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
December 13, 2013
Nuclear material was stolen from a truck in Mexico this week before being recovered two days later. Such incidents are alarmingly frequent. More than 20 cases of theft or loss of nuclear material take place every year, according to the IAEA. Many are never publicly reported. These are selected cases from the past 10 years, based on reports tracked by the Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-look-at-recent-nuclear-material-incidents/2013/12/05/c6f3edb6-5e17-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_graphic.html
From Harvard's Belfer Center
What nuclear weapons could terrorists use?
They could buy, steal, or construct a nuclear weapon.
What is the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb?
Acquiring fissile material
What fissile material is needed to make a nuclear bomb?
HEU or Pu
How difficult would it be for terrorists to get fissile materials?
Not hard enough
There are hundreds of locations holding nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material and no binding global standards for how well these weapons and materials should be secured. There are more than 130 research reactors with HEU, some of which are in developing and transitional countries.
Once nuclear material is acquired, could terrorists make a nuclear weapon?
Yes
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (1977): "A small group of people, none of whom have ever had access to the classified literature, could design and build a crude nuclear explosive device... [O]nly modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing suspicion would be required."
Amount of HEU required to make a crude nuclear bomb: 25 kg
Global stockpile of HEU: 1,600,000 kg
Amount of Pu required to make a crude nuclear bomb: 8 kg
Global stockpile of separated Pu: 500,000 kg
Number of bombs that can be built with global stocks of fissile material:
More than 200,000
Bombs' worth of fissile material that has been stolen or lost:
More than 1
One hundred percent of "known" stolen or lost fissile material has been recovered. However, as the IAEA reported in 2009, "There are indications that the seized material was only a sample of larger quantities available for illegal purchase or at risk of theft."
Have terrorists acquired fissile material?
No known cases
Could terrorists steal or buy HEU or Pu?
Yes
In 1993, 20 bombs' worth of HEU was discovered in a poorly secured building in Kazakhstan. In 2006, Russian citizen Oleg Khinsagov was arrested in Georgia for carrying 100 grams of HEU and attempting to find a buyer for what he claimed were many additional kilograms. In 2007, two armed teams broke into South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear facility, a site where an estimated 30 weapons' worth of HEU is stored. They overcame a 10,000-volt security fence, entered without setting off an alarm, broke into the emergency control center, shot a worker, and escaped.
Number of incidents from 1993-2008 of theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials reported to the IAEA by member states:
421
Number of confirmed incidents from 1993-2008 involving unauthorized possession of HEU or Pu:
18
Have terrorists ever stolen or built a nuclear weapon?
No known cases
However, they are trying to do so. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement, "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," declaring that "It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
Estimated number of nuclear weapons sites in the world:
111
Number of countries in which these nuclear weapons are stored:
14
Could terrorists steal or buy a nuclear weapon?
Yes
The potential for a sale exists. Kim Jong-il sold something thousands of times larger than a bomb: a Yongbyon-style reactor capable of producing Pu from which Syria could have made nuclear weapons. There are 150-240 U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. A 2008 internal U.S. Air Force investigation determined that "most" of the sites that store them do not meet U.S. security standards. In 2010, six anti-nuclear activists broke into a Belgian military base that stores 10-20 U.S. nuclear weapons and walked around for up to an hour.
Has a country ever lost a nuclear weapon?
Yes
At least 11 U.S. weapons have been lost. Russia denies that any of its nuclear weapons have gone missing, but at least four nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads sank and were never recovered.
How much did the smallest nuclear bomb ever produced weigh?
23 kg
Minimum weight of a nuclear backpack weapon like Russia's RA-155:
30 kg trong>
Number of minutes that it would take to detonate this bomb:
10
Yield of this bomb: 0.5 to 2 kilotons
Could terrorists target a nuclear reactor to cause a nuclear explosion?
No
There is no possibility of a nuclear explosion at a civilian reactor. However, a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could release a massive dose of radiation.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20057/nuclear_terrorism_fact_sheet.html
WashPost infographic on recent thefts of nuclear materials
A look at recent nuclear-material incidentsNuclear material was stolen from a truck in Mexico this week before being recovered two days later. Such incidents are alarmingly frequent. More than 20 cases of theft or loss of nuclear material take place every year, according to the IAEA. Many are never publicly reported. These are selected cases from the past 10 years, based on reports tracked by the Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-look-at-recent-nuclear-material-incidents/2013/12/05/c6f3edb6-5e17-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_graphic.html
From Harvard's Belfer Center
What nuclear weapons could terrorists use?
They could buy, steal, or construct a nuclear weapon.
What is the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb?
Acquiring fissile material
What fissile material is needed to make a nuclear bomb?
HEU or Pu
How difficult would it be for terrorists to get fissile materials?
Not hard enough
There are hundreds of locations holding nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material and no binding global standards for how well these weapons and materials should be secured. There are more than 130 research reactors with HEU, some of which are in developing and transitional countries.
Once nuclear material is acquired, could terrorists make a nuclear weapon?
Yes
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (1977): "A small group of people, none of whom have ever had access to the classified literature, could design and build a crude nuclear explosive device... [O]nly modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing suspicion would be required."
Amount of HEU required to make a crude nuclear bomb: 25 kg
Global stockpile of HEU: 1,600,000 kg
Amount of Pu required to make a crude nuclear bomb: 8 kg
Global stockpile of separated Pu: 500,000 kg
Number of bombs that can be built with global stocks of fissile material:
More than 200,000
Bombs' worth of fissile material that has been stolen or lost:
More than 1
One hundred percent of "known" stolen or lost fissile material has been recovered. However, as the IAEA reported in 2009, "There are indications that the seized material was only a sample of larger quantities available for illegal purchase or at risk of theft."
Have terrorists acquired fissile material?
No known cases
Could terrorists steal or buy HEU or Pu?
Yes
In 1993, 20 bombs' worth of HEU was discovered in a poorly secured building in Kazakhstan. In 2006, Russian citizen Oleg Khinsagov was arrested in Georgia for carrying 100 grams of HEU and attempting to find a buyer for what he claimed were many additional kilograms. In 2007, two armed teams broke into South Africa's Pelindaba nuclear facility, a site where an estimated 30 weapons' worth of HEU is stored. They overcame a 10,000-volt security fence, entered without setting off an alarm, broke into the emergency control center, shot a worker, and escaped.
Number of incidents from 1993-2008 of theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials reported to the IAEA by member states:
421
Number of confirmed incidents from 1993-2008 involving unauthorized possession of HEU or Pu:
18
Have terrorists ever stolen or built a nuclear weapon?
No known cases
However, they are trying to do so. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement, "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," declaring that "It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
Estimated number of nuclear weapons sites in the world:
111
Number of countries in which these nuclear weapons are stored:
14
Could terrorists steal or buy a nuclear weapon?
Yes
The potential for a sale exists. Kim Jong-il sold something thousands of times larger than a bomb: a Yongbyon-style reactor capable of producing Pu from which Syria could have made nuclear weapons. There are 150-240 U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. A 2008 internal U.S. Air Force investigation determined that "most" of the sites that store them do not meet U.S. security standards. In 2010, six anti-nuclear activists broke into a Belgian military base that stores 10-20 U.S. nuclear weapons and walked around for up to an hour.
Has a country ever lost a nuclear weapon?
Yes
At least 11 U.S. weapons have been lost. Russia denies that any of its nuclear weapons have gone missing, but at least four nuclear submarines with nuclear warheads sank and were never recovered.
How much did the smallest nuclear bomb ever produced weigh?
23 kg
Minimum weight of a nuclear backpack weapon like Russia's RA-155:
30 kg trong>
Number of minutes that it would take to detonate this bomb:
10
Yield of this bomb: 0.5 to 2 kilotons
Could terrorists target a nuclear reactor to cause a nuclear explosion?
No
There is no possibility of a nuclear explosion at a civilian reactor. However, a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could release a massive dose of radiation.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20057/nuclear_terrorism_fact_sheet.html
December 13, 2013
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21636-costly_to_the_core.html
How the nuclear plant no one knows about is wasting ratepayer money.
From the Williamette Week News
Costly To The Core
How the nuclear plant no one knows about is wasting your money.
IMAGE: Energy Northwest
.....McCullough was one of the first to figure out Enron Corp. was behind the power shortages and blackouts that darkened California in 2000 and 2001. In congressional testimony in 2002, McCullough revealed exactly how the Texas energy giant crippled the economies of Western states by manipulating electricity markets. His work led to billion-dollar settlements and criminal convictions.
.....He’s spent the past nine months examining the economics of the region’s only nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, which sits on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington.
.....But his report on the Columbia Generating Station leads to an unmistakable conclusion: It should be shut down.
Not for safety reasons, but because it has become the most expensive nuclear plant of its kind in the United States to run, and is a waste of money that costs ratepayers as much as an extra $50 per year.
.....
How the nuclear plant no one knows about is wasting your money.
IMAGE: Energy Northwest
.....McCullough was one of the first to figure out Enron Corp. was behind the power shortages and blackouts that darkened California in 2000 and 2001. In congressional testimony in 2002, McCullough revealed exactly how the Texas energy giant crippled the economies of Western states by manipulating electricity markets. His work led to billion-dollar settlements and criminal convictions.
.....He’s spent the past nine months examining the economics of the region’s only nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, which sits on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington.
.....But his report on the Columbia Generating Station leads to an unmistakable conclusion: It should be shut down.
Not for safety reasons, but because it has become the most expensive nuclear plant of its kind in the United States to run, and is a waste of money that costs ratepayers as much as an extra $50 per year.
.....
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21636-costly_to_the_core.html
December 12, 2013
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Just-How-Much-Are-Solar-and-Wind-Really-Contributing
Just How Much Are Solar and Wind Really Contributing?
Just How Much Are Solar and Wind Really Contributing?
It’s the generation that counts.
Earthtechling, Pete Danko
December 9, 2013
It’s inevitable: any article that mentions increases in renewable energy capacity, be it wind or solar, will be met with a smart-aleck comment that renewables don’t operate at capacity and therefore are inferior.
Of course, the fact that renewables are variable producers is taken into account when assessing their value, and, it should be noted, even fossil-fuel plants don’t operate at 100 percent capacity on an annual basis. Still, installed capacity, while important, is of limited value and in the end, it’s generation that counts (along with when the power is generated, but that’s another story).
So, courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Lab’s Renewable Energy Data Book (PDF), here are some charts that show the progress of solar and wind capacity and generation in the United States. First, wind:
Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book
To put the 2012 total generation (140,089 gigawatt-hours) into perspective, that’s 3.4 percent of all the electricity generated in the United States in the year. Doesn’t sound like that much, but a decade ago, it was barely a few tenths of 1 percent.
Now solar:
Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book
The 12,775 gigawatt-hours of solar pumped out in 2012 ...
It’s the generation that counts.
Earthtechling, Pete Danko
December 9, 2013
It’s inevitable: any article that mentions increases in renewable energy capacity, be it wind or solar, will be met with a smart-aleck comment that renewables don’t operate at capacity and therefore are inferior.
Of course, the fact that renewables are variable producers is taken into account when assessing their value, and, it should be noted, even fossil-fuel plants don’t operate at 100 percent capacity on an annual basis. Still, installed capacity, while important, is of limited value and in the end, it’s generation that counts (along with when the power is generated, but that’s another story).
So, courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Lab’s Renewable Energy Data Book (PDF), here are some charts that show the progress of solar and wind capacity and generation in the United States. First, wind:
Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book
To put the 2012 total generation (140,089 gigawatt-hours) into perspective, that’s 3.4 percent of all the electricity generated in the United States in the year. Doesn’t sound like that much, but a decade ago, it was barely a few tenths of 1 percent.
Now solar:
Source: National Renewable Energy Lab's 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book
The 12,775 gigawatt-hours of solar pumped out in 2012 ...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Just-How-Much-Are-Solar-and-Wind-Really-Contributing
December 12, 2013
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/uk-eu-britain-nuclear-idUKBRE9BB07B20131212
EU to launch probe into British nuclear state aid next week
EU to launch probe into British nuclear state aid next week - sources
BY FOO YUN CHEE AND KAROLIN SCHAPS
BRUSSELS/LONDON Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:37pm GMT
(Reuters) - The European Commission will open an investigation next week into planned British support for a new nuclear power plant, three people familiar with the matter said, in a precedent-setting case for future nuclear funding in Europe.
...Britain is the first European member state to request approval for government support for nuclear power. The Commission's verdict is expected to determine how other states regulate nuclear support in future.
...The British government in October agreed commercial terms with EDF for the firm to build a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point expected to cost 16 billion pounds ($26.2 billion).
...If the Commission refuses state aid approval, the Hinkley Point project could fail, threatening the British government's long-term energy and environmental plans which call for nuclear power.
"The project could not proceed," an EU diplomatic source said ...
BY FOO YUN CHEE AND KAROLIN SCHAPS
BRUSSELS/LONDON Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:37pm GMT
(Reuters) - The European Commission will open an investigation next week into planned British support for a new nuclear power plant, three people familiar with the matter said, in a precedent-setting case for future nuclear funding in Europe.
...Britain is the first European member state to request approval for government support for nuclear power. The Commission's verdict is expected to determine how other states regulate nuclear support in future.
...The British government in October agreed commercial terms with EDF for the firm to build a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point expected to cost 16 billion pounds ($26.2 billion).
...If the Commission refuses state aid approval, the Hinkley Point project could fail, threatening the British government's long-term energy and environmental plans which call for nuclear power.
"The project could not proceed," an EU diplomatic source said ...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/uk-eu-britain-nuclear-idUKBRE9BB07B20131212
December 12, 2013
http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/plant-shutdown-price-tag-118-billion
Fla Nuclear Plant shutdown price tag: $1.18 billion and take 60 years
Plant shutdown price tag: $1.18 billion
By Pat Faherty
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Duke Energy has submitted its decommissioning plan for the Crystal River nuclear plant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The selected option is expected to be completed in 2074, capping more than a century of activity on the site.
<snip>
The estimated decommissioning cost is $1.18 billion in current dollars. The company believes its existing nuclear decommissioning trust fund, plus the fund’s future growth — coupled with funds from the plant’s nine other owners — will be sufficient to cover the decommissioning cost.
Duke is responsible for about 98 percent of costs. Analysis of estimated decommissioning cash flows indicates, at this time, no additional charges will be required from Florida customers to supplement the trust fund. However, annual analysis will be required...
By Pat Faherty
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Duke Energy has submitted its decommissioning plan for the Crystal River nuclear plant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The selected option is expected to be completed in 2074, capping more than a century of activity on the site.
<snip>
The estimated decommissioning cost is $1.18 billion in current dollars. The company believes its existing nuclear decommissioning trust fund, plus the fund’s future growth — coupled with funds from the plant’s nine other owners — will be sufficient to cover the decommissioning cost.
Duke is responsible for about 98 percent of costs. Analysis of estimated decommissioning cash flows indicates, at this time, no additional charges will be required from Florida customers to supplement the trust fund. However, annual analysis will be required...
http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/plant-shutdown-price-tag-118-billion
December 11, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/09/3040781/farms-cow-manure-renewable-energy/
“optimized cow stomachs”
"How Farms Across America Are Using Cow Manure For Renewable Energy"
Many have heard about how cow farts and manure decomposition both produce harmful methane gas, which contributes to global warming pollution. What is less known, though, is that farms can convert cow manure into renewable biogas, which can power aspects of the farm and prevent that methane from reaching the atmosphere.
While it’s no “catalytic converter” method, it is slowly but surely making its way across America’s farms. According to statistics updated by the EPA in November, there are now approximately 220 manure-to-biogas conversion systems operating at commercial livestock farms throughout the United States.
As ThinkProgress reported last month, these so-called “anaerobic digesters” have been used on farms to help process manure for several years. They are essentially just airtight tanks filled with a special mix of bacteria similar to that of the stomach of a cow. Patrick Serfass, Executive Director at the American Biogass Council, calls anaerobic digesters “optimized cow stomachs.” Farm operators make “slurry” out of the cow manure by combining it with water, and feed it into the machine, which creates a biogas comprised of about 60 percent methane and 40 percent carbon dioxide. The gas is then collected, treated, and piped to a gas use device. The leftover “digester byproducts” (cow dung without its gas) can be used for fertilizer or potting soil, which some of the farms are selling for some extra revenue.
The systems are now installed at 181 dairy farms, 27 swine farms, 7 “mixed” livestock farms, 4 beef farms, and 4 poultry farms in the United States, according to the EPA.
The process has been so successful that...
Many have heard about how cow farts and manure decomposition both produce harmful methane gas, which contributes to global warming pollution. What is less known, though, is that farms can convert cow manure into renewable biogas, which can power aspects of the farm and prevent that methane from reaching the atmosphere.
While it’s no “catalytic converter” method, it is slowly but surely making its way across America’s farms. According to statistics updated by the EPA in November, there are now approximately 220 manure-to-biogas conversion systems operating at commercial livestock farms throughout the United States.
As ThinkProgress reported last month, these so-called “anaerobic digesters” have been used on farms to help process manure for several years. They are essentially just airtight tanks filled with a special mix of bacteria similar to that of the stomach of a cow. Patrick Serfass, Executive Director at the American Biogass Council, calls anaerobic digesters “optimized cow stomachs.” Farm operators make “slurry” out of the cow manure by combining it with water, and feed it into the machine, which creates a biogas comprised of about 60 percent methane and 40 percent carbon dioxide. The gas is then collected, treated, and piped to a gas use device. The leftover “digester byproducts” (cow dung without its gas) can be used for fertilizer or potting soil, which some of the farms are selling for some extra revenue.
The systems are now installed at 181 dairy farms, 27 swine farms, 7 “mixed” livestock farms, 4 beef farms, and 4 poultry farms in the United States, according to the EPA.
The process has been so successful that...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/09/3040781/farms-cow-manure-renewable-energy/
December 11, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3043591/coal-export-terminals-failed/
Four Proposed Coal Export Terminals Have Now Failed This Year Due To ‘Diminished’ Market
Four Proposed Coal Export Terminals Have Now Failed This Year Due To ‘Diminished’ Market
BY EMILY ATKIN ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 12:49 PM
As coal continues to decline in the U.S., plans to export it to overseas markets are going south. On Tuesday, the Port of Corpus Christi announced that it was ditching plans to build a major coal export terminal there after two years of development, citing a “seriously diminished” international interest in coal. Ambre Energy North America Inc., who entered into the $2.5 million lease in 2011, will pay a one-time fee to cancel it, according to a meeting agenda released today by the Port.
From the agenda:
The announcement is a major victory for environmentalists, and marks the fourth time in 2013 that a proposed coal export terminal has been canceled due to a deteriorating market. Of the proposed terminals still on the table, local opposition to the three remaining projects in the Pacific Northwest continues, as well as to a proposed terminal in Louisiana slated for construction next to a wetlands restoration project.
“This is the third coal export project that has been canceled in this region,” Hal Suter, chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a lifelong Corpus Christi resident told Public Citizen. “Ambre’s failure is a huge relief for Corpus Christi residents and it’s a clear sign of an accelerating shift away from coal. Texans don’t want coal, Gulf states don’t want coal and international markets don’t want it either.”
Indeed, the decision to scrap the project seems almost like deja-vu...
BY EMILY ATKIN ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 12:49 PM
As coal continues to decline in the U.S., plans to export it to overseas markets are going south. On Tuesday, the Port of Corpus Christi announced that it was ditching plans to build a major coal export terminal there after two years of development, citing a “seriously diminished” international interest in coal. Ambre Energy North America Inc., who entered into the $2.5 million lease in 2011, will pay a one-time fee to cancel it, according to a meeting agenda released today by the Port.
From the agenda:
Over the past four years interest in exporting coal at the Bulk Terminal has gone from no interest to a high of 40 million tons per year and then back to seriously diminished interest. Currently the export coal market has shrunk substantially. The domestic market has seen older coal fired power plants closed with some being refitted to burn natural gas. Wind and solar power driven by regulatory incentives have created additional pressure on coal. The enthusiasm for export terminals among coal producers has diminished.
The announcement is a major victory for environmentalists, and marks the fourth time in 2013 that a proposed coal export terminal has been canceled due to a deteriorating market. Of the proposed terminals still on the table, local opposition to the three remaining projects in the Pacific Northwest continues, as well as to a proposed terminal in Louisiana slated for construction next to a wetlands restoration project.
“This is the third coal export project that has been canceled in this region,” Hal Suter, chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a lifelong Corpus Christi resident told Public Citizen. “Ambre’s failure is a huge relief for Corpus Christi residents and it’s a clear sign of an accelerating shift away from coal. Texans don’t want coal, Gulf states don’t want coal and international markets don’t want it either.”
Indeed, the decision to scrap the project seems almost like deja-vu...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3043591/coal-export-terminals-failed/
December 11, 2013
More at
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3044961/coal-uncompetitive/
329 U.S. Coal Units Are No Longer Cost-Effective
329 U.S. Coal Units Are No Longer Cost-Effective
BY JEFF SPROSS ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 1:30 PM
Aging and inefficient plants, competing energy sources, and the looming reality of climate change are all catching up with the coal industry.
According to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists — updated from 2012 numbers — as much as 17 percent of coal-fired power in the United States is already uncompetitive, just compared to natural gas and using mid-range estimates.
The report looked at the operating costs for current coal plants, which are older and have largely paid off their capital costs, up against natural gas plants that have also paid off their capital costs. The operating costs also included all the necessary upgrades to bring the coal plants in line with pollution and carbon dioxide regulations. That yielded 329 coal units that are economically uncompetitive, or a total of 59 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity — 17 percent of the 347 gigawatts of coal power throughout the United States.
That number of uneconomic coal units could also get considerably larger depending on what the future holds. If a price of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions were to be put in place, 131 gigawatts would be uncompetitive. If the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy is preserved, 71 gigawatts of current coal capacity will be uncompetitive by comparison, versus just 22 gigawatts if the PTC is allowed to expire.
BY JEFF SPROSS ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 1:30 PM
Aging and inefficient plants, competing energy sources, and the looming reality of climate change are all catching up with the coal industry.
According to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists — updated from 2012 numbers — as much as 17 percent of coal-fired power in the United States is already uncompetitive, just compared to natural gas and using mid-range estimates.
The report looked at the operating costs for current coal plants, which are older and have largely paid off their capital costs, up against natural gas plants that have also paid off their capital costs. The operating costs also included all the necessary upgrades to bring the coal plants in line with pollution and carbon dioxide regulations. That yielded 329 coal units that are economically uncompetitive, or a total of 59 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity — 17 percent of the 347 gigawatts of coal power throughout the United States.
That number of uneconomic coal units could also get considerably larger depending on what the future holds. If a price of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions were to be put in place, 131 gigawatts would be uncompetitive. If the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy is preserved, 71 gigawatts of current coal capacity will be uncompetitive by comparison, versus just 22 gigawatts if the PTC is allowed to expire.
More at
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3044961/coal-uncompetitive/
December 11, 2013
329 U.S. Coal Units Are No Longer Cost-Effective
Source: ThinkProgress
BY JEFF SPROSS ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 1:30 PM
Aging and inefficient plants, competing energy sources, and the looming reality of climate change are all catching up with the coal industry.
According to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists — updated from 2012 numbers — as much as 17 percent of coal-fired power in the United States is already uncompetitive, just compared to natural gas and using mid-range estimates.
The report looked at the operating costs for current coal plants, which are older and have largely paid off their capital costs, up against natural gas plants that have also paid off their capital costs. The operating costs also included all the necessary upgrades to bring the coal plants in line with pollution and carbon dioxide regulations. That yielded 329 coal units that are economically uncompetitive, or a total of 59 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity — 17 percent of the 347 gigawatts of coal power throughout the United States.
That number of uneconomic coal units could also get considerably larger depending on what the future holds. If a price of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions were to be put in place, 131 gigawatts would be uncompetitive. If the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy is preserved, 71 gigawatts of current coal capacity will be uncompetitive by comparison, versus just 22 gigawatts if the PTC is allowed to expire.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/10/3044961/coal-uncompetitive/
December 11, 2013
https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/158-jim-zemlin/752128-open-source-tears-down-walled-gardens-to-connect-internet-of-everything
Tech giants form AllSeen Alliance to standardize the Internet of Things
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2071440/home-appliance-makers-connect-with-open-source-internet-of-things-project.html
Standardizing the 'Internet of Things'
The smart grid is just one aspect of what is on the horizon.
Open Source Tears Down Walled Gardens to Connect Internet of Everything
Tuesday, 10 December 2013 04:15 Jim Zemlin
The numbers are staggering. Gartner predicts that the Internet of Everything or the Internet of Things -- autonomous communication between a wide range of everyday devices, objects and applications – will add $1.9 trillion to the global economy by 2020. McKinsey Global Institute pegs the potential economic impact at $2.7 trillion to $6.2 trillion by 2025. ABI Research says the number of wirelessly connected devices on the market, now 10 billion, will triple by the end of the decade.
Could anything stand in the way of such a juggernaut?
...
Tuesday, 10 December 2013 04:15 Jim Zemlin
The numbers are staggering. Gartner predicts that the Internet of Everything or the Internet of Things -- autonomous communication between a wide range of everyday devices, objects and applications – will add $1.9 trillion to the global economy by 2020. McKinsey Global Institute pegs the potential economic impact at $2.7 trillion to $6.2 trillion by 2025. ABI Research says the number of wirelessly connected devices on the market, now 10 billion, will triple by the end of the decade.
Could anything stand in the way of such a juggernaut?
...
https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/158-jim-zemlin/752128-open-source-tears-down-walled-gardens-to-connect-internet-of-everything
Tech giants form AllSeen Alliance to standardize the Internet of Things
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2071440/home-appliance-makers-connect-with-open-source-internet-of-things-project.html
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
