Comments David Bradish has made

  • Bob, you said further up in a comment thread that: By 1977 the US had started walking away from nuclear as a source of affordable energy. It had become obvious that nuclear was an idea that wasn't going to work. Not true. The main reason why utilities canceled many nuclear plants was because of a decline in electricity demand which was initially projected at around 10% per year in the '70s. Source is from an EIA document titled Costs, Causes and Consequences of Nuclear Plant Cancellations. Many coal plants were canceled as well. You also said: We abandoned something like 100 nuclear projects around then. Taxpayers got stuck for millions of dollars for defaulted loans that had been guaranteed by the government. You're either making this up or you're confusing taxpayers with ratepayers. Loans to build the first 100+ nuclear plants were NOT guaranteed by the government therefore taxpayers did not get "stuck for millions of dollars for defaulted loans." And then you said this: accepting risk has a cost. That's just basic Finance 101 Utilities will be paying for that cost in order to receive a loan guarantee, it's called the credit subsidy cost.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks ago 164 Responses
  • if you have read Lovins or Severance, can you point out significant factual errors? There are tons of significant factual errors with both of their analyses.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 164 Responses
  • KC Golden, thanks for bringing up an issue that obviously needs clarification here. The primary initiative NEI is proposing is to create a permanent financing platform (the Clean Energy Deployment Administration) to provide loans, loan guarantees and other credit support to all clean energy technologies, not just new nuclear plants. As well, loan guarantees aren't "lavish subsidies." A subsidy is when the federal government makes a payment to a private party. The energy loan guarantee program works the other way around. The private parties make payments to the federal government in order to receive the loan guarantees. That’s not a subsidy. A well-managed program shouldn't cost taxpayers anything. NEI doesn't take sides on which climate change proposals we should endorse because there are a number of them that could all work. Our policy goal is to have the federal government recognize that a credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, and that nuclear energy is part of that portfolio. Here's the situation with the electric industry. Between now and 2030, the electric industry must invest between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in new generating capacity, new T&D, energy efficiency and demand response technologies. Electric power companies are fairly small companies that don't all have the strength to finance large, capital intensive projects like nuclear plants, while simultaneously building other projects like renewables and T&D. Thus the purpose of loan guarantees. Currently, the majority of loan guarantee volume goes to renewables which were provided in the Omnibus and ARRA bills that passed earlier this year which NEI added up. If you didn't already know, the solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and geothermal trade groups have been working together to get the loan guarantee program moving which has been slow in the federal bureaucracy. To me, I don't know how you get any more fair than proposing a platform to help finance all emission-free technologies or propose the same production tax credits that already exist with other clean technologies like wind and solar. David Bradish NEIOn New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 4 Responses
  • I don't think that it's a silver bullet any more than PV is a silver bullet I'm not here claiming nuclear is a silver bullet either. It certainly isn't perfect. I'm just here to challenge the conventional thinking that nuclear is bad and renewables are oh so good. If our goal is to subsidize some technologies at the expense of others, then let us be absolutely clear about why that technology-specific subsidy is justified. The main subsidy the nuclear industry is asking for are loan guarantees. Much of the reasons why nuclear plant costs increased in the '80s was due to licensing delays and regulatory uncertainty from the NRC. Since much of the risk in building new plants lies with the federal regulator, it's not much to ask that the federal government bear some of the risk. Here's from our link that explains more: The loan guarantee program is self-funded through loan guarantee fees charged to participants. A well-managed loan guarantee program will cost the taxpayers nothing, but will create significant value by increasing the country's energy supply and reducing emissions. Renewables currently have more loan guarantee volume at their disposal than nuclear. NEI added it up.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 164 Responses
  • If you're opposed to nuke, take your victories where they lie: namely, no new nuclear construction in this country in 3 decades of any consequence; holding steady at ~100 GW of installed capacity, with additions just keeping pace with retirements. And in those three decades, nuclear's capacity factor increased from the mid-50s to over 90 percent today. More electricity per plant on average comes from nuclear than any other source. As well, US nuclear plants have been able to supply about 20% of the US' electricity since the late '80s by keeping up with electricity demand. You call it lobbying, I call it presenting the facts. No doubt the industry will be needing certain subsidies to grow again. Can anyone name one energy source that doesn't need subsidies but also thrive in competitive markets? I haven't found any.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 164 Responses
  • The difference is that their shutdowns are not as predictable as the intermittency of the weather/sun. Nearly all nuclear plant shutdowns are planned ahead of time and they're usually for scheduled maintenance or refueling outages. In 2008, US nuclear plants had a forced loss rate of only 1.3%. "This indicator measures a plant’s outage time and power reductions that result from unplanned equipment failures, human errors or other conditions when the plant is expected to be generating power." Do you have any facts to support that wind/solar can be predicted with greater than 98.7% accuracy? Last I read, NERC was still helping the electric industry to develop forecasting tools that aren't quite all there yet (pdf). If wind/solar can be forecasted with 100% certainty, it still doesn't mean more electricity will be generated by them, though.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses
  • we wouldn't build any new nuclear plants if the full costs for producing fuel, waste disposal, accident insurance and decomissioning costs were actually figured into the price of the power produced. Nuclear utilities pay for all of these costs already with existing plants, even insurance. New plants wouldn't be any different.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses
  • As long as the grid as a whole can satisfy that demand, it's irrelevant what kind of power plants are feeding into it. It IS relevant what kind of plants feed into it. How do you make a grid reliable to meet the demand if variable technologies like wind and solar supply a huge portion of it? It's called gas plants and the grid needs a lot more of them to back up variable technologies than it does for coal and nuclear. I find it a bit odd that baseload is considered a myth here when the grid relies on coal and nuclear for 70 percent of its annual power. I find it even more odd that utilities shouldn't be trusted "about what parts of the old system are 'necessary' in the new." Utilities are responsible for maintaining the grid and are the ones most knowledgeable about it and their expertise is dismissed here as if us bloggers are the experts. If baseload is a myth, why do the wind folks believe in it (p. 89)?: The units with the highest capacity factors—nuclear (75% CF) and coal (62% and 71% CF)—are the workhorses of the system because they produce relatively low-cost baseload energy and are fully dispatchable.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses
  • Baseload is not some "characteristic of aggregated demand." What characteristic? Baseload power is so common and well known its even got its own Wikipedia page. “Baseload plant … is an energy plant devoted to the production of baseload supply.” Lovins' opinion of baseload does not make it fact. As well, Lovins' rebuttal on the myth of baseload to Stewart Brand completely misinterpreted what Brand was saying. You can read more here. And here's a response to Lovins' myth on the amount of land required by nuclear compared to wind and solar. Over the next week, you'll see us take the rest of Lovins' latest study apart. Feel free to stop by.On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 164 Responses

  • Relax archigeek

    Ratepayers are consumers. Consumers pay for a product, in this case it's electricity. If you are unhappy with your product or how it's created then you don't have to buy it. No one is forcing you to consume electricity.

    When it comes to managing our used fuel, the nuclear industry has committed more than 30 billion dollars to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The debate right now is how and where that money is spent.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 14 Responses

  • Uh no...

    Uh, no...it's the ratepayers (i.e. the ordinary folk) who lost $2 billion.

    Ratepayers didn't lose any money, they chose to spend it on consuming electricity.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

  • Way to distort the issue

    Here's my same comment I made on Romm's same piece at AlterNet. I also posted this same comment at his blog, Climate Progress, but it never showed up...didn't expect it to, though:

    First of all, the $50B in loan volume is for DOE's loan guarantee program that includes many more technologies other than nuclear. If you look at this link here, you will see that your pet renewable projects can receive part of this $50B "stimulus" as well.

    Second, why are you complaining that nuclear energy is a part of this "stimulus"? Your pet renewable projects and transmission lines were appropriated $8.5B in the final Senate version which will go to support almost $85B in loan volume. Nuclear energy has no access to this. So according to the legislation, your pet renewable projects are eligible to receive potentially $135B in loans.

    The nuclear industry will be working hard over the coming year to insert language into legislation, most likely whatever energy bill comes out of Congress, that forces the tax payer to cover the cost of the subsidy. And I suspect they'll try to get the loan guarantees to cover 100 percent of the cost.

    Where do you get this garbage? We believe it is completely appropriate for the industry to share part of the risk. That's why utilities are going to be putting down at least $2B of their own money to receive the loan guarantees. If a nuclear utility defaults, their $2B is lost. Very few electric companies could sustain a loss like that which is why the nuclear industry is going to take their time to get it right.

    You complain that building new nuclear plants will end up burdening taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money if they default. Well, let me ask you this? How many companies have actually defaulted in the past? I can find only one: Washington Public Power Service. So I would say that a 20 or 30 or 50 percent default rate is quite a bit unrealistic.

    Try bringing some common sense to this rant. The nuclear industry isn't out there to burden the government and taxpayers at the expense of your pet renewables no matter how much you want to distort the truth.On How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus? posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

  • I guess...

    I just didn't get the joke. Oh well...

    Lisa, what kind of qualifications does the intern have to make a judgment that Olkiluoto 3 is "a total disaster"? Is he/she a financial expert? A certified engineer? A certified technician?...On Nuclear meltdown in Finland posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Joe, looks like...

    I'm not the only one who didn't get the "turnkey" joke. Lisa, apparently it was supposed to be a joke.

    I can hardly wait for the inevitable string of such lawsuits in this country if we go down this path.

    Hmmm, looks like the wind industry isn't immune to lawsuits either.On Nuclear meltdown in Finland posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Needless study

    Here's the same comment I made over at Climate Progress:

    This is clearly a biased study and after reading it twice, I'm having a tough time understanding some of the reasons for Mr. Severance's calculations. Not only that, the results differ drastically from at least one of the studies he references.

    I understand how he gets capital costs of $10,553/kW for a new nuclear plant. All he did was take FPL's overnight costs ($4,070/kW) and then apply a few overly-conservative financial assumptions to calculate that number. Okay fine. What I don't get is how this calculates to 22 cents per kWh as supposedly explained on page 18. For instance, what's this "capital recovery factor" that's used on page 18 and why isn't it explained elsewhere in the report? Also, when comparing Mr. Severance's results to the Lazard study he cites earlier, how come the results for nuclear are drastically different?

    Here's the Lazard study (pdf) Mr. Severance references. The Lazard study assumes a range of "total capital" costs for nuclear of $5,750-$7,550/kW (page 12, this is equal to Severance's "All in estimated construction cost"). Lazard calculates nuclear's "total capital" costs to range from 9.1 - 11.9 cents per kWh (pages 8 and 9). Yet somehow at only $2,500/kW more, Severance gets a number of 22 cents/kWh for a levelized capital cost, nearly twice Lazard's number. Either some cherry-picking is going on here or someone made a calculation error and I doubt it was Lazard.

    Joe, you claim that Mr. Severance's study "fills a critical gap" in the debate over nuclear power because it's transparent. Yet the study provides no more transparency than FPL's study or some of the studies Severance references. All of yours and Mr. Severance's base assumptions come from nuclear industry studies. So I don't get how this study is any more transparent. Also, where did you get the four paragraphs you quote in your blog about this "Black Box" approach? It's nowhere mentioned in Severance's study.

    Here's one of the flawed parts of Severance's study. Page 10 claims that "Important studies have concluded that several already existing technologies have significantly lower cost per kWh than new nuclear power - including technologies fully compatible with a carbon reduced future, such as wind power, biomass, land fill gas, and natural gas combined cycle." The only study Severance mentions is the Lazard study. What's unique about the Lazard study is they showed that if you take away the tax incentives from renewables, they're just as expensive as nuclear, see page 5 of Lazard. So I'd say Severance's study is a bit disingenuous to claim renewables are cheaper when government subsidies are factored in...don't you think?On The staggering cost of new nuclear power posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • You forgot...

    to mention how perfect the alternatives are.

    FYI - the Savannah River plant makes fuel for the reactors, it doesn't produce power. There's a big difference. But yes, quality control is an issue and the industry needs to be on top of its game.On 'Poor quality control' in nuclear construction? Heaven forfend. posted 1 year ago 1 Response

  • vakibs

    If that's the impression I gave, that's not what I intended. Know way are we here to save the world and all of us at NEI know this. We're only trying to improve the world with what we believe in.

    My comment was to plant one statistic of how much CO2 160 GW of nuclear plants could avoid. The world emitted 28 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2005. Avoiding one billion metric tons of CO2 by China's proposed nuclear plants will make a difference.On Two new reports detail the enormous toll coal dependence is taking on China posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • China is currently replacing coal with nuclear

    Here's some interesting stats on China:

    Mainland China has eleven nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, six under construction, and several more about to start construction.

    Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a sixfold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 50 GWe or possibly to 60 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.

    160 GW of new nuclear capacity would avoid just over one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year!On Two new reports detail the enormous toll coal dependence is taking on China posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • Sean

    You bring up some good points for an interesting discussion.

    You said: Nuclear, like coal has promulgated a myth that it is cheap, on the basis that if you ignore capital costs, the variable costs are low.

    The nuclear industry doesn't deny the fact that nuclear plants aren't cheap to build. We like any other industry like to point out that its operating costs are cheap. And that's the key data point that makes nuclear plants economical. We're not trying to portray a myth. We're trying to provide the information as objective as possible (pdf).

    And in spite of all the subsidies we provide to the nuclear industry, the US has installed more GW of new wind in the last 10 years than nuclear (and more CHP than both combined).

    And yet wind generation still hasn't provided more than one percent of the US' electricity. Here's an interesting stat for you. From 1997 to 2007, the US nuclear industry has increased its generation at its existing plants by 178 bkWh without building a new nuclear plant. In 2007, the wind industry generated a total of 32 bkWh (pdf). Even though the wind industry has installed more capacity over the past decade, the nuclear industry still generated more New output.

    We can talk about CHP if you want, but CHP is basically an acronym for gas and coal plants (at least according to Lovins' data). I have gotten the sense from the Grist readers that they're not too fond of fossil-fuels. :)

    3. Nuclear doesn't make economic sense today even with it's subsidies.

    I disagree. Over the past year, 17 applications for more than 20 new nuclear reactors have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval. This is due, in all honesty, to the loan guarantee program which is also available to other non-emitting technologies like wind and solar. If new nuclear plants weren't economical, you wouldn't see utilities spending millions of dollars to submit just the application to build a nuclear plant to the NRC. Of course it remains to be seen when and if they all get built. But there's a strong tailwind for the utilities to build many of these new nuclear plants.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year, 1 month ago 106 Responses

  • Another reference to Lovins' junk study

    You guys ever going to stop circulating his garbage? You all saw how bad it was.

    I love these hit jobs on nuclear. Brown spends 15 out of his 16 paragraphs denigrating the technology, yet provides a few measly sentences saying wind and other renewables are better. For once I would like to see you guys provide a side-by-side, in-depth, realistic comparison of all technologies. Simply saying renewables are better doesn't do it.On The flawed economics of nuclear power posted 1 year, 1 month ago 106 Responses

  • "And windpower is not asking ratepayers to...

    pay in advance."

    You're right, they're asking taxpayers.On Environment America says McCain's nuclear expansion would be 'an economic disaster' posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

  • A clarification.

    You said:

    the 45 reactors would cost taxpayers $315 billion, because most of the funding would have to come from taxpayer-backed federal loans.

    Taxpayers do not fund nuclear projects. Investors or ratepayers will. The loan guarantee program Enviro Maine is referring to guarantees plant financing, not funds it.

    The only way taxpayers would pay for a plant is if a utility gets partway through construction and defaults. The government then decides if it wants to complete the project or not. If it decides not to, then taxpayers don't pay anything. If the project is completed, then that's when taxpayer dollars may be used. We believe the likelihood of defaults are very small.

    One more thing. The loan guarantees are also available to wind, solar, biomass and anything that "avoids, reduces, or sequesters air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases".On Environment America says McCain's nuclear expansion would be 'an economic disaster' posted 1 year, 1 month ago 9 Responses

  • You can't debate the issues...

    so you have to attack someone's credibility. Great job.

    This post makes sense. Only people who DON'T work in the nuclear industry are the only people who can give an honest opinion and provide real facts. Got it.

    Oh wait. What about other experts who speak on behalf of their professions like environmentalists and climatologists? I know of a few experts who make great money in those professions. Yet according to your logic, we can't believe what they say because they make money as well. Brilliant logic.

    Just so people know, I work for the Nuclear Energy Institute.On Greenpeace formally disavows any connection to industry shill Patrick Moore posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • I was going to give...

    you props for doing the research but then your second to last sentence in the piece ruined it.

    R&E will be creating millions of jobs for decades to come no matter what governments do, whereas nuclear will do the same if and only if it receives massive corporate welfare.

    Did you somehow forget that the wind industry lives or dies by the PTC? If growth in renewables are independent from government incentives (like you said), then why does AWEA still say they need the PTC? (BTW, I have no problem that the wind industry receives the PTC.)

    The impact of not receiving the PTC is modeled on page 4 in this presentation prepared for AWEA (pdf). Here's the main point:

    The Federal tax credit expiration could result in ~$19 billion of lost investment and ~116,000 of lost employment.

    Ouch. Also, if you look at the job numbers closely, the 116,000 includes direct, indirect and induced jobs. Looks like the nuclear industry isn't the only industry who "inflates" their numbers.On Where does McCain get his claim that nuclear will create 700,000 jobs? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • Do you have data...

    to prove why NEI's job creation numbers are "wildly optimistic"? Or are you exaggerating just like McCain?

    You guys ever going to bash Obama for supporting nuclear energy as well? Boy, I bet it must make some Grist readers upset to know that both candidates support nuclear.On In presidential debate, McCain misleads on nuclear power posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

  • Why do you still promote Lovins...

    when you know his work is junk? You guys all read it on this blog - RMI couldn't defend their own work.

    The only way we'll let it go is when he lets it go. On Lovins predicts the coming oil price crash won't be like the last one posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Sources?

    Do you have any sources that explain why irradiation is bad? I'm really interested to know. Here's what this CBS article said:

    The FDA determined that irradiation can kill E. coli, salmonella and listeria, as well as lengthen the greens' shelf life, without compromising the safety, texture or nutrient value of raw spinach lettuce.On Starting today the FDA will allow producers to use irradiation on lettuce and spinach posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

  • Where's the Subsidy?

    Below is the same comment I made at Climate Progress.

    The claim that PAA is a subsidy is highly debatable and of course won't be determined in this thread.

    The nuclear industry, like you noted, would be liable for at least $10B in damages if an accident at a nuclear plant were to occur. The reason why some (mainly antis) consider this a subsidy is because the damage from a nuclear accident is "supposedly" many magnitudes higher than $10B. Therefore, the industry is "supposedly" paying less than what it should.

    To date, the US has seen only one nuclear plant pay damages for an accident - TMI. How much did TMI pay? Well according to the Wikipedia link you use, only $70M to date. The damages, just to be clear, basically went to businesses and individuals who lost revenues and salaries due to the evacuation.

    Now if the worst nuclear accident in the US cost only $70M, I would constitute that the nuclear industry is paying way more than what it should be paying. You can cite all the studies you want that try to guesstimate how much an accident would cost, but based on actual experience, the nuclear industry can easily cover an accident.

    Just to be clear, Congress decides who makes up the shortfall if the damages exceed $10B. They could decide to make the nuclear industry pay more than the $10B liability, not the taxpayers (stated in your Wikipedia link).

    The conclusions from the 1992 EIA document you cite are based on a 1983 NRC study that the NRC has now said is outdated (disclaimer found here). The NRC is currently updating that study with better data, greater experience and sophisticated computer models.

    The reason the nuclear industry continues to renew the PAA is because we're about to build a lot of new nuclear plants. Like you said above, the PAA was created to entice companies to build plants.

    Last thing. Doesn't a subsidy mean that the taxpayers actually pay something? So how is it a subsidy when the taxpayer hasn't paid one penny due to a nuclear plant accident?On How much of a subsidy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • Nuclear is Natural

    A natural nuclear reaction took place nearly two billion years ago at Oklo in Gabon, West Africa. You can read more here.On Low doses of radiation can cause harm; coal plants worse than nuclear plants posted 1 year, 3 months ago 67 Responses

  • Some questions

    the hit job by a conservative think tank is analytically unimpressive.

    Are you saying that there's not one ounce of truth in the article? So I guess anything that comes from a conservative group is wrong. It's sad to read that politics trumps facts in this debate.

    the illegal actions of companies like Enron.

    Page 8 of this article (pdf) says you greatly respected Enron. Interesting. Obviously your opinion has changed though.

    deregulation led most utilities to scale back their energy efficiency programs

    You sure it wasn't because the EE programs were fraudulent as well? Here's page 8 from the same article I linked to above:

    EES, in fact, was one of Enron's fraud-rife divisions, with the estimated savings in energy and customer costs consisting mainly of speculation and accounting tricks. EES's contracts were liabilities parading as assets.

    ...

    Saving energy profitably, above and beyond what private companies had been doing prior to outsourcing, was skinny on profits relative to risk, it turned out.

    The link above is from a liberal arts college. Does that meet your standards?On Energy efficiency, part 4 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • I'm a big fan of EE but...

    you're leaving out an important piece of California's history. In order to achieve the efficiency gains CA has made, CA has basically kicked out all the energy intensive industries from the state, has some of the highest electricity prices, and imports 20 percent of its electricity. Check out this piece by Max Schulz at the City Journal. Here are some highlights:

    California's proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country--nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken Institute study found--largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales. Twenty years ago or so, you could count eight automobile factories in California; today, there's just one, and it's the same story with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace. Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries--driving cars built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett, Washington. California can pretend to have controlled energy consumption, but it has just displaced it.

    ...

    It's hard to claim credibly that California illuminates the world when it has trouble illuminating itself. Further, California's particular path makes sense only if the rest of the country refuses to follow it. The state's lawmakers and regulators have enacted policies that for several decades have allowed Californians to feel good, even smug, about their environmental credentials. Yet California's economic prosperity has relied on the fact that other states have built power plants and established sensible regulatory regimes that don't force businesses to flee.

    ...

    California is certainly within its rights to set policies for itself and to live with the consequences. But everyone can't do what California does. Someone needs to build power plants and oil refineries. Someone needs to manufacture the cars, trucks, airplanes, and other pieces of heavy equipment that enrich Americans' lives, till our fields, and grow our economy. Someone needs to produce the plastics and chemicals that undergird our prosperity. Those things require energy, and lots of it--growing amounts of it. All the wisdom of Athens and all the power of Sparta won't change that fact.On Energy efficiency, part 4 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Still Confused

    Lovins and Sheikh,

    This is great. I thought I'd only get one response from RMI but it's good to see you guys defending your work.

    Here are my questions and comments.

    I still don't understand the definition of "micropower." The word micro obviously implies very small plants. The average power plant unit size in the U.S. is about 60 MW. So "micro" plants (at least in my opinion) should be much smaller than 60 MW. Yet according to the WADE data you provided, it includes plants over 60 MW.

    As well, if the "micropower" data includes other plants greater than 10 MW, why put that limit on hydro then? According to you, I wrongly assumed "micro" was less than 10 MW, but there was nothing else to go by.

    Mr. Bradish adds further confusion by injecting his personal opinion that "micropower" shouldn't include what he calls "centralized renewables," like windfarms. But we define micropower to include all renewables except big hydro

    Your definition says "distributed renewawbles." 95% of wind is centralized. Why include the word "distributed" if the data is not then?

    Mr. Bradish offers a graph from a proprietary Ventyx/Global Energy Decisions database to which we don't have access. We therefore can't tell whether smaller, cogenerating, and non-utility units were fully included.

    Good point, let me explain. The dataset I used from Ventyx is called "Generating Unit Capacity." It includes every single unit pretty much ever conceived in the U.S. - operating, canceled, small, big, etc. The specialist you talked with was referring to a different dataset called "CEMS Unit Summary." This dataset uses EPA data to count all of the emissions from plants over 25 MW. I also gave you evidence in my post that my data does include small plants. Here's what I said: "There are a total of 80 GW of co-generating capacity operating in the U.S. (same number reported in WADE's 2005 Survey on page 27). Of the 80 GW, only 3 GW are less than 10 MW in capacity."

    We hope Mr. Bradish will study that analysis before further promoting his "one-size-fits-all" solution.

    What? You quoted me as saying "there is no one-size-fits-all solution." Yet, you're saying I'm "promoting" a "one-size-fits-all" solution?

    Completion of our [Jevons paradox] response was delayed by travel, but we expect to finish it shortly,

    I'll be looking forward to it. It's going to be pretty hard to contradict a well-established phenomena, but we'll see.On Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses

  • Alas...

    Mr. Lovins,

    Thanks for responding to my original post. I have a couple of questions and comments to your response.

    You said: Finally, where possible, we compared calculated output to estimated output from other sources to verify that our calculations were realistic.

    I never read any comparisons in any of your documents. Did you do this internally? Did I miss it? What other sources verified that your "calculations were realistic"?

    WADE's economic analysis of cogen on p. 5 of the cited World Survey of Decentralized Energy 2005 uses 7,500 h/y, equivalent to 85.6%.

    And it also uses 5,000 hours and 8,100 hours. The table you cited are only assumptions to show the "impact of gas price changes." This isn't "empirical" data.

    Average capacity factor of all decentralized plant types cannot be validly applied to cogeneration or any other type in the mix:

    Yes it can for this situation. You calculated in your excel file that "decentralized non-biomass cogen" makes up 266.3 GW out of WADE's 281.9 GW in 2004. This means that 94 percent of decentralized capacity is cogeneration. If the surveyed countries reported a total capacity factor of 40.1 percent from decentralized capacity, then the decentralized cogen's capacity factor is somewhere around 40 percent. It's as simple as that.

    His claims that "it is impossible" for cogen to have an 83% capacity factor, since it makes up "the majority of the decentralized capacity," overlooks that our micropower data include many types of renewables that WADE excludes.

    I never said "micropower." I said "non-biomass decentralized co-generation plants" and as I said above, the 40 percent capacity factor for that category is accurate because it DOES make up the majority of the decentralized capacity.

    Our methodology derives our stated average capacity factor from the empirical capacity factors for each source.

    Quoting Michael Brown does not mean it's "empirical" data.

    Small sample of countries may not represent the whole:

    What do you mean "small sample"? Your methodology on page 5 and WADE's 2005 survey on page 32 states that "world decentralized energy totaled 282.3 GWe at the end of 2004." Yet when you add up the "small sample of countries" in the WADE survey, it comes out to 341.6 GW. Now that doesn't make sense.

    "There is [no] ... methodology" for RMI's projections of micropower growth during 2008-2010.

    This is the second time you've mis-quoted my words. Here's what I said in my post: "According to the RMI paper, the "non-biomass decentralized co-generation" projection is a "target" based on personal communications with WADE. There is no model, study, or methodology mentioned to support the projection." Where is "micropower" mentioned here?

    Nuclear power's share remains stuck at about 2%.

    Try 15 percent in 2005.

    "Is Coal Included in the 'Non-Biomass Decentralized Co-Generation' Data?" Yes, but not much.

    Um, your response still didn't say how much. In fact the DGTW source you brought up said "the 2004 fuel mix is unknown."

    Here's what the 2005 WADE survey says on page ii for those who haven't seen it: "Global installed DE capacity stood at around 281.9 GWe at the end of 2004, the great proportion of this consisting of high efficiency cogeneration systems in the industrial and district heating sectors, fuelled by coal and gas and, to a lesser extent, biomass-based fuels."

    This is enough from me for this comment. I have three other posts for you to check out and respond to if you would like.

    Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion - Part Two (Big Plants vs. Small Plants)

    Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion - Part Three (Energy Efficiency and "Negawatts")

    Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion - Part Four (New Nuclear Plants Costs)On Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 23 Responses

  • Emotion

    "The adjectives apply ... grossly uncompetitive.  AB Lovins told me, without emotion, that WPPSS would go bankrupt before anybody else considered the possibility."

    And yet there are 104 nuclear reactors operating in the U.S. and 439 in the world.

    "Lovins speak does seem the energize the nuclear base against him, with much emotion."

    You're telling me you wouldn't get emotional if Lovins accuses your industry of misleading the world. Why don't you read my post and then decide if you believe many of his numbers.On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

  • Oh please...

    "Their conclusions are not complicated by emotions and tribal loyalties."

    You obviously haven't read their latest paper. The paper is filled with adjectives and adverbs like zealous, hopelessly uneconomic, grossly uncompetitive, and obsolete. And he accuses the nuclear industry of misleading everyone "into a sham." This is all on the first page. How is that not emotional? If facts were really on their side, then they wouldn't have to amplify their claims with so many adjectives and adverbs. On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

  • Amory Lovins and The Art of Deception

    Here's my first real post taking a good look at Lovins' claims. Ask him why he never mentions that coal is included in his data that claims "micropower" and renewables are supposedly beating nuclear. On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

  • Tell him to be watching NEI's blog

    Here's the Intro to a series of posts rebutting his "warpath."On What should I ask the efficiency guru about nuclear power? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 67 Responses

  • Missing the biggest point

    No doubt nuclear's construction costs have increased. But you left out the biggest point in the Salon piece about FPL's Petition. Here's page 11 from FPL:

    FPL's analysis shows that for all of the scenarios evaluated (eight of nine), the addition of new nuclear capacity is economically superior versus the corresponding addition of new [combined cycle] units required to provide the same power output, yielding large direct economic benefits to customers as well as effectively addressing the criteria of section 403.519(4)(b). In fact, in the only scenario in which nuclear is not clearly superior, the natural gas prices are significantly lower than they are today and there are zero future economic compliance costs for CO2 emissions. Of all the scenarios evaluated, FPL believes these two to be the most unlikely. Moreover, even in these two unlikely scenarios, the results of the analysis show nuclear to be competitive or only slightly disadvantaged economically, while retaining the non-quantified advantages of fuel diversity, fuel supply reliability, and energy independence. Based on all the information available today, it is clearly desirable to take the steps and make the expenditures necessary to retain the option of new nuclear capacity coming on line in 2018.

    Even with nuclear's high construction cost estimates, FPL still finds it to be cheaper than the alternatives in the long run. You're obviously deceiving readers here by not including that important piece of information.On Bite-sized version of longer nuke study is on Salon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

  • AWEA Meeting

    "If you have read the DOE's report on how wind energy can meet 20% of our electricity needs by 2030, you start to see why wind has been so attractive to investors"

    I did read all of it and I think it contradicts itself. But instead of my opinion, here's what FPL said at AWEA's meeting in Houston according to Platts' Electric Power Daily article on 6/2/08:

    The biggest naysayer of the DOE projection was Michael O'Sullivan, the senior vice president for development at the nation's leading wind producer, FPL Energy. He said FPL will add roughly 1,200 MW of new wind capacity in the US this year, pushing the company's total to approximately 6,300 MW of capacity at 55 wind farms in 16 states.

    According to O'Sullivan, growing wind capacity in the US to 20% of total generation by 2030, "just isn't going to happen." He argued that in the US there are no more than 20 states where a company can realistically build wind capacity. "You can't build it in Florida," he said, "nor can you build it in New England."

    "Renewables are not cheap," O'Sullivan added. "And wind is a flawed product in the sense that it is intermittent, and is available only 30 to 40% of the time." He argued that it is "an energy displacement product." O'Sullivan said that no one is building coal or nuclear generation right now, and he said that if it were not for the fact that natural gas prices were on the rise, "I'm not sure we would be talking about 5,000 MW of new wind capacity last year."

    Interesting...On The self-limiting future of nuclear power, Part I posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

  • Be realistic

    Joseph you baffle me. You pull together much of the right information but I don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

    "Yet nuclear power's own myriad limitations will constrain its growth, especially in the near term."

    Ahh yes, the nuclear industry obviously can't overcome its own constraints. How was the world able to build 200 GW of nuclear plants in one decade, though? Obviously something was working for the industry.

    "The carbon-free power technologies that the nation and the world should focus on deploying right now at large scale are efficiency, wind power, and solar power."

    And how much electricity does wind and solar provide right now in this world? Not even one percent. Yet these two sources are supposed to substantially power this world in the future. I'm not knocking solar and wind here, but the fact is that the world has to build three to four times more wind and solar capacity than all other energy technologies just to provide the same amount of electricity.

    The baffling part is that you say wind and solar can contribute significantly when they haven't yet. But nuclear can't contribute much in the future even though it is making an impact right now.On The self-limiting future of nuclear power, Part I posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Some perspective

    Tom, good point. Time will tell if wind can produce much more electricity for the incentives it receives.

    Charles, if you go to the last chart in the link I provided, you will see the distribution of dollars for selected technologies. I said photovoltaics, not solar. Perhaps you should give my blogpost a closer look.

    We could go back and forth about R&D dollars but I have already stated that nuclear has received the most R&D dollars since 1950. Let me ask this (and no-one should take offense to this): how much R&D does wind really need? From what I see, and I'm sure others would agree, wind's PTC is the type of subsidy they need, not R&D. I could see solar technologies requiring a lot of R&D and according to the data I presented, they've received a lot of it.

    Nuclear technology, I would argue, is some of the most advanced energy technology in this world. The US needs to continue to support R&D for nuclear in terms of next generation plants and reprocessing used fuel. But nuclear R&D is not short-changing renewables as some would like to think. Here's the Cato Institute who are no fans of nuclear (p.9):

    "R&D dollars have not handicapped renewable energy technologies. Over the past 20 years, those technologies have received (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) $24.2 billion in federal R&D subsidies, while nuclear energy has received $20.1 billion and fossil fuels only $15.5 billion. To the extent that nuclear power has received heavy favor from government, the primary victims have been oil, gas, and coal--not renewable energy."

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdfOn Subsidies for wind power pale beside subsidies for nuclear posted 1 year, 6 months ago 23 Responses

  • Nice spin.

    Charles, you're missing the point of the WSJ article. The point is that nuclear energy is actually producing a lot of electricity for all those incentives. The U.S. is not getting the same returns from wind and solar.

    It's too bad you've spent so much effort analyzing nuclear power's costs and subsidies. If you really wanted to have a meaningful discussion, you should compare the costs and subsidies of all energies and technologies. Instead, you cite your 98-page Greenpeace report which discusses only nuclear and then compare the data to a back of the envelope calculation you did on a spreadsheet. Hardly seems fair.

    Here's a blog post I wrote at the end of 2006 linking to a study that actually compares the incentives for all energies. http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-about-g ...
    The study finds that nuclear has received the most dollars from R&D. Yet when you add up all the other methods of incentives, nuclear energy has received 10 percent of the total energy subsidies since 1950. What's also interesting is that photovoltaics have received the most subsidies of any technology.

    David Bradish, NEIOn Subsidies for wind power pale beside subsidies for nuclear posted 1 year, 6 months ago 23 Responses