Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
November 30, 2013
in 6 categories.
The Full Actinide Recycle approach is rated in the category
as
And in the category
as
For the category
as
Whose judgement is that?
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
"NNSA has the best science, technology and engineering in the world, and we are fortunate to have dedicated professionals who are truly leaders in their fields working every day to promote our nuclear security mission."
http://nnsa.energy.gov/
Can you believe the gall of those antinuclear idiots and the degree they've infiltrated the government?
What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)?
In 2008 they rated the proliferation risks of the:
Once-Through Fuel Cycle
Full Actinide Recycle
Partial Actinide Recycle
in 6 categories.
The Full Actinide Recycle approach is rated in the category
"Fuel Cycle:Inherent proliferation risk of technology"
as
"Highest risk: Capable of separating weapons-usable material, though some modification may be needed depending on the separations technology used."
And in the category
"Material Attractiveness"
as
Highest: Removal of fission products and separation of actinides greatly reduces barriers to theft, misuse, or further processing, even without separation of pure plutonium. Fast reactor fuels have higher concentration of weapons-usable materials.
For the category
Safeguards
as
Highest cost and difficulty: Separation processes require continuous monitoring against diversion and novel bulk materials present new measurement challenges.
Whose judgement is that?
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
"NNSA has the best science, technology and engineering in the world, and we are fortunate to have dedicated professionals who are truly leaders in their fields working every day to promote our nuclear security mission."
http://nnsa.energy.gov/
Can you believe the gall of those antinuclear idiots and the degree they've infiltrated the government?
November 30, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/energy-green-politics#
Nope
Up in smoke: how efficient is electricity produced in the UK?
Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day in our gas, coal and nuclear power stations.
Over half of the energy in gas and around two thirds of the energy in nuclear and coal used to produce electricity is lost as waste heat.
Information is Beautiful has created a graphic for Friends of the Earth that illustrates just how much energy is lost in production and compares it to renewables sources, which lose less than 1%.
It makes particularly interesting reading when considered alongside Good Energy's (one of our partners on the Clean British Energy campaign) recent graphic showing where our energy comes from.
This graphic was produced...
Huge amounts of energy are wasted every day in our gas, coal and nuclear power stations.
Over half of the energy in gas and around two thirds of the energy in nuclear and coal used to produce electricity is lost as waste heat.
Information is Beautiful has created a graphic for Friends of the Earth that illustrates just how much energy is lost in production and compares it to renewables sources, which lose less than 1%.
It makes particularly interesting reading when considered alongside Good Energy's (one of our partners on the Clean British Energy campaign) recent graphic showing where our energy comes from.
This graphic was produced...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/energy-green-politics#
November 29, 2013
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-future-of-energy-storage-is-behind-the-meter
The Future of Energy Storage is on the Customer's Side of the Meter
The Future of Energy Storage Is Behind the Meter
Shutterstock.com
Michael Breen, CEO of Growing Energy Labs, on the value of customer-located storage.
Michael Breen
November 25, 2013
...In California, we have a near perfect storm of market signals moving the entire energy storage industry forward. On the hardware side, OEMs (battery and inverter manufacturers) have significantly reduced costs, while forward-thinking policymakers and financiers are creating favorable regulatory and market conditions.
To date, the industry has focused a lot of attention on grid-scale storage, but it is the massive opportunity behind the meter that will truly move the industry from fledgling to mainstream.
Utilities aren’t the only game in town
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) made history last month when it passed the nation’s first energy storage mandate, directing investor-owned utilities in California to acquire 1,325 megawatts of energy storage by 2020. The impact on the energy storage market will be nearly instantaneous since contracts will need to be approved in the next few years in order to meet the CPUC’s requirements.
...Consider this: the number of commercial industrial buildings in California alone hovers around 40,000. A typical behind-the-meter energy storage system for this customer segment would be in the ballpark of 25 kilowatt-hours. A little back-of-the-envelope math reveals that the potential for this customer segment in California is in the 1,000 megawatt range, an amount that could satisfy over three-quarters of California’s energy storage mandate.
Adding to the sheer size of the behind-the-meter market ...
Shutterstock.com
Michael Breen, CEO of Growing Energy Labs, on the value of customer-located storage.
Michael Breen
November 25, 2013
...In California, we have a near perfect storm of market signals moving the entire energy storage industry forward. On the hardware side, OEMs (battery and inverter manufacturers) have significantly reduced costs, while forward-thinking policymakers and financiers are creating favorable regulatory and market conditions.
To date, the industry has focused a lot of attention on grid-scale storage, but it is the massive opportunity behind the meter that will truly move the industry from fledgling to mainstream.
Utilities aren’t the only game in town
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) made history last month when it passed the nation’s first energy storage mandate, directing investor-owned utilities in California to acquire 1,325 megawatts of energy storage by 2020. The impact on the energy storage market will be nearly instantaneous since contracts will need to be approved in the next few years in order to meet the CPUC’s requirements.
...Consider this: the number of commercial industrial buildings in California alone hovers around 40,000. A typical behind-the-meter energy storage system for this customer segment would be in the ballpark of 25 kilowatt-hours. A little back-of-the-envelope math reveals that the potential for this customer segment in California is in the 1,000 megawatt range, an amount that could satisfy over three-quarters of California’s energy storage mandate.
Adding to the sheer size of the behind-the-meter market ...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-future-of-energy-storage-is-behind-the-meter
November 29, 2013
That tells you nothing of the sort
Energy efficiency and renewables are more than adequate. Nuclear is a 'trivial' source of energy providing only 1/6th the final energy that renewables provide. And as you can see from the cost-deployment charts we are at a major turning point in what will be selected going forward.
Just as food for thought, here is the status of world final energy consumption by source.
This is the concept behind calls for energy efficiency (a strategy that is anathema to the coal and nuclear industry because it slashes their profits).
The energy wasted from thermal sources is a very significant factor in understanding the issue of what energy source is doing what. Primary energy measures the total amount of energy that a fuel source yields - no matter whether it is powering our lives (ie electricity or or propulsion for autos) or whether it is waste heat being transferred to our waterways from nuclear plants or heat causing NO2* emissions off the hot engine block of an internal combustion.
An alternative (and most say better) way of looking at the production and use of energy is to measure what is needed and consumed by the actual work being accomplished. For example, an average internal combustion engine (ICE) powered car ejects 85% of the energy content of the gasoline it consumes as heat and only uses 15% for motive power. When we look for alternatives to gasoline do we think biofuels, and duplicate the efficiencies of the gasoline powered ICE or do we focus on batteries and electric motors that have far better efficiencies - typically using 90% of the input energy for locomotion?
Writ large, what does that mean? Take a look at this flow chart and note that the "rejected energy" comprised 58.1 quads of the total 95.1 quads of primary energy used in the US last year. How much was actually used to do the work of the nation? Only 37 quads.
If we look more closely at the various sectors we can see where the major opportunities for energy efficiency improvements are to be found:
Sector: Gross - Useful Energy; Rejected Energy (proportion of useful to rejected)
Transportation: 26.7 - 5.6; 21.1 (21 : 79)
Electric Generation: 38.10 - 12.40; 25.70 (33 : 67)
In sectors where the heat value of the energy is useful we see much higher efficiency
Industrial: 23.9 - 19.1; 4.77 (80 : 20)
Commercial: 8.29 - 5.39; 2.90 (65 : 35)
Residential: 10.60 - 6.9; 3.72 (65 : 35)
Now let's look at the Solar, Wind and Hydro Subset of Electric Generation. These produce electricity directly with insignificant primary energy lost as heat in the generation phase, however they do incur line losses of about 7%.
SolarWindHydro: 4.07 - 3.78; 0.285 (93 : 7)
Let's compare that to
Nuclear: 8.05 - 2.62; 5.43 (33 : 67)
In the US, the our fleet of nuclear reactors (what is it, down to 99 and falling fast?) might have produced 8.05 quads of primary energy, but at about 35% efficiency at the busbar and a further 7% line loss, (8.05q x 0.35 = 2.82q x 0.93) that only equals 2.62 quads actually delivered to the end user for work.
3.78q > 2.62q
See also: http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11788#utm_medium=email&utm_source=LNH+07-19-2013&utm_campaign=NAW+News+Headlines
November 29, 2013
Nuclear and coal with CCS are poor choices to address climate change
Is there anywhere a similar comparative analysis which concludes nuclear power is desirable?
Download: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf
View html abstract: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c
Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Mark Z. Jacobson
Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.
Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.
Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.
Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.
Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.
Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.
Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.
The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.
Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.
The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.
The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.
The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.
In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Mark Z. Jacobson
Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.
Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.
Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.
Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.
Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.
Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.
Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.
The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.
Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.
The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.
The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.
The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.
In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
November 28, 2013
The article goes on to discuss the consequences to Japan's nuclear program should they acknowledge that the rather distant earthquake caused the cooling failure. It is important to know that the earthquake at its epicenter was vastly stronger than the forces that hit the nuclear plant and that instruments at the plant show that the quake forces there exceeded design parameters of the plant by just a small amount.
TEPCO plant engineer makes case that earthquake caused reactor cooling problem
Xpost fm Good Reads
Kimura authored paper titled “Leakage from the piping in the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused by vibrations from the earthquake.” in September of this year.
Cracks in Tepco’s 3/11 narrative
SENTAKU MAGAZINE
NOV 17, 2013
<snip>
The transient phenomena recorder records various measurements in a nuclear power plant at every one-hundredth of one second. It accumulates such data as a reactor’s output, pressure and temperature and coolant’s flowing volume. Analysis of these data makes it possible to accurately identify “process behaviors” or what is happening in an nuclear reactor.
<snip>
...In analyzing the data, Kimura took special note of the fact that natural circulation of coolant stopped. Along with an isolation condenser, natural circulation of coolant constitutes the “lifeline” in case loss of all the power sources occurs. Even if a primary loop recirculation pump, which pumps coolant water into the reactor core, stops functioning due to loss of all the power sources, natural circulation of coolant is supposed to maintain 10 percent of normal core flow of coolant.
Analysis of the data showed, however, that immediately after the earthquake hit, about 30 percent of coolant inside the core started flowing backwards and that after the coolant flow returned to the normal flow direction, the core flow fluctuated and eventually became less than zero. All these occurred before the nuclear power plant was struck by the tsunami.
Why is it that cooling by natural circulation of coolant became dysfunctional along with the isolation condenser right after the earthquake? Kimura believes that piping rupture was the very cause of the loss of these two “lifelines”
There are a couple of phenomena that seem to correspond to what Kimura believes happened. One is that a pump designed to draw up water from the bottom of the containment vessel seems to have been activated frequently, indicating that damage to piping caused coolant to leak and accumulate at the bottom of the vessel.
The other is that radioactive contamination was taking place at a much faster rate than was estimated by Tepco....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/11/17/commentary/cracks-in-tepcos-311-narrative/#.UomNzXCf_wxvia
SENTAKU MAGAZINE
NOV 17, 2013
<snip>
The transient phenomena recorder records various measurements in a nuclear power plant at every one-hundredth of one second. It accumulates such data as a reactor’s output, pressure and temperature and coolant’s flowing volume. Analysis of these data makes it possible to accurately identify “process behaviors” or what is happening in an nuclear reactor.
<snip>
...In analyzing the data, Kimura took special note of the fact that natural circulation of coolant stopped. Along with an isolation condenser, natural circulation of coolant constitutes the “lifeline” in case loss of all the power sources occurs. Even if a primary loop recirculation pump, which pumps coolant water into the reactor core, stops functioning due to loss of all the power sources, natural circulation of coolant is supposed to maintain 10 percent of normal core flow of coolant.
Analysis of the data showed, however, that immediately after the earthquake hit, about 30 percent of coolant inside the core started flowing backwards and that after the coolant flow returned to the normal flow direction, the core flow fluctuated and eventually became less than zero. All these occurred before the nuclear power plant was struck by the tsunami.
Why is it that cooling by natural circulation of coolant became dysfunctional along with the isolation condenser right after the earthquake? Kimura believes that piping rupture was the very cause of the loss of these two “lifelines”
There are a couple of phenomena that seem to correspond to what Kimura believes happened. One is that a pump designed to draw up water from the bottom of the containment vessel seems to have been activated frequently, indicating that damage to piping caused coolant to leak and accumulate at the bottom of the vessel.
The other is that radioactive contamination was taking place at a much faster rate than was estimated by Tepco....
The article goes on to discuss the consequences to Japan's nuclear program should they acknowledge that the rather distant earthquake caused the cooling failure. It is important to know that the earthquake at its epicenter was vastly stronger than the forces that hit the nuclear plant and that instruments at the plant show that the quake forces there exceeded design parameters of the plant by just a small amount.
November 28, 2013
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=394f579a-28c0-46b7-9f9d-1e6fd48ba1be
Nuclear regulators try to obstruct Congressional oversight
From letter by Sen Boxer to NRC 26 Nov 2013
She terms the new policies "controversial and obstructive" and says they are designed to specifically to "justify withholding information from Members of Congress". Sen Boxer lambasts them for making the changes without consultation with Congress stating "It is clear that the changes to the NRC policy work against the interests of Congress and attempt to undercut constitutional oversight."
Full letter with 3 appendixes can be downloaded with this link
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=394f579a-28c0-46b7-9f9d-1e6fd48ba1be
Appendix 1 Staff Analysis of NRC’s New Policy for Transmitting Sensitive Documents to Congress
SUMMARY: NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all, and imposes new means by which even requests submitted by Committee Chairmen will be obstructed, delayed and possibly even denied. The new policy has been altered from one that generally presumes that sensitive documents will be provided to Congressional requesters to one that generally presumes that they will not.
NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all
The Commission’s old practice was to provide sensitive documents to Members of its Congressional oversight committees as well as to other Members of Congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her State or District. In that manner, Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee could more fully conduct their oversight and legislative responsibilities, and individual Senators not on the Committee could obtain safety, financial or other information related to nuclear reactors or materials that impact their States.
The Commission’s new policy denies sensitive documents to all but Chairs and Ranking Members of its oversight committees (and imposes new limitations on Chairs and Ranking Members as well – see below). If an individual Senator asks that a Chair or Ranking Member make a request for documents on his or her behalf, both the Chair and the Ranking Member would receive copies of all documents produced. This could compromise the confidentiality of the individual Senator’s work, including work related to matters in his or her own State.
The NRC’s new policy directs NRC staff to try to limit the documents provided, even to oversight Committee Chairs and Ranking Members
The NRC’s old policy directed NRC staff to ask for a delay in the provision of “particularly” or “highly” sensitive documents such as ongoing investigations until the matter at hand had been decided. It also allowed NRC staff to suggest a different way to provide the information requested, such as allowing Congressional staff to review the materials on NRC premises or suggesting other conditions associated with their provision. However, if the Congressional requester still wished to receive the documents, NRC staff was directed to consult with NRC Commissioners but then provide them in a manner that clearly indicated that the documents could not be publicly released.
The NRC’s new policy does not distinguish between “particularly” or “highly” sensitive documents and other non-public materials, and requires NRC staff to attempt, as a matter of course, to pursue alternatives to providing any non-public document to the Congressional requester. If the Congressional requester continues to require the documents, NRC staff is directed to provide NRC Commissioners with the opportunity to approve or disapprove a proposed document production. These changes will delay the provision of materials requested by NRC’s oversight Committee Chairs or Ranking Members as each Commissioner determines whether to approve, disapprove, or delay the response even further by insisting that a full Commission vote be taken. This could also result in the denial of some or all of the requested documents to Committee Chairs and Ranking Members via direction of NRC Commissioners absent legal authority to withhold any such materials whatsoever.
NRC’s new policy may seek to deny Committee Chairs and Ranking Members documents that have also been subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
NRC’s old policy allowed for the transmittal of documents that had also been subject to a FOIA request to Congressional requesters as long as they were transmitted with a cover letter asking that they be maintained in confidence until the FOIA determination had been made.
The new policy simply states that NRC staff should keep Congressional requesters apprised of the status of the FOIA request, but is silent on the question of whether the documents will be provided while the FOIA determination is pending. Any person who wished to delay Congressional oversight of a particular matter could seemingly file their own FOIA request for information in order to complicate, delay or deny Congressional requests for the same materials.
SUMMARY: NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all, and imposes new means by which even requests submitted by Committee Chairmen will be obstructed, delayed and possibly even denied. The new policy has been altered from one that generally presumes that sensitive documents will be provided to Congressional requesters to one that generally presumes that they will not.
NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all
The Commission’s old practice was to provide sensitive documents to Members of its Congressional oversight committees as well as to other Members of Congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her State or District. In that manner, Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee could more fully conduct their oversight and legislative responsibilities, and individual Senators not on the Committee could obtain safety, financial or other information related to nuclear reactors or materials that impact their States.
The Commission’s new policy denies sensitive documents to all but Chairs and Ranking Members of its oversight committees (and imposes new limitations on Chairs and Ranking Members as well – see below). If an individual Senator asks that a Chair or Ranking Member make a request for documents on his or her behalf, both the Chair and the Ranking Member would receive copies of all documents produced. This could compromise the confidentiality of the individual Senator’s work, including work related to matters in his or her own State.
The NRC’s new policy directs NRC staff to try to limit the documents provided, even to oversight Committee Chairs and Ranking Members
The NRC’s old policy directed NRC staff to ask for a delay in the provision of “particularly” or “highly” sensitive documents such as ongoing investigations until the matter at hand had been decided. It also allowed NRC staff to suggest a different way to provide the information requested, such as allowing Congressional staff to review the materials on NRC premises or suggesting other conditions associated with their provision. However, if the Congressional requester still wished to receive the documents, NRC staff was directed to consult with NRC Commissioners but then provide them in a manner that clearly indicated that the documents could not be publicly released.
The NRC’s new policy does not distinguish between “particularly” or “highly” sensitive documents and other non-public materials, and requires NRC staff to attempt, as a matter of course, to pursue alternatives to providing any non-public document to the Congressional requester. If the Congressional requester continues to require the documents, NRC staff is directed to provide NRC Commissioners with the opportunity to approve or disapprove a proposed document production. These changes will delay the provision of materials requested by NRC’s oversight Committee Chairs or Ranking Members as each Commissioner determines whether to approve, disapprove, or delay the response even further by insisting that a full Commission vote be taken. This could also result in the denial of some or all of the requested documents to Committee Chairs and Ranking Members via direction of NRC Commissioners absent legal authority to withhold any such materials whatsoever.
NRC’s new policy may seek to deny Committee Chairs and Ranking Members documents that have also been subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
NRC’s old policy allowed for the transmittal of documents that had also been subject to a FOIA request to Congressional requesters as long as they were transmitted with a cover letter asking that they be maintained in confidence until the FOIA determination had been made.
The new policy simply states that NRC staff should keep Congressional requesters apprised of the status of the FOIA request, but is silent on the question of whether the documents will be provided while the FOIA determination is pending. Any person who wished to delay Congressional oversight of a particular matter could seemingly file their own FOIA request for information in order to complicate, delay or deny Congressional requests for the same materials.
Appendix 2 Comparing NRC’s Old and New Policies for Transmitting Sensitive Documents to Congress
Old Policy: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/icp-chapter-6-2011.pdf
New Policy: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/icp-chapter-6-2013.pdf
SUMMARY: NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all, and imposes new means by which even requests submitted by Committee Chairmen will be obstructed, delayed and possibly even denied. The new policy has been altered from one that generally presumes that sensitive documents will be provided to Congressional requesters to one that generally presumes that they will not.
Who in Congress can receive sensitive documents from the NRC?
Old policy: “The Commission's general practice is to provide sensitive documents requested by Members of its Congressional oversight committees. It will also provide sensitive documents to other Members of Congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her State or District. In other circumstances, OCA [the NRC Office of Congressional Affairs] should advise the Member that the NRC prefers that such requests be made through the full Committee or Subcommittee Chairman or ranking minority Member of an NRC oversight committee.”
New policy: “Sensitive documents may be provided only upon written request by a Chairperson or Ranking Member of one of NRC's Congressional oversight committees or subcommittees, acting in his or her capacity as Chairperson or Ranking Member.... Individual members of Congress who request sensitive information should be provided publicly available information that is responsive to their requests and offered briefings. The Commission's expectation is that requests for sensitive information will come from the Chairperson or Ranking Member of an NRC oversight committee or subcommittee.”
How should NRC staff respond to requests for sensitive documents they prefer not to provide?
Old policy: “In some cases, where the nature of the documents is highly sensitive, the Commission may wish to consider alternatives to direct transmittal. For example, the Commission may wish to suggest retaining the documents on the premises and making them available to Congressional staff for their review.”
New policy: “When sensitive documents are requested, OCA, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), should first pursue appropriate alternatives to meet the requester’s need for information that do not involve production of sensitive documents.”
What should NRC do when Congress continues to wish to obtain sensitive documents even after hearing NRC’s concerns?
Old policy: For particularly sensitive documents, such as ongoing investigations, “the Commission’s preference is that these documents not be provided to Congress until after the agency has decided the matter at issue. When documents within these categories are requested, OCA will discuss the sensitivity of the document with the requester and ask to defer the request until after the agency has made its decision on the matter at issue. If the requester refuses to withdraw or defer his or her request, then OCA, after consultation with the Commission, will provide these documents to Congress pursuant to the procedures set forth below.” The procedures referred to include a requirement that the documents be transmitted with a cover letter specifying that they should not be publicly released, and each sensitive document should be so marked as well. The presumption in the 2011 document is that sensitive documents will be provided upon request, absent additional direction from the Commission.
New policy: “In recognition of the Commission’s decision-making responsibilities, OCA is to ensure that the Commission receives an opportunity to approve, or a reasonable opportunity to object to, the initial staff tasking that would include the compilation of sensitive documents as well as a proposed response that would include production of sensitive documents.” The new policy does not distinguish between ‘highly sensitive’ and ‘sensitive’ documents, and appears to require an active decision on the part of the Commission to approve or disapprove the document production.
How should the NRC handle Congressional requests for documents that have also been FOIAd?
Old policy: In cases where non-public documents requested by a Congressional source are also being requested under a FOIA request, they should be transmitted to the requesting Congressional committee under a cover letter signed by the Director, OCA explaining that the documents are subject to a pending FOIA request and requesting that they be maintained in confidence pending a FOIA determination.
New policy: In cases where sensitive documents requested by the Chairperson or Ranking Member of an NRC oversight committee or subcommittee are also being requested under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, OCA should make reasonable efforts to keep the Congressional requester(s) informed of the status of the pending FOIA request.”
Old Policy: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/icp-chapter-6-2011.pdf
New Policy: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/icp-chapter-6-2013.pdf
SUMMARY: NRC’s new policy removes the rights of most Senators to receive sensitive documents at all, and imposes new means by which even requests submitted by Committee Chairmen will be obstructed, delayed and possibly even denied. The new policy has been altered from one that generally presumes that sensitive documents will be provided to Congressional requesters to one that generally presumes that they will not.
Who in Congress can receive sensitive documents from the NRC?
Old policy: “The Commission's general practice is to provide sensitive documents requested by Members of its Congressional oversight committees. It will also provide sensitive documents to other Members of Congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her State or District. In other circumstances, OCA [the NRC Office of Congressional Affairs] should advise the Member that the NRC prefers that such requests be made through the full Committee or Subcommittee Chairman or ranking minority Member of an NRC oversight committee.”
New policy: “Sensitive documents may be provided only upon written request by a Chairperson or Ranking Member of one of NRC's Congressional oversight committees or subcommittees, acting in his or her capacity as Chairperson or Ranking Member.... Individual members of Congress who request sensitive information should be provided publicly available information that is responsive to their requests and offered briefings. The Commission's expectation is that requests for sensitive information will come from the Chairperson or Ranking Member of an NRC oversight committee or subcommittee.”
How should NRC staff respond to requests for sensitive documents they prefer not to provide?
Old policy: “In some cases, where the nature of the documents is highly sensitive, the Commission may wish to consider alternatives to direct transmittal. For example, the Commission may wish to suggest retaining the documents on the premises and making them available to Congressional staff for their review.”
New policy: “When sensitive documents are requested, OCA, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), should first pursue appropriate alternatives to meet the requester’s need for information that do not involve production of sensitive documents.”
What should NRC do when Congress continues to wish to obtain sensitive documents even after hearing NRC’s concerns?
Old policy: For particularly sensitive documents, such as ongoing investigations, “the Commission’s preference is that these documents not be provided to Congress until after the agency has decided the matter at issue. When documents within these categories are requested, OCA will discuss the sensitivity of the document with the requester and ask to defer the request until after the agency has made its decision on the matter at issue. If the requester refuses to withdraw or defer his or her request, then OCA, after consultation with the Commission, will provide these documents to Congress pursuant to the procedures set forth below.” The procedures referred to include a requirement that the documents be transmitted with a cover letter specifying that they should not be publicly released, and each sensitive document should be so marked as well. The presumption in the 2011 document is that sensitive documents will be provided upon request, absent additional direction from the Commission.
New policy: “In recognition of the Commission’s decision-making responsibilities, OCA is to ensure that the Commission receives an opportunity to approve, or a reasonable opportunity to object to, the initial staff tasking that would include the compilation of sensitive documents as well as a proposed response that would include production of sensitive documents.” The new policy does not distinguish between ‘highly sensitive’ and ‘sensitive’ documents, and appears to require an active decision on the part of the Commission to approve or disapprove the document production.
How should the NRC handle Congressional requests for documents that have also been FOIAd?
Old policy: In cases where non-public documents requested by a Congressional source are also being requested under a FOIA request, they should be transmitted to the requesting Congressional committee under a cover letter signed by the Director, OCA explaining that the documents are subject to a pending FOIA request and requesting that they be maintained in confidence pending a FOIA determination.
New policy: In cases where sensitive documents requested by the Chairperson or Ranking Member of an NRC oversight committee or subcommittee are also being requested under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, OCA should make reasonable efforts to keep the Congressional requester(s) informed of the status of the pending FOIA request.”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=394f579a-28c0-46b7-9f9d-1e6fd48ba1be
November 27, 2013
You're responding to the wrong post perhaps?
The title was a quote from post #9.
You mention that it's "Ancestral Puebloan culture, not Anasazi" and I'm obliged to you for the correction. Even though I didn't author that sentence, I would have made that mistake if given the chance.
My undergrad major was cultural anthropology and I'd lived in NM for a couple of years, so when I had the chance 11 years ago to visit I couldn't let it pass. I camped at the 4 Corners area for a couple of days and did a cursory bit of research around that time.
I'll look for Christie Turner's book. Thanks.
November 27, 2013
To download entire report:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft
This is a repost of an OP from 2010. The original thread is a priceless visit with tombstoned DrGreg (who coincidentally shares so many unique traits with PawW).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258338
Have you heard the bull**** claim that "renewables are great but they aren't enough"?
Have you heard the bull**** claim that "renewables are great but they aren't enough"?
This is a common bit of misinformation that swirls around the public consciousness, perverting the ability of the public to make informed choices on how we proceed to address our energy security and climate change needs. This is a detailed analysis matching real world demand and the known operational profile of renewable energy sources. It clearly shows that claims such as "renewabes can't do it" or "renewables aren't enough" are nothing but balderdash and poppycock.
These false beliefs that are being nurtured by political and economic forces that stand to lose power and money if we focus our efforts on the renewable, sustainable solution to our energy issues.
Equally important is the fact that not only CAN renewables do the job, but they can do it for less money, more reliably, with far fewer external costs, and much much lower risks than the only other non-carbon contenders - coal with carbon capture/sequestration and nuclear power.
The claim is NOT being made that this would be an easy task. Nor is the claim made that the modeling in the paper is perfect representation of all geographic areas and the specific resources that would be available to meet demands in those areas; for example, there will be areas where wave/current/tidal or biomass are more important than solar, or where storage options like pumped hydro and compressed air storage are more appropriate than standard hydro.
What the paper does demonstrate is the fallacy of the idea that renewable energy resources are not up to the task. We have a wide range of technologies sitting on the shelf available to meet demand and it is good to be aware of their potential.
Matching Hourly and Peak Demand by Combining Different Renewable Energy Sources
A case study for California in 2020
Graeme R.G. Hoste
Michael J. Dvorak
Mark Z. Jacobson
Stanford University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Atmosphere/Energy Program
Abstract
In 2002 the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1078, establishing the Renewables Portfolio Standard requiring 20 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2010, with the additional goal of 33% by 2020 (California Senate, 2002; California Energy Commission , 2004). More recently, some legislative proposals have called for eliminating 80% of all carbon from energy to limit climate change to an ‘acceptable level’. At the passing of the 2002 California bill, qualifying renewables provided less than 10% of California’s energy supply (CEC, 2007). Several barriers slow the development of renewables; these include technological barriers, access to renewable resources, public perceptions, political pressure from interest groups, and cost, to name a few. This paper considers only one technological barrier to renewables: integration into the grid.
Many renewable resources are intermittent or variable by nature—producing power inconsistently and somewhat unpredictably—while on the other end of the transmission line, consumers demand power variably but predictably throughout the day. The Independent System Operator (ISO) monitors this demand, turning on or off additional generation when necessary. As such, predictability of energy supply and demand is essential for grid management. For natural gas or hydroelectricity, supplies can be throttled relatively easily. But with a wind farm, power output cannot be ramped up on demand. In some cases, a single wind farm that is providing power steadily may see a drop in or complete loss of wind for a period. For this reason, grid operators generally pay less for energy provided from wind or solar power than from a conventional, predictable resource.
Although wind, solar, tidal, and wave resources will always be intermittent when they are considered in isolation and at one location, several methods exist to reduce intermittency of delivered power. These include combining geographically disperse intermittent resources of the same type, using storage, and combining different renewables with complementary intermittencies (e.g., Kahn, 1979; Archer and Jacobson, 2003, 2007). This paper discusses the last method: integration of several independent resources. In the pages that follow, we demonstrate that the complementary intermittencies of wind and solar power in California, along with the flexibility of hydro, make it possible for a true portfolio of renewables to meet a significant portion of California’s electricity demand. In particular, we estimate mixes of renewable capacities required to supply 80% and 100% of California’s electricity and 2020 and show the feasibility of load-matching over the year with these resources. Additionally, we outline the tradeoffs between different renewable portfolios (i.e., wind-heavy or solar-heavy mixes). We conclude that combining at least four renewables, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power in optimal proportions would allow California to meet up to 100% of its future hourly electric power demand assuming an expanded and improved transmission grid.
A case study for California in 2020
Graeme R.G. Hoste
Michael J. Dvorak
Mark Z. Jacobson
Stanford University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Atmosphere/Energy Program
Abstract
In 2002 the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1078, establishing the Renewables Portfolio Standard requiring 20 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2010, with the additional goal of 33% by 2020 (California Senate, 2002; California Energy Commission , 2004). More recently, some legislative proposals have called for eliminating 80% of all carbon from energy to limit climate change to an ‘acceptable level’. At the passing of the 2002 California bill, qualifying renewables provided less than 10% of California’s energy supply (CEC, 2007). Several barriers slow the development of renewables; these include technological barriers, access to renewable resources, public perceptions, political pressure from interest groups, and cost, to name a few. This paper considers only one technological barrier to renewables: integration into the grid.
Many renewable resources are intermittent or variable by nature—producing power inconsistently and somewhat unpredictably—while on the other end of the transmission line, consumers demand power variably but predictably throughout the day. The Independent System Operator (ISO) monitors this demand, turning on or off additional generation when necessary. As such, predictability of energy supply and demand is essential for grid management. For natural gas or hydroelectricity, supplies can be throttled relatively easily. But with a wind farm, power output cannot be ramped up on demand. In some cases, a single wind farm that is providing power steadily may see a drop in or complete loss of wind for a period. For this reason, grid operators generally pay less for energy provided from wind or solar power than from a conventional, predictable resource.
Although wind, solar, tidal, and wave resources will always be intermittent when they are considered in isolation and at one location, several methods exist to reduce intermittency of delivered power. These include combining geographically disperse intermittent resources of the same type, using storage, and combining different renewables with complementary intermittencies (e.g., Kahn, 1979; Archer and Jacobson, 2003, 2007). This paper discusses the last method: integration of several independent resources. In the pages that follow, we demonstrate that the complementary intermittencies of wind and solar power in California, along with the flexibility of hydro, make it possible for a true portfolio of renewables to meet a significant portion of California’s electricity demand. In particular, we estimate mixes of renewable capacities required to supply 80% and 100% of California’s electricity and 2020 and show the feasibility of load-matching over the year with these resources. Additionally, we outline the tradeoffs between different renewable portfolios (i.e., wind-heavy or solar-heavy mixes). We conclude that combining at least four renewables, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power in optimal proportions would allow California to meet up to 100% of its future hourly electric power demand assuming an expanded and improved transmission grid.
To download entire report:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft
This is a repost of an OP from 2010. The original thread is a priceless visit with tombstoned DrGreg (who coincidentally shares so many unique traits with PawW).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258338
November 25, 2013
http://yle.fi/uutiset/areva_ups_olkiluoto_compensation_demand/6907271
A nuclear plant that's 7 years behind schedule and currently at 300% + original cost estimate in a country that has no "antinuke" forces to deal with.
This project was to be a flagship operation for the nuclear industry - they said it would be a transparent case study in how the 'modern' nuclear industry could deliver on-time and on-budget when the regulatory regime was working with them.
I'd say they've done a spectacular job of showing the world exactly that.
For background on this clusterf*&k see wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
And a similar reactor at Flamanville France is turning out the same way.
Way behind schedule and waaaay over budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/112756356
Areva ups Olkiluoto compensation demand
The French-German nuclear contractor Areva-Siemens has increased its demand for compensation over an abandoned deal to provide the third reactor at the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant. The company is now demanding a total of 2.6 billion euros in compensation—an increase of 700 million euros on its previous demand.
The legal disputes around the third reactor set to be built at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki have taken a new turn. Both the Finnish consortium Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) and Areva-Siemens are demanding compensation from the other party.
The project has been delayed by at least seven years from its original start date of 2009, and the builder Areva-Siemens and the customer TVO have traded accusations as each tries to blame the other party.
TVO announced on Tuesday that Areva had updated its arbitration claim with an increased demand for compensation. The sum is now 2.6 billion euros—700 million euros more than originally claimed....
The French-German nuclear contractor Areva-Siemens has increased its demand for compensation over an abandoned deal to provide the third reactor at the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant. The company is now demanding a total of 2.6 billion euros in compensation—an increase of 700 million euros on its previous demand.
The legal disputes around the third reactor set to be built at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki have taken a new turn. Both the Finnish consortium Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) and Areva-Siemens are demanding compensation from the other party.
The project has been delayed by at least seven years from its original start date of 2009, and the builder Areva-Siemens and the customer TVO have traded accusations as each tries to blame the other party.
TVO announced on Tuesday that Areva had updated its arbitration claim with an increased demand for compensation. The sum is now 2.6 billion euros—700 million euros more than originally claimed....
http://yle.fi/uutiset/areva_ups_olkiluoto_compensation_demand/6907271
A nuclear plant that's 7 years behind schedule and currently at 300% + original cost estimate in a country that has no "antinuke" forces to deal with.
This project was to be a flagship operation for the nuclear industry - they said it would be a transparent case study in how the 'modern' nuclear industry could deliver on-time and on-budget when the regulatory regime was working with them.
I'd say they've done a spectacular job of showing the world exactly that.
For background on this clusterf*&k see wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
And a similar reactor at Flamanville France is turning out the same way.
Way behind schedule and waaaay over budget.
...Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[2] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe.
EDF has previously said France's first EPR would cost €3.3 billion and start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.
On 3 December 2012 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €8.5 billion ($11 billion), and the completion of construction is delayed to 2016. The next day the Italian power company Enel announced it was relinquishing its 12.5% stake in the project, and 5 future EPRs, so would be reimbursed its project stake of €613 million plus interest.
EDF has previously said France's first EPR would cost €3.3 billion and start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.
On 3 December 2012 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €8.5 billion ($11 billion), and the completion of construction is delayed to 2016. The next day the Italian power company Enel announced it was relinquishing its 12.5% stake in the project, and 5 future EPRs, so would be reimbursed its project stake of €613 million plus interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
