to get rid of the horrible looking cooling towers than you can boil the sea water (which is bad for the environment) or educate the publish that it only releases sea water steam and isnt harmful to the environment.

Normally nuclear plants take 5 -6 years to build, however as you pointed out it can be delayed if there are safety issues (this normally occurs with upgrades). AREVA Stipulates 5 years in their regulations (the ETC-C), but with the post fukushima regulations it will most likely be extended to 6 years.

Building 500MW solar would still take about 1 year to build. You run 5 phases in parallel.

running many process in parallel requires some skills and it is often more feasible to do them in series (job retention etc) and also if we do not have the money then it will be done in series. (whether solar or nuclear).

I have been inside a few Nuclear plants though (in Shanghai Qinshan - I toured the inside of the Candu plant, and visited the French one).

Candu is too expensive nowadays, it is a nice technology and very interested, but I dont think they will ever hit their newer generations. China is also considering EPRS and as far as I know AREVA has a few deals going with them. China needs to deal with its C02 emissions as it is currently adding 1 power station per month and I reckon they will go nuclear to address a great deal of it.

 

[itareanlnotani]

The only real requirement for nuclear is to build it next to a water source, a river is preferred for the tertiary cooling loop, however in SA we do not have as many rivers as in France hence we build it next to the ocean (which poses some problems with the concrete being subjected to an aggressive environment, however this is not a big issue if you have a proper technologist). If you want to get rid of the horrible looking cooling towers than you can boil the sea water (which is bad for the environment) or educate the publish that it only releases sea water steam and isnt harmful to the environment.

Normally nuclear plants take 5 -6 years to build, however as you pointed out it can be delayed if there are safety issues (this normally occurs with upgrades). AREVA Stipulates 5 years in their regulations (the ETC-C), but with the post fukushima regulations it will most likely be extended to 6 years.

running many process in parallel requires some skills and it is often more feasible to do them in series (job retention etc) and also if we do not have the money then it will be done in series. (whether solar or nuclear).

Candu is too expensive nowadays, it is a nice technology and very interested, but I dont think they will ever hit their newer generations. China is also considering EPRS and as far as I know AREVA has a few deals going with them. China needs to deal with its C02 emissions as it is currently adding 1 power station per month and I reckon they will go nuclear to address a great deal of it.

China is rapidly adding Wind and Solar. They have massive Hydro capacity already (3 gorges.., been there, floated down the river), and are still adding.

The first half of 2015 saw 5GW added in Hydro alone.
23GW of wind was added in 2014. 2015 was higher (don't have readily available figures to hand though).

Last year the Chinese government committed to 20% of its energy coming from wind, solar, nuclear and other zero-emission sources by 2030. Beijing also says it plans to increase China’s wind power capacity to 200GW by 2020. In comparison, nuclear is only predicted to rise to 58GW over that period.
(from http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/wind-power-taken-china-storm )

Some stats here - http://renewables.seenews.com/news/large-wind-capacity-in-china-nears-105-gw-at-end-june-2015-484453


The world’s biggest producer of carbon emissions is expected at the end of this year to have a total of 120 gigawatts of wind power, 43 gigawatts of solar, and 320 gigawatts of hydro power.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...raise-wind-solar-power-capacity-by-21-in-2016

China does have issues that a lot of generation is far away, but they are investing heavily in HVDC infrastructure in the country.
I've travelled past a few Wind farms in Qinghai and other places nearish in Xinjiang that were effectively offline, as they couldn't use the power locally, and the infrastructure to take it to where demand is hasn't been built yet.

Some details on their HVDC stuff here - http://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/legacy/energize_2012/07_TT_02_A review-of-HVDC.pdf

 

[Nicodeamus]

As I mentioned earlier I am not very keen on classifying hydro as good for the environment given what I saw from the proposal to build a hydroplant in the Zambezi river (which would have powered most of Africa AFAIK). The impact it has on environmental diversity is horrible. China as far as I know only made a pledge to address climate change by 2020 at COP21, whether they will get of coal any time soon is highly unlikely (not to mention that we supply them and most of Europe with coal). It would seem that China wants nuclear as a baseload backup given that they are not going totally nuclear (which is what I am arguing for in this thread). Koeberg remains to be our best maintained station in the country, mainly thanks to strict international regulations governing it.