Part 1 presented a new study that puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
Nuclear plants with such incredibly expensive electricity and “out of control” capital costs, as Time put it, obviously create large risks for utilities, their investors, and, ultimately taxpayers. Congress extended huge loan guarantees to new nukes in 2005, and the American people will be stuck with another huge bill if those plants join the growing rank of troubled assets.
The risk to utilities who start down the new nuke path is also great. A June 2008 report [PDF] by Moody’s Investor Services Global Credit Research, “New Nuclear Generating Capacity: Potential Credit Implications for U.S. Investor Owned Utilities” (PR here [PDF]), warned that “nuclear plant construction poses risks to credit metrics, ratings,” concluding:
The cost and complexity of building a new nuclear power plant could weaken the credit metrics of an electric utility and potentially pressure its credit ratings several years into the project, according to a new report from Moody’s Investors Service ...
Moody’s suggests that a utility that builds a new nuclear power plant may experience an approximately 25% to 30% deterioration in cash-flow-related credit metrics.
And this would likely result in a sharp downgrading of the utility’s credit rating.
The application by Florida Power & Light for a large nuclear plant came in at a stunning $12 to $18 billion, and the utility concedes that new reactors present “unique risks and uncertainties,” with “every six-month delay adding as much as $500 million in interest costs.”
The report Climate Progress published this week, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power [PDF] by power-plant cost expert Craig Severance, has an extended discussion of the business risks to utilities and hence investors:
In its 2003 study “The Future of Nuclear Power”, MIT included a 3% risk premium in its calculations of projected Cost of Capital for nuclear projects, because of the extra business risks projected for nuclear. MIT’s concerns were valid.
Florida Power & Light has stated: “In general, the rating agencies (such as Moody’s Investor Services) view new nuclear construction as a higher risk than other technologies. This view is primarily driven by the long approval and construction process associated with new nuclear construction as well as the size of the capital requirements in relation to the utility as compared to capital requirements for other generation technologies. Rating agencies also recall the difficulties of the 1970’s and 1980’s.”
On June 2nd of this year, Moody’s Investor Services Global Credit Research issued a public Announcement entitled “Moody’s: Nuclear Plant Construction Poses Risks to Credit Metrics, Ratings.” Per the Announcement: “Moody’s examines the effects of a new nuclear facility on the credit metrics of “NukeCo”, a hypothetical electric utility. Through this illustrative model, Moody’s suggests that a utility that builds a new nuclear power plant may experience an approximately 25% to 30% deterioration in cash-flow-related credit metrics. In the case of “NukeCo”, cash flow from operations as a percentage of debt falls from roughly the 25% level to the mid-teens range.”
The Moody’s simulation begins with the fictional utility “well-positioned within the single-A ratings category before building a nuclear plant ...”, however ” ... in years 5-10, when construction costs reach their peak and key credit metrics begin to deteriorate significantly, the fictional company would be better positioned in Baa-rating category.”
In today’s nervous credit climate, downgrading a corporation to a more risky Baa rating (the lowest tier of investment grade debt) may carry serious consequences. Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond Yield: Percent [www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/baa+2], shows that in October 2008, the Baa yield climbed to 8.88 percent, compared to only 7.31 percent in September 2008, the highest relative monthly jump since the table began in 1919, indicating investors have extreme default risk concerns. The fact a Baa bond will have a higher effective interest rate is not even the biggest concern. The very ability to sell downgraded bonds in a credit market already termed “dysfunctional” may be the more critical factor.
The Moody’s Announcement also notes a risk to the shareholders of the utility: “The technology is very costly and complex, and the 10- to 15-year duration of these construction projects can expose a utility to material changes in the political, regulatory, economic and commodity price environments, as well as new alternatives to nuclear generation. These potential changes in the landscape could prompt regulators to disallow certain cost recoveries from ratepayers after a plant is built, or lead to market intervention or restructuring initiatives by elected officials.”
Industry commentators have also noted these financial risks. Nuclear Engineering International noted on 22 August 2008: “Companies that build new nuclear plants will see marked increases in their business and operating risks because of the size and complexity of these projects, the extended time they take to build, and their uncertain final cost and cost recoveries. To the extent that a company develops a financing plan that overly relies on debt financing, which has an effect of reducing the consolidated key financial credit ratios, regardless of the regulatory support associated with current cost recovery mechanisms, there is a reasonably high likelihood that credit ratings will also decline. So `thinking caps’ must now certainly go on amongst US boards of management—credit ratings are important and taking a punt on a new nuclear plant may not be the first priority of a CEO in his late 50s with a distinguished career behind him.”
Severance’s conclusion:
Credit ratings are very important. The prospect that undertaking a single project could have such a major impact on a utility company’s balance sheet and cash flow that company credit ratings would be downgraded, should give pause to any executive, or oversight regulator, contemplating the wisdom of undertaking such a project.
The full study is here [PDF].
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Comments
View as Threaded
Karen Street Posted 9:51 am
08 Jan 2009
Here is my comment from another post:
On the other hand, International Energy Agency (http://www.iea.org/textbase/techno/essentials4.pdf) says, "In the absence of a carbon price, nuclear power costs are comparable with coal- or natural gas-based power at current price, or slightly higher. A carbon price of between $10 and $25/tCO2 makes nuclear power economically competitive." One assumption is an economic lifetime of 25 - 40 years for the plant, though Chu and the other 11 directors of the national labs are suggesting that we look into extending lifetime to 80 years.
Karen Street
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:28 am
08 Jan 2009
I don't have time to grind through all of it, frankly, but there needs to be a good clearinghouse on anti-nuke info...because I have a feeling Karen (and others) can point to some decent pro-nuclear sites with links...although, I may stand corrected on that one too.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:02 pm
08 Jan 2009
Capital Cost
Decommissioning Cost
Waste Cost
Anti-Proliferation Cost
And as of yet, private industry is unwilling to pay those full costs.
_
That said, Hey Romm, if you're looking for a story.
How about how Nuclear Waste creates Pirates:
http://current.com/items/89693421/nuclear_waste_and_the_t ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:18 pm
08 Jan 2009
How about because he writes a detailed report that uses actual numbers, numbers that can be evaluated by other knowledgeable people in the field?
Where are the numerical arguments that point out his mistakes?
Why do we hear nothing but "neiner, neiner, neiner" from the nuclear shills rather than presentations of evidence that Severance is incorrect?
There are a series of studies which show that the cost of new nuclear has moved it past the point of affordable. If those studies are wrong where is the counterargument? The one with real, all-inclusive numbers?
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 2:21 pm
08 Jan 2009
"David apparently did not see my caution (Footnote 51, p. 24) that the Lazard study was a "2007 dollars levelized cost" methodology comparing different technologies. It thus compares well within itself across technologies, but not at all to estimates in nominal dollars. Since the "2007 levelized dollars" are a past year's dollars (and actually, even more different than that since they are life cycle costs), they tend to seem to be estimating a much lower cost than what customers will actually have to pay when the plant opens. The cost projection for first full year of operation presented in my study is clearly stated as nominal dollars"
Its the 5th bullet point, and I think the 19th comment here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-ne ...
Yes, he actually reported future nominal (inflated) numbers, and then justified it by "clearly stating" it in a footnote. And then acts like the Lazard study is abnormal for quoting costs in real terms.
I noted this on Romm's Pt.1, someone should let him know so he can stop embarrassing himself by comparing future nominal prices to current prices (as he did in Part 1 and again here in Part 2).
Max Epstein
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:18 pm
08 Jan 2009
Cheney's big Halliburton run started after buying companies involved in asbestos lawsuits then using political corruption to make the judgements go away.
Why not another run buying up utilities bankrupt from nuclear nightmares?
Instead of allowing this to happen, re-regulation should see utilities in trouble revert to local cooperative ownership with distributed reneweable smart grid technology. All nuclear mistakes will come under taxpayer cleanup anyway. Why let the cheney's of this world cash in on the disaster?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:26 pm
08 Jan 2009
In fact, if you read his work objectively you will find that he has taken pains to use conservative estimates so as not to make the final figure higher than what it might be, best case.
BTW, who do you call yourself on CP? I see no "Max" posting on Pt. 1.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:34 pm
08 Jan 2009
Short of the sort of takeover of the US government by the sorts of Bush, Cheaney, and Delay we are not likely to see massive amounts of taxpayer dollars thrown at nuclear construction. And clearly private money won't even consider 100% financing of new nuclear plants.
At the same time we've got loads of private money flowing into wind and solar, as well as funding startups in other areas such as geothermal.
The market is not always correct or efficient, but it seems to have found a new path toward energy investment. Look for much more green power coming to an outlet near you. And worry less about your community glowing in the dark....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:45 pm
08 Jan 2009
There's a whole new profit picture to robotics like this, it ought to make up for the big drag on GNP of paying for the waste disposal. The robots can be used for 100s of other new uses other than nuclear waste handling.
And renewable smart grids will produce enough extra peak power that can be used to run filters and other systems that clean up radioactive spills from groundwater and soil. Building renewables out to get a sufficient supply will produce lots of extra power when sun, wind, and waves are all driiving the grid at maximum at the same time.
so use the power for waste cleanup, recycling, and especially sea water desalination. Water is the oil of this century. Store the extra power...as valuanle fresh clean water. Drain water cleaned up a biy with renewable energy can be recycled for ittigation, that's green power to make more photosynthesis happen, that in turn sequesters more GHG.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 7:07 pm
08 Jan 2009
"Since the "2007 levelized dollars" [from Lazard's study] are a past year's dollars (and actually, even more different than that since they are life cycle costs), they tend to seem to be estimating a much lower cost than what customers will actually have to pay when the plant opens. The cost projection for first full year of operation presented in my study is clearly stated as nominal dollars"
Bob, the value of money is not the intrinsic value of the paper. Its a medium of exchange. If some commodity were gonna rise in price just with inflation for ten years, would you say it's gonna be 1.03^10 times as expensive ten years from now? Would you say its 2007 price is "much lower than what customers will actually have to pay" (to adapt Severance's quote)? Honestly, calling this an absolutely ridiculous error is the charitable interpretation. If he has any shred of the expertise he's purported to have, the only viable explanation is that he's being disingenuous.
Btw I'm the third comment, titled "Study Author Severance Responds" on Part 1 of this story on grist. I didn't post on CP, Mr. Severance did for me. Just wanted to make sure that explanation of his got over here.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/5/163027/5088
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:46 pm
08 Jan 2009
If so, that's a mistake on Joe's part.
But let's take a look at Severance's numbers with the assumption that they are 2019 numbers. Right now the nuclear industry is pricing new nuclear electricity at around $0.15. Ten years of 3% inflation would drive that number to $0.20, somewhat lower than what Severance calculates.
Severance might be wrong in his final number, but he does something that the industry I don't believe has done. He has laid out the financial model for all to critique. If you find real error in his model then you are best served by presenting what you consider to be a more correct model so that the discussion might be advanced.
To find one problem and then shout from the rooftop that because this "t" is not crossed, that "i" no dotted is not proof that all enclosed is rotten.
Furthermore, if we back Severance's numbers back from 2019 $0.25 - 0.30 we get something in the neighborhood of $0.19 - 0.23.
Fifteen, nineteen, or twenty-three cents per kilowatt hour. Matters not. New nuclear is priced off the table.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:06 am
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:29 am
09 Jan 2009
Karen, that was a brilliant retort :)
What I find the most hilarious is that every criticism that Romm uses (from his reading of Severance article) is applied 10-fold to renewable energy generation : high capital costs, deterioration in cash flow, operating risks blah blah blah..
Probably this criticism is not applicable to energy efficiency measures (and conservation a.k.a starving yourself obviously) but wind, CSP and every other renewable kid gets the same criticism.
What escapes unscathed is natural gas generation (never mind the astronomical fuel costs). There are too many vested interests in keeping the natural gas empire alive - what with the geopolitical games they are playing in Iran, Russia, Central Asia, South America etc..
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:30 am
09 Jan 2009
Given that no one identifies a critical mistake in his calculations I think he's presented a useful tool for decision making. Those with "better" information can take his model and improve on it, if possible. It's certainly better than working from a single number thrown out by an "expert".
All that said, we stand in danger of allowing nuclear shills to talk as if nuclear was the only way to provide greenhouse emission free baseload electricity. We know how to create reliable energy without either fossil or nuclear fuels.
Now the decision becomes basically one of return on investment. And the various projections, including those of the nuclear industry and Severance, give us a good idea that a lot of new nuclear is not part of our energy future.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:35 am
09 Jan 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:39 am
09 Jan 2009
Natural gas gets no particular criticism because everyone recognizes that the fuel costs are very high and obviously NG generation will be avoided as much as possible.
The reason that NG will stay on stage for the foreseeable future is that 1) the plants are relatively cheap and quick to build, 2) NG gas plants can be spun to full speed quite rapidly making them excellent peaking sources, of which we have too few.
Until we further develop storage solutions such as less expensive batteries to carry us through periods of high demand we will continue to call on NG to fill that void.
As soon as we have fast responding storage systems we will drop NG like a hot wrench.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:44 am
09 Jan 2009
I'm not saying nuclear is so important it does all this stuff so lets throw a PTC at it. But it should be properly rewarded for all the services it provides to the grid. As this happens (especially with carbon cost internalized), its hard to find anyone really knowledgeable that would say it still wouldn't be economic.
Max Epstein
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:48 am
09 Jan 2009
Then as renewable smart grid technology takes over, eventually the nuclear plants could be shut down and become waste repositories.
It would be better for the nuclear industry to work on waste neutralizing cleanup reactors that could be moved from site to site, rather than moving the waste. New nuclear power should wait until fusion is a done deal.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 1:02 am
09 Jan 2009
But so back to your point. The thing about France is its part of the European grid. Do they have more power than they need at times (like the night) because all their power is baseload? Sure. But they have more baseload than anyone during the day and make hefty profit for it (such as by selling to "anti-nuc" countries like Germany and Italy who nevertheless import France's electricity). Think of it more like comparative advantage. Its not hard to build (even to site) natural gas plants, so if it were so expensive to buy the power France would build its own.
Nuclear plants generally don't provide spinning reserves because 1) they don't ramp fast enough, and 2) they have so much capital cost that you can't afford not to run them all the time. Natural gas plants obviously have the lowest capital cost, so their cost structure is more aligned for that ancillary service.
What % of the grid could nuclear be? Who knows. More if we stopped bleeding the NRC to death, but that's another issue. As I said above, I would just like to see markets sophisticated enough to reward nuclear for what are currently positive externalities. But that "compensation" would be auctions for well defined services open to any providers. So if large scale battery or flywheel technology (hell, even vastly improved day-ahead wind/sun forecasting) or who knows made the supply of reliability/capacity service abundant and lowered the auction price, and so eliminated whats currently nuclear's heavy comparative advantage, that's fine by me. I would just rather see (well thought through) markets handle this than politicians argue over which one should get how much of a PTC based on who knows what.
Max Epstein
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 1:08 am
09 Jan 2009
(I don't mean to imply capacity payments would ever be the main source of revenue for them, energy markets trump all ancillary services, but ancillary services will play an ever greater role (i.e. pay more revenue) in the future as more renewables come online).
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:27 am
09 Jan 2009
And you really want to say that we couldn't replace coal with a combination of wind, PV solar, thermal solar, etc. and storage?
Give this a read. It's a bit dated now, but the basics hold. Add in thermal solar with storage to carry us through the evening peak demand hours.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/212637/60
There's an actual data-based study that out there somewhere (can't find the link right now) that shows we could get 80% of our power with as little as two hours storage. (Or rapid spin up NG turbines.) The authors used a year of data from multiple wind farms to obtain their figure.
And we are starting to see another source of filling in the gaps - utility controlled load shifting - that will decrease the "reliability" problem.
For example, as more large buildings begin to use "stored cold" at night to cut AC electrical usage during the day then the ability to turn off those nighttime cooling units becomes one way to shift load. It doesn't matter a lot exactly when you make huge blocks of ice at night, just a long as you get the job done before the day heats up.
Finally, add geothermal to the mix. That's 24/7 power that will greatly contribute to the reliable baseload and should be significantly less expensive than nuclear.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
09 Jan 2009
They have been the best at nuclear, and still on hot summer days with peak load, drought causes plants to shut down. Leading to an infamous heat wave related disaster a few years ago.
It relies on water, that makes it unreliable. And a 100% baseload grid is too inflexible to adjust to climate change related peaks. A renewable smart grid adjusts load by doing high energy cooling/heating during low demand and high supply, the heat or cold is stored in building mass or appliances.
Additionally, even though they hace excelled at nuclear fission, they still do not have waste neutralizing technology, and are aiming at fusion to replace fission. So maybe we could take a hint from them and go for fusion? And try to build waste treatment reactors, hopefully portable every few years?
I'm trying to compromise on nuclear power, being staunchly anti-nuclear myself. The reality of all that waste needs to be addressed. And fusion looks like it will actually work. I heard recently that some waste will come from fusion in the form of gighly radioactive worn out reactor parts.
The need for waste treatment will still be there, so some sort of 4th or 5th generation fast neutron nuclear "garbage digestor" needs to be invented. And robotics to cut up and dismantle old reactors and storage sites and feed the stuff into the waste processor.
I think you meant to reply to "Jon"? Anyway there's my two cents.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:29 am
09 Jan 2009
The whole problem with the electric grid, it seems to me, or at least a big problem, is that the markets are very bad at predicting what to do in the face of looming shortages (such as oil, but also natural gas and even coal), and also in the face of climate change, obviously, so there's going to have to be some form of planning -- and remember, the French system is government-owned.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 1:39 am
09 Jan 2009
Dr. X, I never proposed we go 100% baseload. If you instituted the kind of markets with different ancillary services properly valued I'm talking about (which to a large extent already exist in places, I don't think people realize how smart some of the grids already are) you couldn't have one technology hegemony like that.
John, the electricity and oil markets operate a bit differently. Since most retail rates are still regulated and don't efficiently reflect wholesale rates, a shortage can't spike prices high enough to curtail use, so would actually result in the lights failing to turn on. So the grid operators do a lot more advanced planning than the oil companies, who benefit from a shortage. Your point could very well translate to the natural gas market though, which significantly affects the electricity market being the marginal (and so price-setting) fuel source in most markets at most times.
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:40 am
09 Jan 2009
It's coal that we most need to shut down. Thus the argument over which route to follow, more nuclear or renewables. When we look at both cost and time to solution nuclear comes up short.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:47 am
09 Jan 2009
What does that mean exactly - "priced properly"?
Everything that I read, including nuclear industry numbers say that nuclear is expensive and will only get more so.
Coal, properly priced, would be a lot more expensive than it currently is. If we included a reasonable carbon and health-problems-created charge we would most likely get very serious about getting rid of coal.
Wind is currently competitive with coal even with no carbon/health costs included. And wind stands to become even cheaper.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:51 am
09 Jan 2009
Nuclear waste from fission is of two types. Actinides and fission products. Actinides decay slowly and thus are radioactive for thousand years or higher. Fission products decay rapidly, in a span of 100 to 300 years. Both these emit high energy radiation, which is deadly for atleast the first couple of decades.
Now the waste-processing nuclear reactors of the 4th generation produce no actinides, but only fission products. This means they need no long term storage of radio-active waste (such as yucca mountain) but they need short-term storage nevertheless.
With fusion, the situation is similar to the 4th generation fission reactors. The fusion products are radioactive only for a few hundred years. But in the short term, they too need to be stored carefully. What is more significant is that the fusion reactor containment material would be bombarded by high energy particles and would be unusable in a matter of decades. This has to be replaced thus making fusion, as it stands now, very unappealing economically. It is not the problem of storing radioactive waste. Well, this is all assuming fusion actually works with a positive EROEI, which isn't yet demonstrated in practice.
All your guys' criticism on nuclear power is riddled with errors like this. Prejudice is not a substitute for knowledge.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:20 am
09 Jan 2009
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 2:22 am
09 Jan 2009
The pro-nuclear people help with the facts. Bob helps with his tone--I've heard from people who changed their mind that the tone of the anti-nuclear power side is a powerful contributing factor. I want to thank Joe for failing to answer questions that many will see as legitimate: why did he not go with analysis from groups like International Energy Agency, which is highly respected by groups such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and instead use the analysis of Craig Severance, who lists his expertise as CPA, and who does not submit his thinking to peer review?
My question for Joe Romm, again, is how do you pick the sources you rely on? It's not possible for most of us to understand the wide range of issues involved in choosing among various energy technologies, so it's important to use sources we can rely on. A more wide-ranging discussion of how we choose sources is important, and I hope you can find time to devote a post to this subject. If it will help, I can start the discussion.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 2:59 am
09 Jan 2009
Since so far our electricity industry has been based on dispatchable fuel-based (fossil and nuclear, and adjustable hydro) sources, the price of a kwh has come to be seen as the ultimate barometer of value to the grid. But for variable-output sources to achieve high grid penetrations, the grid must be able to store and balance energy to smooth out the stochastic production.
The less reliable/dispatchable "baseload" like nuclear the more you need. And it will also have to compensate not only this "balancing" (or regulating/spinning reserves, as they're called) but also will always have some demand for steady baseload power, unless storage costs became completely trivial. This demand for reliable dispatchable power will tend to be met by instituting "capacity payments/auctions," to pay companies that can promise do deliver a certain amount of electricity (or pay the spot price to fulfill their obligations), so the grid operator can meet NERC reliability standards.
Max Epstein
Permalink
anyone Posted 3:39 am
09 Jan 2009
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
Thinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.
http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
http://www.ausra.com/
HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of €70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).
http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...
Not to mention geothermal, biomass, tidal and most importantly: efficiency.
China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...
Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: Efficiency
However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom to promote nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:11 am
09 Jan 2009
Since then, we've moved the ball maybe an inch towards the goal line.
Fusion is likely to prove to be the alchemy of the modern industrial age--the irresistible lure that consumes centuries of work on an ultimately futile quest. It's quite likely that the world will not be able to continue funding for fusion research must longer; every ITERation (a little joke) makes the price of poker climb exponentially.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I am certainly not wrong when I say that nothing will get done on fusion in time to avert climate disaster; meanwhile, the money being spent on fusion would be better spent on building zero-supplied energy buildings.
Read "Sun in a Bottle" for a good non-techie explanation of the problem.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:13 am
09 Jan 2009
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=2-97806700203 ...
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:19 am
09 Jan 2009
Windpower: lifetime employment. Not for its anonymous advocates, of course.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
Permalink
anyone Posted 5:44 am
09 Jan 2009
Speaking of efficiency: Even though Germany has the same living standard as the US and Germany does still subsidize coal, CO2 emissions per capita are almost doubled in the US.
But then again an American fell and died once while insulating the roof. Investment in efficiency can thus not be an option for the US.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.h ...
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DE-enemc.h ...
Permalink
anyone Posted 5:46 am
09 Jan 2009
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 10:14 am
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:52 am
09 Jan 2009
Nuclear, not safe and not clean and certainly not inexpensive.
Max, let me ask you to try something. Put on a new pair of shoes, those of a grid manager who has the task of getting coal out of the mix ASAP. Say within 10 years.
Operate as if there is a physical impossibility of bringing any new nuclear on line for at least two decades.
Now, how would you design a system that provided ample reliable power?
If you need a starting point you could begin with Gar's blog that I linked above and with the excellent links provided by "anyone" a few posts higher.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 2:06 pm
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:29 pm
09 Jan 2009
Gar's is a vision of where we might go, not a detailed plan to fix everything right now. The point in presenting it is to demonstrate that we could get from here to a fossil fuel/nuclear free future.
No one is suggesting a radical instantaneous overhaul of the grid. What will happen is what is happening and what has always happened. We will make incremental changes, making the occasional mistake, and learning as we go.
We are bringing wind on line at a increasing rate that will soon equal 1% of total energy per year additions. We are making the first moves to the smart grid. We are starting to use load shifting to reduce our peak extremes and to utilize less expensive nighttime wind energy. We are capturing waste heat, turning it to electricity, and feeding it back to the grid. We are drilling hot rock and wet rock geothermal holes and adding that power into the mix. We've got additional solar thermal being constructed. We're building new CAES and pump-storage to help with peak smoothing.
All this stuff is happening right now. A few of them go bust along the way as we learn how to do it right. But at some point we reach a point of development as we have with wind where installation accelerates and each (most likely) becomes a major supply source.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:02 pm
09 Jan 2009
That's right, exactly why I started pushing compromise. Why do very few nuclear advocates care to even consider any compromise?
My idea is to nix any building of older style nuclear plants, and support research on a new generatiion of reactors that can neutralize waste, onsite with no transportation of the waste to repositories.
Despite the misgivings of many pro and anti-nuclear people about fusion, I also support R&D on fusion rather than trying to rely on fission for large scale power production. Present plants should be kept going except the already leaking ones or those built on earthquake fault lines.
Once coal plants have been shut down by renewable energy and conservation, the next target for shut down would be the oldest nuclear plants.
I think this is reasonable, it lets the industry work on waste neutralizing fission reactors, keep present plants going, and continue to pursue fusion. It's a responsible compromise.
So tell me why all I am hearing from nuclear proponents is that they won't admit any problems with existing nuclear power, and they want to keep on building them even in the face of massive investor and consumer opposition?
Which side is being unreasonable? Which side will turn off voters with their uncompromising attitude?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
anyone Posted 6:33 pm
09 Jan 2009
A single Chinese company has already reached a yearly production capacity of 1 GW of modules to harness the power of that fusion reactor.
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=1 ...
Future roofs will not only protect from rain and wind, they will also harness fusion power and thus reduce the load on the grid.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:28 pm
09 Jan 2009
Permalink
anyone Posted 4:41 am
10 Jan 2009
and they also plan to reach an output of 2 GW on a single production facility by the end of 2010.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA192.htm
It takes less time to build a 1 GW PV fab than to build a single 1 GW power plant.
Semiconductor companies such as Oerlikon and Applied Materials deliver turn key highly automated thinfilm PV fabs:
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_v ...
A modern thinfilm PV fab costs less than $2000/kW (yearly capacity).
http://www.oerlikon.com/ecomaXL/index.php?site=SOLAR_EN_p ...
(And the fab costs are the major costs of the modules, as the substrates (glass) are relatively inexpensive).
The vehicle industry sells almost 10 Million cars per year in the US alone.
If the PV market would only manage to sell 10 times less PV systems with 10 kW on average, that would already lead to 10 GW per year.
More importantly: Spain installed 2.5 GW of PV in 2008 alone. And the US has a population which is almost 8 times larger than Spain and the US has over 20 times more area and areas with more sun irradiation than Spain.
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/articles/pv/bus_news/ ...
Permalink
anyone Posted 5:27 am
10 Jan 2009
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 8:26 am
10 Jan 2009
Bob, please point out affordable commercial sized plants running at 90% of data plate rating all year round. Why aren't we building these by the hundreds?
France actually has too large a percentage of nuclear, that sometimes they have to export cheaply because they have too much power,
Denmark has ramped up to a whopping 150 watts / person of wind power, 10% of U.S. consumption rate, and they export half at firesale prices when the wind is blowing. They import nuclear and hydro when wind is calm. They have the most expensivde electricity in the world, 40 cents/ kWh.
Then as renewable smart grid technology takes over, eventually the nuclear plants could be shut down and become waste repositories.
There are two levels of smart grid upgrade.
1... Stage 1. Add smart technology to existing conductors.
2... Stage 2. Stage1 plus construction of massive network of long distance high capacity transmission lines.
Stage 2 is vastly more expensive than Stage 1, and is only necessary if we try to incorporate large amounts of wind and solar. The added cost of Stage 2 should be rolled entirely into the cost of the wind and solar plants served, which would show them to be largely impractical, but wind and solar buffs want the cost spread out over all kWh's.
I like Stage 1 because it lets people know what the cost of electricity is in real time. That results in more realistic use of energy, for example if kWh's are 10 cents at night and 60 cents on peak consumers might make ice at night for cooling at peak times, true for industry as well as homes. The effect can be to lower average kWh cost.
Smart grid technology can smooth out the loads reducing peak power substantially, so that existing transmission capacity is sufficient in most locations, but not if we build massive wind and solar in the west and southwest.
Nuclear plants are close to load centers with short transmission lines that operate at high capacity factors. Applying smart grid with nuclear means relatively little new conductor capacity is needed.
Smart grid technology will help nuclear by leveling the load and raising nighttime electricity prices, allowing new nuclear plants to supply 80% or more with baseload plants.
Renewables like wind and solar will need lots of new transmission line construction. They will operate at low capacity factors, even with smart grid technology.
Power lines serving wind farms will be loaded at an average capacity factor around 0.3 while power lines from nuclear plants will be loaded at about 0.9 CF. the owners of lines serving windfarms will have to charge 2-3 times the nuclear plant rate/kw-mi. The average distance traveled for wind kWh's from Oklahoma going to the east coast, vs. nearby nuclear plants, would be over 1000 mi / 50 miles, 20:1, so the ratio of wind transmission cost to nuclear transmission cost would be 2.5 x 20 = 50:1.
That's right, exactly why I started pushing compromise. Why do very few nuclear advocates care to even consider any compromise?
My recommendation is maximum R&D, level playing field, choose whatever is best.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/5/132847/2209/#co ...
Why doesn't everybody support this plan?
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
anyone Posted 10:41 am
10 Jan 2009
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/m ...
electricity prices in Denmark are:
Industry: 7cents/kWh
Households: 10cents/kWh
150W is whooping? At costs of about $1400/kW windpower that would correspond to roughly $10 capital investment per Danish person per year over the lifetime of a wind turbine (10 apple pies). But far more importantly: Denmark exports over 90% of its wind turbines with profit in a market with a double digit growth (as opposed to nuclear power). (So, many more apple pies in return).
Also, Denmark has over 50% flexible co-generation plants installed, which - as opposed to nuclear power plants - can quickly reduce or increase their power as needed.
And the average Danish person emits about half the CO2 per capita then the average American even though the living standard is about the same.
HVDC transmission lines cost €70/kW and 1000km.
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...
New nuclear power plants cost $8000/kW?
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is higher anyway.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm
And even if gas power plants are built as back up power: Since their capital costs are 10 times lower than a nuclear power plant, they can reduce CO2 emissions if the money saved is invested in efficiency. http://tinyurl.com/NEI-article There's no reason to use natural gas to heat badly insulated houses, when it can be used to generate electricity.
Besides: As opposed to the nuclear energy proponents, the wind energy proponents never suggest that wind is always the best option in any case.
And as opposed to nuclear power plants, houses covered with PV-panels do reduce the load on the grid. Not only because they are distributed, but also because they never produce power at night when there is little need for electricity. But then again they do produce power when air conditioners are at full load.
And there's no reason to continue to invest massive sums into government funded nuclear research over several decades, when solutions to produce and use electricity in a clean and efficient manner do exist already.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:40 pm
10 Jan 2009
Average output is about 33% of nameplate. And average output wind generated electricity sells for around $0.075 kWh.
What we need to look at in terms of deciding on where to invest our future energy dollars is 1) price, 2) time to bring on line, 3) carbon footprint, and 4) public safety.
Wind comes in far advance in front of nuclear in all four categories. (Not that we would build an all-wind system.)
---
Denmark may have stranded wind at this time. Europe does not yet have its unifying HVDC grid in place. Once the European grid is complete Denmark will supply wind when it's windy, North Africa, Spain and Portugal will supply solar when it's sunny, Sweden will supply storage, etc.
And France will supply nuclear as it kicks itself in the butt for creating huge messes which will harm the country for decades to centuries.
We have a similar problem with stranded wind now in West Texas. Because the grid is not capable of delivering surplus nighttime electricity to parts of the country that could use it wind farm operators are at times paying utility companies to use their power. They are basically sharing the subsidies with them rather than shutting the turbines down.
We will build HVDC lines to connect the country. We've already got the upper western corner connected to the lower western corner - the Pacific Intertie - which transports hydro power from the Northwest to Southern California.
We need to get serious about a line from the Texas wind farms into the midwest and another from the very windy Great Plains to connect up and bring cheap power to the population centers of the Northeast. This is the national freeway system of the 21st Century.
(Where's Ike when we need him? Oh, yeah, somebody just as good or better is taking office in a week or so. ;o)
--
Oh, and if you want to level the playing field, I'm all for that.
Require all nuclear plants, including existing ones to take out private insurance policies that would fully cover a Chernobyl meltdown or groundwater contaminating spill.
Deny government loan guarantees for new nuclear construction. Let them pay full price for their very risky loans rather than having the taxpayer cover their butts.
Put a tax on imported petroleum that pays the military costs for keeping our pipelines open.
Put a tax on coal that covers the health and environmental damage caused. All the damage.
Along with making the cost of each source of electricity accurate make adequate money available for continued research in all areas of energy production, including nuclear.
Create startup assistance programs for promising new sources. Right now dry rock geothermal is very promising. It's 24/365 power which can be installed close to use and has a very small carbon footprint (close to zero).
Make the assistance long term so that new technologies don't get jerked around as has been done with the wind industry.
I can live with all that as opposed to the pouring money down a rat hole as we now do with nuclear, coal and petroleum.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:57 pm
10 Jan 2009
Max: I wish that sardonic line weren't so true. It's been the realistic perspective for decades now.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:39 pm
10 Jan 2009
Industry: 7cents/kWh
Households: 10cents/kWh
Anyone, thanks for the excellent reference. According to your reference, Page 72;
Denmark residential electricity cost in 2007 was 25.79 euro/100kwh.
25.79 Euros = 34.839711 U.S. dollars, so 35 cents per kWh, not 10.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-0 ...
According to EIA;
Residential electricity cost 2006, Denmark, 32.2 cents/kWh, France, 14.4 cents/kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
From your reference. "Electricity generation of nuclear plants in Europe increased faster than their capacity. Electricity generation, increased by 13%, while the nuclear capacity (data plate) increased by 5%".
150W is whooping?
Denmark produced 6193 kWh / person in Denmark in 2005. Page 66 of your reference.
6193 kWh / 365 days/yr / 24 hrs/day = 707 watts / person, less than half the U.S. rate. Wind is about 20% of this, so 141 watts/person. Sorry I overestimated Denmark's wind power.
Denmark has gone from a net exporter of 794 GWH in 1995 to importing 1,369 GWH in 2005. After 30 years of pushing wind with huge subsidies the trend is in the wrong direction. Page 40 of your reference.
Denmark released 34% more CO2 per person than France, 11.8 tons of CO2 equivalent / person vs. France at 8.8, page 138 of your reference.
Denmark blew its Kyoto Protocol commitment for 2008-12, France exceeded its commitment, page 141 of your reference.
And average output wind generated electricity sells for around $0.075 kWh.
Unreliable unpredictable kWh's that go down like a dead duck during a heat wave or cold snap are not worth much.
Because the grid is not capable of delivering surplus nighttime electricity to parts of the country that could use it wind farm operators are at times paying utility companies to use their power.
Is the cost of those long distance transmission lines and backup plants and carbon taxes on the backup plants included in that price you quoted?
Require all nuclear plants, including existing ones to take out private insurance policies that would fully cover a Chernobyl meltdown or groundwater contaminating spill.
the plants are designed to contain a meltdown.
http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/EPR/U.S.EPRbroch ...
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:53 pm
10 Jan 2009
Then it should be no big deal for nuclear plants to take out an all-inclusive insurance policy rather than having the taxpayers cover their rear ends, right?
Permalink
anyone Posted 6:44 pm
10 Jan 2009
Also, according to following reference: Industrial consumers in Denmark pay 8.01 cents/kWh while industrial consumers in Belgium with over 55% nuclear power pay 9.96 cents/kWh.: http://tinyurl.com/EU-elecricity
More importantly: Denmark still exports over 90% of its wind turbines with profit in a market with a double digit growth (as opposed to nuclear power which does neither). http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKLV55678920081231 ...
France has less CO2 emissions per capita then Denmark. But that simply doesn't change the fact that if the US wanted to half its CO2 output per capita as soon as possible, it can hardly reach this goal by heavily investing tax-money in nuclear power.
If it invested the same amount in wind, co-generation plants and efficiency, it would not only get there in less time but by far outperform nuclear power concerning the total CO2-reduction.
http://tinyurl.com/NEI-article
The question is not: How can the US promote nuclear power no matter what. The question is, how can the US reduce its CO2 emissions as fast as possible and affordably.
Permalink
anyone Posted 6:55 pm
10 Jan 2009
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-0 ...
Industrial electricity prices (2007):
Denmark: 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:21 pm
10 Jan 2009
"The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable baseload electric power."
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/wind ...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:11 pm
10 Jan 2009
Big difference, obviously. Industrial users' price possibly affected by load-shedding agreements as well as the tax value?
But the larger point is that Denmark's high retail costs for electricity do not seem to preclude the Danes enjoying a very high standard of living. So perhaps we should not be so concerned which options will give us the cheapest energy in twenty or thirty years but rather which will give us the best quality of life. I'm not making a pro-nuclear or pro-anything point here, rather that high retail energy costs are not the central problem we should be worrying about. Quite the contrary in fact. Higher energy costs = fewer stupid energy uses = (whatever the source) less overall environmental degradation and abuse.
[I'll just leave a space here for someone (Bob?) to sternly inform me that high energy prices are not politically acceptable to the godalmighty american public]
Then I'll just say that we've often been warned that we cannot increase energy taxes here because higher gas prices would wreck the US economy. Last summer and fall gave the lie to that argument. Something else entirely did the job.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
anyone Posted 11:54 pm
10 Jan 2009
Besides, compared to what people in developed cities pay for rent, electricity prices are not even worth to be mentioned.
But these are still no reasons, to claim that wind energy is expensive and may have a huge impact on electricity prices, when this is simply wrong:
As an other example: The feed-in-tariffs in Spain were 7.3 cents/kWh (2007) for wind-power. At these prices, the windturbine producer and installer still have to be able to pay the connection to the grid, pay for maintenance, pay for land-use, pay the loan-interests, pay insurance, pay taxes and make a profit, otherwise there would simply not be one single windturbine in Spain.
http://www.epuron.de/Portaldata/1/Resources/05_press/news ...
(Spain had 15.5 GW windpower as of Jan 2008).
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:58 pm
10 Jan 2009
To bring those other people along we probably need to do a couple of things: 1) better educate them what seems to be happening, what it could lead to, and how to avoid it, and 2) give them the easiest possible ways to lower their carbon footprint.
Require them to give up their cars, pay an extremely higher utility bill, or live on tofu and alfalfa sprouts and suffer defeat.
(Perhaps you missed the point above that high utility taxes replace at least portions of income taxes. You might sell a similar package to US voters, but I doubt that you can sell them on higher utility bills without a significant sweetener.)
Permalink
anyone Posted 12:04 am
11 Jan 2009
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:34 am
11 Jan 2009
My great respect for the particular realities of the american political process does not extend to the belief that it is more powerful or more important than the physical realities of the planet we inhabit. I have a strong interest in examining the point at which those two realities intersect - who here does not? But I personally have no time for claims that the former always trumps or has equal value to the latter as the Titanic of human preference rapidly closes in on the iceberg of climate change.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:42 am
11 Jan 2009
Please explain to me how we make the American people drastically change their lifestyles if those changes are found by them to be significantly painful.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:24 am
11 Jan 2009
WE don't. WE never stood a chance of making "the american people" change their behavior about anything. Heck, I couldn't even get just one teenage daughter to seek out a better class of boyfriend. Growing up and learning a little about the world's actual realities rather than her own solipsistic view of it did the trick though.
The looming iceberg gets more visible every day.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:59 am
11 Jan 2009
Americans change their behavior all the time. Often in subtle ways that aren't so apparent to them except in retrospect.
The secret to lower the average carbon footprint is to get it done "out of sight". Forget about head-to-head battles unless you control the largest army and are willing to shoot.
The biggest need right now it to shut down coal burning. We know how to create clean electricity for about the same price as coal (actually cheaper than coal if all cost were paid). Americans won't particularly notice if coal plants are replaced by wind mills. Except for those who get decent jobs building and installing those turbines.
The next big need is to cut consumption. Easy enough (now that we have a working government) to pass some more energy standards. The computer on which I am typing right now pulls 14 watts. Hooked up to a decent sized LCD monitor it would be something like 50 watts. My old desktop pulled over 125 watts without the monitor on, well over 200 with the monitor. Require lower power draw for all new computer sales and give hefty rebates for CRT turn-ins.
Then we need to get our petroleum use way down. Give a rebate for PHEVs that makes their price equal to a same-sized/feature ICE vehicle. Get the manufacturing rate up for battery packs and the cost will drop to where we won't need rebates.
All of this would probably be paid for by health care and military savings along with additional income tax from folks back to work.
People would not notice that their power now comes from renewables, they would appreciate their lower power bills, and they would enjoy their new zippy quite cars.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:05 am
11 Jan 2009
The way I read it the 3 to 6.4 cent per kWh price seems to be the wholesale price and not the price of generation.
The wholesale price would include subsidies (lowering the price) and profits (raising the price) and might even be influenced the price from other sources. (A lot of inexpensive hydro could deflate the price.)
What's your take?
Permalink
anyone Posted 3:55 am
11 Jan 2009
But just to get a ballpark figure:
The average capital costs of the wind turbines were $1480/kW (2006).
At a capacity factor of 49% that corresponds to 1.7 cents per kWh over 20 years (without interest)
At a capacity factor of 23% that corresponds to 3.7 cents per kWh over 20 years (without interest).
Thus, producing wind electricity below 6.4 cents/kWh sounds plausible even without incentives.
And since the wind conditions in the US are generally better than in Europe I would also expect wind costs to be lower than in Europe.
Since the commodity prices (mainly copper and steel) went down, I would assume that the capital costs of wind turbines were also reduced somewhat.
And regarding lifestyle:
I had to work in the US (New England) for a couple of years. No offense, but I really do not understand why many Americans enjoy living in badly insulated houses. Example: One needs to buy film at the Home Depot to sort of reduce the draft due to the awful windows. They don't sell 'anti-draft-film' in central Europe, because windows that don't shut do not exist in the first place. Yes, government here has set tough standards regarding insulation. Does it reduce my quality of life? No, on the contrary. I actually enjoy the fact that I don't freeze and my heating bill is still much lower.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:01 am
11 Jan 2009
Some people present Price Anderson insurance as a nuclear subsidy. Price-Anderson is not a nuclear power subsidy, it is a handicap that does far more harm than good. I support the repeal of Price-Anderson and treating nuclear power like all other industries.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/8/12426/33737/#co ...
More importantly: Denmark still exports over 90% of its wind turbines with profit in a market with a double digit growth
Many countries have been duped into thinking wind can solve their problem and Denmark is making money on their ignorance. I am sorry to see it happen to the U.S.
France has less CO2 emissions per capita then Denmark. But that simply doesn't change the fact that if the US wanted to half its CO2 output per capita as soon as possible, it can hardly reach this goal by heavily investing tax-money in nuclear power. ..
The question is, how can the US reduce its CO2 emissions as fast as possible and affordably.
Where nuclear power has been built on a large scale, CO2 has gone down. Not so for wind and solar.
"The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable baseload electric power."
This is a deeply flawed paper. I submitted a review comment to the journal in February 2008 pointing out its many flaws. The journal [JMAC] is dragging out the review process. When it is published you will have an opportunity to comment on it.
The biggest need right now it to shut down coal burning. We know how to create clean electricity for about the same price as coal (actually cheaper than coal if all cost were paid). Americans won't particularly notice if coal plants are replaced by wind mills. Except for those who get decent jobs building and installing those turbines.
You keep repeating this, so I will keep asking. Which countries have dramatically reduced CO2 output at an affordable cost, including all externalities and subsidies, using windmills and solar?
Get the manufacturing rate up for battery packs and the cost will drop to where we won't need rebates.
I agree. Get the manufacturing rate up for nuclear power plants and the cost will drop to where we won't need loan guarantees.
One of our biggest and least known mistakes was allowing Offshore Power Systems to close.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
anyone Posted 5:52 am
11 Jan 2009
You mean like the US, which is still No. 1 as far as nuclear power is concerned and still has very high CO2 emission per capita.
Why has the US, more than double the CO2 emissions compared to Austria without nuclear power?
And why has Belgium with 55% nuclear power significantly more CO2 emissions per capita then Austria without nuclear power?
Which countries have dramatically reduced CO2 output at an affordable cost, including all externalities and subsidies, using windmills and solar?
Even though China has no subsidies for solar collectors and strongly supports nuclear power, it has almost 10 times more solar hot water capacity then nuclear capacity installed.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
And even though China produces the consumer goods for the world, it has 8 times less CO2 emissions per capita then the US.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CN-enemc.h ...
I agree. Get the manufacturing rate up for nuclear power plants and the cost will drop to where we won't need loan guarantees.
After almost 60 years of massive nuclear power subsidies, nuclear should be able to walk on its own feet by now. And government institutions to promote nuclear energy such as IAEA and Euratom are not needed either.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ...
Many countries have been duped into thinking wind can solve their problem and Denmark is making money on their ignorance. I am sorry to see it happen to the U.S.
If nuclear power is so much better, why ain't you rich?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:18 pm
11 Jan 2009
"This is a deeply flawed paper. I submitted a review comment to the journal in February 2008 pointing out its many flaws. The journal [JMAC] is dragging out the review process. When it is published you will have an opportunity to comment on it."
Stanford News Service says...
"The findings are published in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology."
Looks like someone didn't take your criticisms seriously....
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:23 am
12 Jan 2009
the U.S. has not built new plants for a long time, and Austria is more than 50% hydro.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COU ...
The U.S. completed 5 plants a year for 20 years at a time when fossil fuel was abundant and cheap, and most people had not heard of global warming. Had we continued doing that we would be in much better shape.
And why has Belgium with 55% nuclear power significantly more CO2 emissions per capita then Austria without nuclear power?
Belgum does not have massive hydro and has not built new nuclear for some time.
Again, "Which countries have dramatically reduced CO2 output at an affordable cost, including all externalities and subsidies, using windmills and solar?" Not hydro.
And even though China produces the consumer goods for the world, it has 8 times less CO2 emissions per capita then the US.
So, we should all aspire to the lifestyle of the average Chinese citizen? Lead the way by your example anyone. First get rid of your computer.
Why do they work their tails off to live more like us?
After almost 60 years of massive nuclear power subsidies, nuclear should be able to walk on its own feet by now.
Taxes and fees generated by nuclear power far exceed subsidies, not so for wind and solar. When energy prices are leveled including all externalities and nuclear plant construction is streamlined, nuclear will do very well with no subsidies.
If nuclear power is so much better, why ain't you rich?
What makes you think I am not?
Looks like someone didn't take your criticisms seriously....
That is true, but it does not prove that the comment is not serious. The review process is ongoing.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:57 pm
12 Jan 2009
Now, as with any other discovery, we are best advised to wait for collaborating evidence before taking action which might be costly.
But given that this study consisted of simply taking data collected by others and verified by a third party, then cranking that data through a statistical analysis, I suspect the authors are pretty close to reality. This is not the sort of study where a unknown variable is likely to be controlling the data.
So let's get back to ground zero. There's a heck of available wind energy to be harvested at 80 meters in the air. A sizable portion (~35%) of output from connected wind farms can be depended on for 100% reliable 24/365 power. The cost of generated wind energy is roughly a nickel per kWh (that's without including subsidies).
With conservation, load shifting, and increasing storage we could could probably get by with a 2x overbuild of wind and then use that extra electricity for inexpensive vehicle power.
We need to replace coal generated electricity ASAP for the sake of the planet.
We can't quickly replace coal with nuclear. It would take multiple decades.
We can't bring new nuclear energy to market as cheaply as wind.
With wind we don't have the same safety and waste disposal issues that we have with nuclear.
Permalink