HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kristopher » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

kristopher

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AM
Number of posts: 29,798

Journal Archives

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant Leads Nation in Safety Complaints

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant Leads Nation in Safety Complaints
By Laura Nott Email the author 12:42 pm

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station continues to rank No. 1 in the nation for both substantiated and unsubstantiated safety complaints at nuclear plants, according to new figures from federal regulators.

The number of substantiated safety allegations at San Onofre was more than six times the national average in 2011, a significant drop from its peak in 2010 when it was 15 times the average. But even with the decline, San Onofre was -- for the third year in a row -- the national leader in safety allegations substantiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

And in the first two months of this year, the plant -- which has been shut down since the end of January when a broken tube caused a small radiation leak -- again generated more safety complaints from workers than any of the country’s other 64 nuclear plants.

Despite the plant's poor record, its operator, Southern California Edison, continues to issue assurances that safety is their top concern.

“Our No. 1 priority is, and always has been, the health and safety...

http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-leads-nation-in-safety-complaints-0dc840c5

Links proving your statement false

The National Academies—National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council—are committed to distributing their reports to as wide an audience as possible. Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles. In addition, we have been offering free downloads of most of our titles to everyone and of all titles to readers in the developing world. We are now going one step further. Effective June 2nd, PDFs of reports that are currently for sale on the National Academies Press (NAP) Website and PDFs associated with future reports* will be offered free of charge to all Web visitors....

*There are a small number of reports that never had PDF files and, therefore, those reports are not available for download. In addition, part of the series, “Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals” are not be available in PDF and future titles in this series will also not have PDFs associated with them.


http://notes.nap.edu/2011/06/02/more-than-4000-national-academies-press-pdfs-now-available-to-download-for-free/

Not available for download does NOT mean that the titles are not shown in their catalog of papers/books for sale.


Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals

Nutrient requirement standards for economically important domestic animals and laboratory animals have served as the foundation for animal feed formulas in the United States and abroad since the first National Research Council (NRC) report was published in 1921. The requirements set forth in the series of species reports, begun in 1944, are used by producers and manufacturers as the basis for feed formulation...

http://dels-old.nas.edu/banr/nutrient_requirements_series.shtml

Even papers that are not available for download via pdf are listed.

Now let's turn to your assertion that this rare, unlisted NAS document is only available by going in the door of an academic library. There are a raft of reasons to question your claimed qualifications and this is but one more in a long list. I can't think of any academic or any plugged in researcher that doesn't know the capability of the internet and the library network called "WorldCat".

With WorldCat you can search the contents of most of the libraries in the developed and developing world. Before concluding that you were actually doing something as egregious as fabricating a reference I had previously searched for your secret paper at the general MIT library and MIT's Science library.

http://www.worldcat.org/libraries/110366

The paper you claim to have been citing doesn't exist.








To repeat for comparison

This is drawn from the NAS prepared document called a "Report in Brief" where they explain the important findings from a larger paper. In this case it is the paper, "Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments" This is is a more detailed accounting of the actual information Pam overly misrepresented in the beginning and continues above to miscast even now in order to defend and promote nuclear power.

You can download this paper and many more for free by googling the "national academy press" and registering.


There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007. The 2009 report doesn't make any recommendation couched in the "should" language you present, nor do the numbers you've offered reflect the potential they see in the relevant technologies.

Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."

They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."

The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.

Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.


Originally posted at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952

Wind power wildly exceeding DOE goals

I saw this headline and asked myself, "how good is that in relation to our goals?"

U.S. Wind Energy Capacity Growth Up 31 Percent in 2011
By Ehren Goossens and Justin Doom on April 12, 2012

U.S. wind power capacity grew 31 percent in 2011, accounting for 35 percent of all new electricity generation capacity, the American Wind Energy Association said.

The U.S. wind industry installed 6.8 gigawatts last year, to reach total capacity of 46.9 gigawatts, according to an annual market report released by the industry group in New York today.

More than 60 percent of last year’s installations, about 3.4 gigawatts, occurred in the fourth quarter, due to seasonal weather and the expiration of the Treasury grant option, which offered to cover as much as 30 percent of a project’s cost, according to AWEA. In order to qualify, developers had to start projects before the end of last year.

...About 3 percent of U.S. power came from wind last year. The industry is seeking to provide 20 percent by 2030, AWEA said. South Dakota led in terms of total electricity produced at 22.3 percent, followed by Iowa at 18.8 percent. California led with 921 megawatts installed, followed by Illinois with 693 megawatts and Iowa with 647 megawatts.

...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-12/kansas-texas-led-31-percent-gain-in-u-dot-s-dot-wind-energy-capacity-in-2011



From AWEA:
Total U.S. Utility-Scale Wind Power Capacity, Through 4th Quarter of 2011: 46,916 MW
U.S. Wind Power Capacity, Installed in 2011: 6,816 MW
U.S. Wind Power Capacity, Installed in 4th Quarter of 2011: 3,444MW
U.S. Wind Power Capacity Under Construction as of 4th Quarter of 2011: 8,320 MW

U.S. Wind Power Capacity, Installed in Previous Years (including small-wind):
2010: 5,216 MW
2009: 10,010 MW
2008: 8,366 MW
2007: 5,258 MW

U.S. Wind Resource Potential, Onshore (Source: NREL): 10,400,000 MW
U.S. Wind Resource Potential, Offshore (Source: NREL): 4,150,000 MW

Total 15.5 TW



Now here is the real point of this post. Compare the above to DOE forecasts and hopes as reported in the 2000 NAS review of DOE renewable programs:
...in June 1999 Secretary Richardson announced a DOE initiative, Wind Powering America, to increase the use of wind energy in the United States (DOE, 1999g). The goals of the initiative are: (1) to provide at least 5 percent of the nation’s electricity by wind generation by the year 2020, to have installed more than 5,000 MW by 2005, and to have installed more than 10,000 MW by 2010
p.73 Renewable Power Pathways:␣ A Review of The U.S. Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Programs
NAS

Goal: 5% by 2020
Status: 3% end 2011

Goal: Total 5GW by 2005
Achieved: 2.4GW in 2005 for total capacity of 9.1GW




That is a very distorted view of events

That is a very distorted view of events, just as everything else you write is a compete distortion of the truth. Let's take a trip down memory lane. First however, I'd like to make two points:

1) the NAS statement, "new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed" refers foremost and primarily to smart grid technologies and modifying end use applications to perform load-shifting functions.

2) your original claim said this: "The USA's best scientists at the National Academy of Science and Engineering have said that we can get at most about 15% to 20% of our electric power from renewables" (your post #38). In my post #59 I called you on that and provided the actual NAS quote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282854


From there you moved to "should" as shown below but claimed I had the citation wrong and that your original claim was correct.

You wrote,
"That's one of the reasons the National Academy of Science and Engineering says that renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."


I replied:
There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007. The 2009 report doesn't make any recommendation couched in the "should" language you present, nor do the numbers you've offered reflect the potential they see in the relevant technologies.

Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."

They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."

The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.

Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952

The exchange covers posts 68 to 75 of that thread.

From the first you were given by me the the text you are now misrepresenting and the link to the actual study - versus the 2004 fantasy study you claimed to be citing - and asked to substantiate your claim:
Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284964#285370


In this next thread, in order to support your false claim, you are now actually fabricating not only the existence of a 2004 document, but you are actually making up a title there is no record of anywhere:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277405


Next we have you making a similar false claim about the findings of the California Council on Science and Technology regarding renewable energy. The dishonesty is simply staggering. You made your false claim based on a cherry picked section when the very next sentence completely contradicted your false statement.

Your claim is, "The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels ... Renewables can't solve the problem alone"

Your selected quote,
"If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy."


Your selected quote in context,
"If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero- emisions load balancing (ZELB) to avoid these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=296568&mesg_id=296711

There are literally dozens of other examples where you knowingly make completely false claims - for example your posts in this thread.

Sen Bernie Sanders on authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Hundreds gather to protest Vt. nuclear plant
April 14, 2012

...During his speech to the energized crowd, Sanders criticized the NRC for what he said is an overstepping of its legal bounds. He explained that under federal law, the NRC is responsible for making sure power plants are safe and nothing more.

"That's their job," Sanders told The Associated Press. "They are not supposed to be an advocate for expansion of nuclear power. They are not supposed to be an ally for the nuclear power industry. Their job is really quite limited: It's to make sure that the plants are as safe as possible."

He also pointed out that the NRC's decision to keep Vermont Yankee open, despite the wishes of state officials, flies in the face of Vermont's rights. He reminded the crowd that in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court said states can slow down or end nuclear power within their borders for non-safety reasons.


Shumlin echoed that point in his speech, citing economic and trust issues as reasons the state should fight to close Vermont Yankee. For example, he said, several power providers in the state declined to partner with Vermont Yankee, finding there were other, more affordable options.

He also accused Entergy of being bad business partners...


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/04/14/hundreds_gather_to_protest_vt_nuclear_plant/


See also: Stop the nuclear industry welfare programme
After 60 years, the taxpayer should not continue to subsidise multibillion-dollar corporations in the nuclear energy sector
Bernie Sanders and Ryan Alexander guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 April 2012 09.00 EDT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/13/nuclear-industry-us-welfare

The merit-order effect: a detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation

The merit-order effect: a detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany
Sensfuß, Frank
Ragwitz, Mario
Genoese, Massimo

Abstract
The German feed-in support of electricity generation from renewable energy sources has led to high growth rates of the supported technologies. Critics state that the costs for consumers are too high. An important aspect to be considered in the discussion is the price effect created by renewable electricity generation. This paper seeks to analyse the impact of privileged renewable electricity generation on the electricity market in Germany. The central aspect to be analysed is the impact of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices. The results generated by an agent-based simulation platform indicate that the financial volume of the price reduction is considerable. In the short run, this gives rise to a distributional effect which creates savings for the demand side by reducing generator profits. In the case of the year 2006, the volume of the merit-order effect exceeds the volume of the net support payments for renewable electricity generation which have to be paid by consumers.


Can be downloaded here: http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisisi/s72007.html

ETA: see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=11729

Irish wind generation costs analysed

Irish wind generation costs analysed
25 February 2011

Wind generation in Ireland does not increase wholesale electricity prices and in fact, the trend is that it lowers them.
This is according to a study by Eirgird, the Irish grid operator and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI).
Eirgrid used detailed modelling tools to look in detail at the wholesale prices in the Irish electricity system in 2011.
The analysis showed that wind generation lowers wholesale prices by over Euro 70 million.
This almost exactly offsets the costs of the Public Service Obligation (PSO) levy...


http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=19468

"The Merit Order Effect"

Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers

A News Release by NC WARN intended for distribution

October 5th, 2011
Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers, says Watchdog Group


See the report, New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCW-NuclearClimate_web.pdf

Listen to the audio from the press conference
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCWARN-Conference-Call-10-5-11.mp3

Read Clinging to Dirty Energy in the South – a by-the-numbers look from the Institute of Southern Studies
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/institute-index-clinging-to-dirty-energy-in-the-south.html

Report shows Southeast utilities plan not to replace coal-fired power, but to add nuclear capacity despite falling demand – while jacking up rates and blocking clean energy advances



DURHAM, NC – Despite a six-year public relations blitz touting nuclear power as essential for a low carbon future, five southeastern utilities trying to license and build reactors have no intention of using them to replace coal-fired power plants. Instead, because captive state governments have forced financial risks onto customers, the “Southeast Five” are pursuing costly and unneeded nuclear and natural gas projects while blocking the measures that could retire coal – energy efficiency programs along with solar and wind power.

That’s according to watchdog group NC WARN, which today released an unprecedented analysis of utility practices in the Southeast. The Durham-based group also called on the CEOs of the Southeast Five to shift their enormous resources toward clean-energy measures. Such a transition, NC WARN says, would allow the phase-out of coal units, a move that is critically needed to help avert runaway climate disruption. The shift is also essential because of a regional economic triple-threat posed by worsening climate disasters, eye-watering rate hikes caused by massive expansion of generation capacity, and the high risk of nuclear project failures.

“For years the nuclear industry has told the public that, despite financial and safety hazards, new nuclear plants are needed so coal plants can be replaced,” said the report’s author, Jim Warren, during a press conference today. “The reality is that the Southeast Five CEOs have no intention of phasing out coal – even though accelerating climate changes are already hammering our national, state and local economies, while harming people and our environment. Skyrocketing power bills are an added assault on businesses and the public.”

The group analyzed data filed with regulators in a region where most of the remaining U.S. nuclear projects are being pursued. They found that despite CEO Jim Rogers’ purported green credentials, Duke Energy Carolinas plans to reduce coal-fired generation by less than 4% by 2030, while expanding generating capacity by a net 36%. Rogers has boasted of plans to retire coal units, but the report shows that all of those are old, small boilers, and some aren’t used at all. Warren says Duke is on track to double customers’ rates; a current request would bring residential rates to 25% higher than 2009 levels.

In total, the Southeast Five plan to retire only 16% of their coal capacity over the long term, mostly by closing older plants that have been fully depreciated and are little-used.

Dr. William Schlesinger, President of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and former Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, said during today’s teleconference: “The overwhelming majority of the world’s climate change scientists have shown that rapid global warming is real, and it’s because of humans. It is dangerous to our health, our food supply, our cities and our national security – in short, our future. NC WARN’s report reaffirms that the United States should be leading in the pursuit of energy sources that do not release fossil carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, focusing on solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal powers.”

Other Southeast Five utilities are also pursuing growth strategies despite national trends of declining long-term electricity usage due to economic restructuring and energy-saving practices. The report shows that some intend to expand sales outside their regions. Also that Southeast Five are not only ignoring – but actively blocking – the advances in solar and wind power, along with efficiency programs that would speed the phase-out of coal plants while reducing the need for new nuclear units. Duke Energy and Progress Energy plan to cease development of energy efficiency and renewable power after meeting the small amounts required by 2007 legislation in North Carolina.

Some of the Southeast Five claim that new natural gas units are cleaner than coal. But Cornell researchers have concluded that the “fracking” fuel cycle could create worse carbon releases than those from coal. NC WARN also notes that Progress Energy CEO Bill Johnson plans to put gas units into the rate base but keep burning coal whenever that fuel is cheaper in the marketplace.

Some leading climatologists warn that if annual greenhouse emissions continue rising worldwide beyond 2015, global warming is likely to move past irreversible tipping points due to various feedback mechanisms that are well underway. The NC WARN report emphasizes that even if the global community quickly begins reducing emissions, climate conditions will continue worsening for decades due to past greenhouse gas pollution. That period of time, Warren added, “will fully challenge our economic and social systems with chaotic weather and wildfires, and impaired water and food supplies, all of which amplify global conflicts and suffering.”

Warren added, “We are calling on the heads of these five corporations in the Southeast to use this window of opportunity – which is closing rapidly – to help avert runaway climate change and to join the public in a clean energy revolution that creates jobs and protects power bills. CEOs Jim Rogers and Bill Johnson hope to soon lead one of the world’s largest electric utilities, the merged Duke and Progress Energy. They are in position to provide a positive “tipping point” toward stabilization of our global climate and southeastern economies – without adding more nuclear power – instead of continuing to block the very path that can phase out electricity generation from carbon-based fuels.”

“On their current path,” he said, “they will face a public revolt over climate change and soaring power bills. There is no time left to pretend that nuclear power can help with the climate crisis.”

NC WARN attorney John Runkle punctuated the point today, “These utilities’ business model has taken the Southeast directly away from climate protection and economic stability. We know how to close coal plants without adding more nuclear plants – by steadily increasing energy-saving programs and by bringing in solar and wind power and cogeneration. It’s time to change course.”



*The Southeast Five are Duke Energy Carolinas, Florida Power & Light, Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Company), South Carolina Electric & Gas, and Progress Energy, which maintains two separate service areas in Florida and the Carolinas.


http://www.ncwarn.org/2011/10/nuclear-revival-is-ruining-climate-protection-efforts-and-harming-customers-says-watchdog-group-a-news-release-by-nc-warn/

Hybrid solar: How to kiss the grid goodbye (Australia)

Hybrid solar: How to kiss the grid goodbye
By Jeff Bye on 30 March 2012

If ever there were a need to develop off-grid power systems it would have to be now, when transmission costs are now up to around 60 per cent of non-solar power bills.

Solar systems have historically been classified into two broad camps – “grid connected” or “off-grid” systems. This distinction has arisen due to historical segments of the market that needed solar to do different things. The vast majority of systems we see around Australia’s towns and cities are grid connected and have been driven by feed-in-tariffs and consumer desires to cut electricity costs and do something positive for the environment.

Off-grid systems have historically been the preserve of regional customers seeking to avoid expensive network augmentation costs to provide power to their remote locations. Off-grid systems are usually a lot more expensive as they require battery storage, more complicated control technology and often diesel backup generators to ensure the lights will always shine. Battery technology has also been a culprit as the memory effect of old-style lead-acid batteries has meant that battery arrays are oversized to ensure the depth of discharge is not high and hence battery life is extended.

An emerging trend though is for so-called hybrid systems which take a little from column A, and a little from column B. Such systems could either be described as an off-grid system which uses the grid as the standby generator or a grid-connected system with some added battery storage. Either way, these systems don’t require expensive diesel generators since the grid provides that service, and the size of the battery arrays can be downgraded as the cost of back-up power using off-peak grid electricity is much lower than that provided by diesel generators.

The technology that is making this possible is a new generation of products capable of directing energy flows as the consumer best desires...


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/hybrid-solar-how-to-kiss-the-grid-goodbye-59957
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »