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
July 18, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/17/2013
Contact
Jennifer Rennicks, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 865-235-1448, jennifer@cleanenergy.org
Governor Ignores Reality of Vogtle Cost Increases
Georgia Public Service Commission urged to play close attention as hearings on new nuclear reactor project begin tomorrow
Atlanta, GA (July 17, 2013) - Recent press reports quote Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal blaming those who oppose Southern Company and their utility partners’ attempts to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro as responsible for significant scheduling delays and cost increases. Beginning tomorrow, Thursday, July 18, 2013 the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) begins hearings in which Georgia Power witnesses will testify in the eight semi-annual Vogtle nuclear construction project monitoring dockets. Georgia Power has formally requested that the PSC approve a $381 million increase to the certified cost and to approve a revised construction schedule reflecting a possible delay of approximately 18 months.
Dr. Stephen A. Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, issued this statement in response in advance of the hearing and in response to the Governor’s quotes:
“We urge the Georgia Public Service Commission to ignore Governor Deal’s factually-inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric and instead pay close attention to the upcoming testimony from Georgia Power’s experts as well as concerned members of the public during tomorrow’s hearings and throughout this crucial Vogtle monitoring docket.
The Vogtle project, as they know all too well, is off-track with serious cost overruns and scheduling delays. Building two more expensive nuclear reactors at Vogtle has always been a high-risk project, subject to many pitfalls along the way. And now, as many predicted, those realities are unfolding and ratepayers are at even greater financial risk. The Commission needs to put the interests of Georgia’s families and small businesses before corporate profits. Given the evidence we’ve seen, we urge them to deny the Company’s request to increase the certified cost. It’s past time for the Company and their shareholders to shoulder this burden not just the ratepayers.”
Background: Georgia Power and it’s utility partners, Oglethorpe Power, MEAG and Dalton Utilities intend to build two new Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors and are considered the lead new reactor project in the country and have been offered a conditional $8.3 billion tax-payer financed loan guarantee. Originally, the total project cost was just over $14 billion with Vogtle reactor unit 3 to be online in April 2016 and reactor unit 4 in April 2017. Lawsuits between the Company and project contractors of approximately $900 million in cost increases are still outstanding. Additionally, anti-consumer state legislation, SB31, Georgia’s “nuclear tax,” passed in 2009 allows Georgia Power to charge some customers in advance for financing costs associated with the new reactors, also referred to as “Construction Work in Progress” or “CWIP,” regardless of cost increases, delays or if the project is suspended.
# # #
Founded in 1985, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is a nonprofit organization that promotes responsible energy choices that create global warming solutions and ensure clean, safe, and healthy communities throughout the Southeast. Learn more at www.cleanenergy.org.
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_id=391#.UehLDeAyHdl
Georgia Governor tries to scapegoat environmentalists as nuke plant costs rise
Press UpdateFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/17/2013
Contact
Jennifer Rennicks, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 865-235-1448, jennifer@cleanenergy.org
Governor Ignores Reality of Vogtle Cost Increases
Georgia Public Service Commission urged to play close attention as hearings on new nuclear reactor project begin tomorrow
Atlanta, GA (July 17, 2013) - Recent press reports quote Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal blaming those who oppose Southern Company and their utility partners’ attempts to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro as responsible for significant scheduling delays and cost increases. Beginning tomorrow, Thursday, July 18, 2013 the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) begins hearings in which Georgia Power witnesses will testify in the eight semi-annual Vogtle nuclear construction project monitoring dockets. Georgia Power has formally requested that the PSC approve a $381 million increase to the certified cost and to approve a revised construction schedule reflecting a possible delay of approximately 18 months.
Dr. Stephen A. Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, issued this statement in response in advance of the hearing and in response to the Governor’s quotes:
“We urge the Georgia Public Service Commission to ignore Governor Deal’s factually-inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric and instead pay close attention to the upcoming testimony from Georgia Power’s experts as well as concerned members of the public during tomorrow’s hearings and throughout this crucial Vogtle monitoring docket.
The Vogtle project, as they know all too well, is off-track with serious cost overruns and scheduling delays. Building two more expensive nuclear reactors at Vogtle has always been a high-risk project, subject to many pitfalls along the way. And now, as many predicted, those realities are unfolding and ratepayers are at even greater financial risk. The Commission needs to put the interests of Georgia’s families and small businesses before corporate profits. Given the evidence we’ve seen, we urge them to deny the Company’s request to increase the certified cost. It’s past time for the Company and their shareholders to shoulder this burden not just the ratepayers.”
Background: Georgia Power and it’s utility partners, Oglethorpe Power, MEAG and Dalton Utilities intend to build two new Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors and are considered the lead new reactor project in the country and have been offered a conditional $8.3 billion tax-payer financed loan guarantee. Originally, the total project cost was just over $14 billion with Vogtle reactor unit 3 to be online in April 2016 and reactor unit 4 in April 2017. Lawsuits between the Company and project contractors of approximately $900 million in cost increases are still outstanding. Additionally, anti-consumer state legislation, SB31, Georgia’s “nuclear tax,” passed in 2009 allows Georgia Power to charge some customers in advance for financing costs associated with the new reactors, also referred to as “Construction Work in Progress” or “CWIP,” regardless of cost increases, delays or if the project is suspended.
# # #
Founded in 1985, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is a nonprofit organization that promotes responsible energy choices that create global warming solutions and ensure clean, safe, and healthy communities throughout the Southeast. Learn more at www.cleanenergy.org.
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_id=391#.UehLDeAyHdl
July 18, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/asia/steam-detected-at-damaged-fukushima-reactor.html?_r=2&
Steam Detected at Damaged Fukushima Reactor
Steam Detected at Damaged Fukushima Reactor
By HIROKO TABUCHI
Published: July 18, 2013
TOKYO — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant stood ready Thursday to inject boric acid into one of its most heavily damaged reactors after it found steam emanating from the reactor building. The preventive measure would stave off sustained nuclear reactions in the reactor’s damaged core, though officials stressed that such reactions were a remote possibility.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, stressed that it continued to safely cool the reactor core and that vital temperature and radiation readings were stable. It said that it had not detected any signs of criticality, or sustained nuclear reactions. But Tepco said that it had halted all work to remove debris from the top floors of the reactor building, also as a precaution.
The incident has brought the Fukushima plant’s vulnerable state into sharp relief, more than two years after its reactors suffered multiple meltdowns when its cooling systems were overwhelmed by a powerful earthquake and tsunami. A recent jump in levels of radioactive cesium and tritium in the groundwater at the coastal plant, along with suggestions that the groundwater is leaking into the Pacific Ocean, has also raised alarms over the continued environmental threat posed by the plant.
Remote camera footage Thursday showed steam escaping from the top of the No. 3 reactor’s primary containment structure, which houses its fuel vessel, according to Tepco. A worker who checked the footage Thursday morning noticed the steam, said Hiroki Kawamata, a spokesman for the operator.
Mr. Kawamata said officials were unsure ...
By HIROKO TABUCHI
Published: July 18, 2013
TOKYO — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant stood ready Thursday to inject boric acid into one of its most heavily damaged reactors after it found steam emanating from the reactor building. The preventive measure would stave off sustained nuclear reactions in the reactor’s damaged core, though officials stressed that such reactions were a remote possibility.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, stressed that it continued to safely cool the reactor core and that vital temperature and radiation readings were stable. It said that it had not detected any signs of criticality, or sustained nuclear reactions. But Tepco said that it had halted all work to remove debris from the top floors of the reactor building, also as a precaution.
The incident has brought the Fukushima plant’s vulnerable state into sharp relief, more than two years after its reactors suffered multiple meltdowns when its cooling systems were overwhelmed by a powerful earthquake and tsunami. A recent jump in levels of radioactive cesium and tritium in the groundwater at the coastal plant, along with suggestions that the groundwater is leaking into the Pacific Ocean, has also raised alarms over the continued environmental threat posed by the plant.
Remote camera footage Thursday showed steam escaping from the top of the No. 3 reactor’s primary containment structure, which houses its fuel vessel, according to Tepco. A worker who checked the footage Thursday morning noticed the steam, said Hiroki Kawamata, a spokesman for the operator.
Mr. Kawamata said officials were unsure ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/asia/steam-detected-at-damaged-fukushima-reactor.html?_r=2&
July 16, 2013
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/global-nuclear-power-declines-by-7-percent.aspx?pageID=238&nID=50684&NewsCatID=348
Global nuclear power declines by 7 percent in 2012 after 4 percent drop in 2011
Global nuclear power declines by 7 percent
Global electricity generation from nuclear plants dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011, just after the unfortunate Fukushima accident in Japan
Two years after the Fukushima disaster started unfolding on 11 March 2011; its impact on the global nuclear industry has become increasingly visible, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013, which was elaborated by a team of six experts from France, Japan and the UK under the direction of renowned nuclear expert Mycle Schneider and was released in July.
Global power generation from nuclear plants had been dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011, the report said.
The nuclear share in the world’s power generation declined steadily from a historic peak of 17 percent in 1993 to about 10 percent in 2012. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production plunged to 4.5 percent, a level last seen in 1984, according to the report.
The 427 operating reactors in 31 countries are 17 lower than the peak in 2002, while, the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 375 GWe (gigawatt electrical) before declining to the current level, which was last seen a decade ago. About three-quarters of this decline is due to the situation in Japan, but 16 other countries, including the top five nuclear generators, which are the United States, France, Germany, South Korea and Russia, decreased their nuclear generation too, the report noted.
The experts summarize the reasons behind the decline of the nuclear power globally as uncertainty in reliability of many nuclear reactors, high construction and operation costs as well as high waste disposal costs...
Global electricity generation from nuclear plants dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011, just after the unfortunate Fukushima accident in Japan
Two years after the Fukushima disaster started unfolding on 11 March 2011; its impact on the global nuclear industry has become increasingly visible, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013, which was elaborated by a team of six experts from France, Japan and the UK under the direction of renowned nuclear expert Mycle Schneider and was released in July.
Global power generation from nuclear plants had been dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011, the report said.
The nuclear share in the world’s power generation declined steadily from a historic peak of 17 percent in 1993 to about 10 percent in 2012. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production plunged to 4.5 percent, a level last seen in 1984, according to the report.
The 427 operating reactors in 31 countries are 17 lower than the peak in 2002, while, the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 375 GWe (gigawatt electrical) before declining to the current level, which was last seen a decade ago. About three-quarters of this decline is due to the situation in Japan, but 16 other countries, including the top five nuclear generators, which are the United States, France, Germany, South Korea and Russia, decreased their nuclear generation too, the report noted.
The experts summarize the reasons behind the decline of the nuclear power globally as uncertainty in reliability of many nuclear reactors, high construction and operation costs as well as high waste disposal costs...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/global-nuclear-power-declines-by-7-percent.aspx?pageID=238&nID=50684&NewsCatID=348
July 15, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/15/french-greenpeace-activists-nuclear-power
French Greenpeace activists break into nuclear power plant
French Greenpeace activists break into nuclear power plant
Campaigners demand closure of EDF's Tricastin plant, calling it one of France's most dangerous
Reuters and Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 July 2013 03.40 EDT
A protest message projected on to the Tricastin nuclear plant by Greenpeace. Photograph: Micha Patault/AFP/Getty Images
More than 20 Greenpeace activists climbed fences to break into an EDF nuclear power plant in southern France and demanded its closure, the environmental campaign group has said.
The activists, dressed in red, broke into the Tricastin plant at dusk on Sunday and unfurled a yellow and black banner on the wall with the words: "Tricastin, nuclear accident – president of the catastrophe?" above a picture of the president, François Hollande.
"With this action, Greenpeace is asking François Hollande to close the Tricastin plant, which is among the five most dangerous in France," Yannick Rousselet, in charge of nuclear issues for Greenpeace France, said in a statement.
...
The Tricastin plant, one of the most important sites in France, is spread over 650 hectares in picturesque south-east France. In July 2008, an accident at a treatment centre next to the plant saw liquid containing untreated uranium overflow out of a faulty tank during a draining operation. The same month around 100 staff at Tricastin's nuclear reactor number four were contaminated by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe. EDF, which runs the site, described the contamination as "slight"...
Campaigners demand closure of EDF's Tricastin plant, calling it one of France's most dangerous
Reuters and Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 July 2013 03.40 EDT
A protest message projected on to the Tricastin nuclear plant by Greenpeace. Photograph: Micha Patault/AFP/Getty Images
More than 20 Greenpeace activists climbed fences to break into an EDF nuclear power plant in southern France and demanded its closure, the environmental campaign group has said.
The activists, dressed in red, broke into the Tricastin plant at dusk on Sunday and unfurled a yellow and black banner on the wall with the words: "Tricastin, nuclear accident – president of the catastrophe?" above a picture of the president, François Hollande.
"With this action, Greenpeace is asking François Hollande to close the Tricastin plant, which is among the five most dangerous in France," Yannick Rousselet, in charge of nuclear issues for Greenpeace France, said in a statement.
...
The Tricastin plant, one of the most important sites in France, is spread over 650 hectares in picturesque south-east France. In July 2008, an accident at a treatment centre next to the plant saw liquid containing untreated uranium overflow out of a faulty tank during a draining operation. The same month around 100 staff at Tricastin's nuclear reactor number four were contaminated by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe. EDF, which runs the site, described the contamination as "slight"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/15/french-greenpeace-activists-nuclear-power
July 13, 2013
http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11759
Link to download referenced study
http://docs.dos.ny.gov/communitieswaterfronts/ocean_docs/NYSDOS_Offshore_Atlantic_Ocean_Study.pdf
Is There Enough Room For Offshore Wind On New York's Energy Highway?
Is There Enough Room For Offshore Wind On New York's Energy Highway?
by NAW Staff Thursday July 11 2013
Calling it "a critical first step," the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) released a study showing how offshore wind located off its coasts can greatly improve the state's ocean-based economy.
According to the NYSDOS, the results of a 154-page Offshore Atlantic Ocean Study are expected to lay the groundwork for selecting offshore areas where wind development could be most suitable and appropriate.
At 8.5 m/s, the wind resource located off of New York in the Atlantic Ocean is relatively strong. Additionally, the resource is close to load centers, and commercially available technology currently exists to generate and transmit electricity from offshore wind resources to New York’s electric grid.
Taking advantage of this renewable resource could help New York State reduce
its dependency on fossil fuels while meeting a growing energy demand. In addition, offshore wind could bring new economic development opportunities to New York industries involved in the siting, permitting, manufacturing, construction, operations or decommissioning activities necessary to build, maintain and retire an offshore wind energy facility.
"The [study] is a critical first step as New York State seeks to plan for current and future uses of the Atlantic Ocean," says Cesar A. Perales, New York secretary of state. "Our coastal communities...
by NAW Staff Thursday July 11 2013
Calling it "a critical first step," the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) released a study showing how offshore wind located off its coasts can greatly improve the state's ocean-based economy.
According to the NYSDOS, the results of a 154-page Offshore Atlantic Ocean Study are expected to lay the groundwork for selecting offshore areas where wind development could be most suitable and appropriate.
At 8.5 m/s, the wind resource located off of New York in the Atlantic Ocean is relatively strong. Additionally, the resource is close to load centers, and commercially available technology currently exists to generate and transmit electricity from offshore wind resources to New York’s electric grid.
Taking advantage of this renewable resource could help New York State reduce
its dependency on fossil fuels while meeting a growing energy demand. In addition, offshore wind could bring new economic development opportunities to New York industries involved in the siting, permitting, manufacturing, construction, operations or decommissioning activities necessary to build, maintain and retire an offshore wind energy facility.
"The [study] is a critical first step as New York State seeks to plan for current and future uses of the Atlantic Ocean," says Cesar A. Perales, New York secretary of state. "Our coastal communities...
http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11759
Link to download referenced study
http://docs.dos.ny.gov/communitieswaterfronts/ocean_docs/NYSDOS_Offshore_Atlantic_Ocean_Study.pdf
July 13, 2013
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
Highlights:
"...a rock that makes electricity"
Solar modules standards set by International Electrotechnical Commission and manufacturing around the world is certified for compliance. Look for it when you buy.
Important perspective on Times article about solar defects makes article well worth reading.
And although it is only touched on and isn't directly part of the article, this is a good place to point out that most modules come with a 20 year warranty. This is often miscast by entities like Fox News or local nuclear acolytes as being synonymous with the lifetime of a solar panel. That isn't true. Testing has shown that panels do lose conversion efficiency over time - typically at a rate of one half of one percent per year. This means a 10% loss over 20 years and a 20% loss over 40 years.
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability
26 June 2013
What's included in every Yugo owner's manual? A bus schedule. This is just one of countless jokes about the car that some have called the worst in history and that TIME magazine named to its list of “50 worst cars of all time.”
Many people realize that buying the cheapest car or appliance on the market might mean purchasing another in a couple of years when it breaks down. The old adage “you get what you pay for” is never truer than when it comes to important appliances. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that with the rise of the PV industry, companies are competing to come out with more affordable solar panels that aren’t quite making the grade.
A recent article in the New York Times, widely reprinted in other news outlets, reported the solar industry is facing a quality crisis as photovoltaic panels are failing at an alarming rate. This type of press can do a lot of damage to the maturing and growing solar industry. Yet, how prevalent is this so-called crisis, and is it grounded in fact?
Like a rock
Historically, PV modules have been extremely reliable. The first solar modules became available for residential applications in the 1970s. There were a handful of companies manufacturing those pricy panels, and many of those panels are still producing electricity today. Martin Holladay, of the Green Building Advisory Council, recently took his 1979 Arco Solar PV module off his roof to test it. It performed better than the factory specs. “My old module shows no signs of browning, electrical corrosion, or water intrusion,” said Holladay in a blog post. “It certainly looks as if it’s ready to perform for another decade or two.”
Since PV modules have no moving parts they seem like pretty simple products. However...
26 June 2013
What's included in every Yugo owner's manual? A bus schedule. This is just one of countless jokes about the car that some have called the worst in history and that TIME magazine named to its list of “50 worst cars of all time.”
Many people realize that buying the cheapest car or appliance on the market might mean purchasing another in a couple of years when it breaks down. The old adage “you get what you pay for” is never truer than when it comes to important appliances. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that with the rise of the PV industry, companies are competing to come out with more affordable solar panels that aren’t quite making the grade.
A recent article in the New York Times, widely reprinted in other news outlets, reported the solar industry is facing a quality crisis as photovoltaic panels are failing at an alarming rate. This type of press can do a lot of damage to the maturing and growing solar industry. Yet, how prevalent is this so-called crisis, and is it grounded in fact?
Like a rock
Historically, PV modules have been extremely reliable. The first solar modules became available for residential applications in the 1970s. There were a handful of companies manufacturing those pricy panels, and many of those panels are still producing electricity today. Martin Holladay, of the Green Building Advisory Council, recently took his 1979 Arco Solar PV module off his roof to test it. It performed better than the factory specs. “My old module shows no signs of browning, electrical corrosion, or water intrusion,” said Holladay in a blog post. “It certainly looks as if it’s ready to perform for another decade or two.”
Since PV modules have no moving parts they seem like pretty simple products. However...
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
Highlights:
"...a rock that makes electricity"
Solar modules standards set by International Electrotechnical Commission and manufacturing around the world is certified for compliance. Look for it when you buy.
Important perspective on Times article about solar defects makes article well worth reading.
And although it is only touched on and isn't directly part of the article, this is a good place to point out that most modules come with a 20 year warranty. This is often miscast by entities like Fox News or local nuclear acolytes as being synonymous with the lifetime of a solar panel. That isn't true. Testing has shown that panels do lose conversion efficiency over time - typically at a rate of one half of one percent per year. This means a 10% loss over 20 years and a 20% loss over 40 years.
July 13, 2013
600 kw (800hp) Wheel Motor powered EV to make public debut @ MotorEx
600 kw Wheel Motor powered EV to make public debut @ MotorEx
Evans Electric will unveil their 600 kw (800 hp) in-wheel motor powered electric car next week at MotorEx.
The All-Wheel-Drive sedan will be on the AEVA stand at Meguiar's MotorEx, the largest motoring enthusiast event of its kind in Australia.
http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2013/07/600-kw-wheel-motor-powered-ev-to-make.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FpEcq+%28Electric+Vehicle+News%29
July 13, 2013
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_07_10_hey_utilities_have_you_seen_the_traffic_in_los_angeles_lately
We need more common sense discussions like this.
From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/common-sense-lyrics-john-prine.html
Hey Utilities! Have You Seen the Traffic in Los Angeles Lately?
Hey Utilities! Have You Seen the Traffic in Los Angeles Lately?
Five ways the electricity system can learn from urban planning
<snip>
From where I sit (thankfully, not in traffic anymore, now that I live in Longmont, Colo., and ride the bus) traffic congestion and solutions to that big honking problem are coming at it from the wrong angle. Attempts to alleviate congestion largely seem to assume that you need to travel from Point A to Point B. Thus you either increase capacity (build more lanes), encourage public transit and ridesharing (move more people per vehicle), or shift the timing and/or size of peak driving demand by disincentivizing trips (congestion pricing). Even multimodal transit-oriented development that encourages light rail, bus, and bicycling still assumes you’re going from Point A to some distant Point B. Most recently, earlier this year Los Angeles made the widely publicized move to synchronize all 4,500 of its traffic lights.
But what if what’s so enticing about Point B is actually at Point A, so that the trip isn’t necessary in the first place?
<snip>
...Imagine that our cities are the equivalent of large power plants, our major highways the equivalent of transmission lines, people driving the equivalent of moving electrons, the fuel and time wasted sitting in traffic the equivalent of transmission line losses, and city and neighborhood surface streets the equivalent of the electricity distribution system.
They are both antiquated and constrained systems of infrastructure. And in both cases, one of the most attractive solutions starts by asking a basic question: Do we really need congested pathways—whether highways or transmission lines—as much as we do? What if decentralization—through distributed generation of electricity and intelligently designed smart growth—reduced congestion by addressing its root cause?
There are at least five ways our electricity system can learn from Los Angeles’ traffic and urban planning...
Five ways the electricity system can learn from urban planning
<snip>
From where I sit (thankfully, not in traffic anymore, now that I live in Longmont, Colo., and ride the bus) traffic congestion and solutions to that big honking problem are coming at it from the wrong angle. Attempts to alleviate congestion largely seem to assume that you need to travel from Point A to Point B. Thus you either increase capacity (build more lanes), encourage public transit and ridesharing (move more people per vehicle), or shift the timing and/or size of peak driving demand by disincentivizing trips (congestion pricing). Even multimodal transit-oriented development that encourages light rail, bus, and bicycling still assumes you’re going from Point A to some distant Point B. Most recently, earlier this year Los Angeles made the widely publicized move to synchronize all 4,500 of its traffic lights.
But what if what’s so enticing about Point B is actually at Point A, so that the trip isn’t necessary in the first place?
<snip>
...Imagine that our cities are the equivalent of large power plants, our major highways the equivalent of transmission lines, people driving the equivalent of moving electrons, the fuel and time wasted sitting in traffic the equivalent of transmission line losses, and city and neighborhood surface streets the equivalent of the electricity distribution system.
They are both antiquated and constrained systems of infrastructure. And in both cases, one of the most attractive solutions starts by asking a basic question: Do we really need congested pathways—whether highways or transmission lines—as much as we do? What if decentralization—through distributed generation of electricity and intelligently designed smart growth—reduced congestion by addressing its root cause?
There are at least five ways our electricity system can learn from Los Angeles’ traffic and urban planning...
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_07_10_hey_utilities_have_you_seen_the_traffic_in_los_angeles_lately
We need more common sense discussions like this.
You can't live together, you can't live alone
Considering the weather, oh my how you've grown
From the men in the factories to the wild kangaroo
Like those birds of a feather, they're gathering together
And feeling exactly like you
They got mesmerized by lullabies and limbo danced in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
Just between you and me, it's like pulling
When you ought to be shoving
Like a nun with her head in the oven
Please don't tell me that this really wasn't nothing
One of these days, one of these nights
You'll take off your hat and they'll read you, your rights
You'll wanna get high every time you feel low
Hey, Queen Isabella stay away from that fella
He'll just get you into trouble, you know?
But they came here by boat and they came here by plane
They blistered their hands and they burned out their brain
All dreaming a dream, that'll never come true
Hey, don't give me no trouble, or I'll call up my double
We'll play piggy-in-the-middle with you
You'll get mesmerized by alibis and limbo dance in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
It don't make much sense, that common sense
Don't make no sense no more
Considering the weather, oh my how you've grown
From the men in the factories to the wild kangaroo
Like those birds of a feather, they're gathering together
And feeling exactly like you
They got mesmerized by lullabies and limbo danced in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
Just between you and me, it's like pulling
When you ought to be shoving
Like a nun with her head in the oven
Please don't tell me that this really wasn't nothing
One of these days, one of these nights
You'll take off your hat and they'll read you, your rights
You'll wanna get high every time you feel low
Hey, Queen Isabella stay away from that fella
He'll just get you into trouble, you know?
But they came here by boat and they came here by plane
They blistered their hands and they burned out their brain
All dreaming a dream, that'll never come true
Hey, don't give me no trouble, or I'll call up my double
We'll play piggy-in-the-middle with you
You'll get mesmerized by alibis and limbo dance in Pairs
Please lock that door, it don't make much sense
That common sense, don't make no sense no more
It don't make much sense, that common sense
Don't make no sense no more
From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/common-sense-lyrics-john-prine.html
July 13, 2013
10MB download: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130712msc-worldnuclearreport2013-hr-v2.pdf
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
Executive Summary and Conclusions
Two years after the Fukushima disaster started unfolding on 11 March 2011, its impact on the global nuclear industry has become increasingly visible. Global electricity generation from nuclear plants dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011. This World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 (WNISR) provides a global overview of the history, the current status and the trends of nuclear power programs worldwide. It looks at nuclear reactor units in operation and under construction. Annex 1 provides 40 pages of detailed country-by-country information. A specific chapter assesses the situation in potential newcomer countries. For the second time, the report looks at the credit-rating performance of some of the major nuclear companies and utilities. A more detailed chapter on the development patterns of renewable energies versus nuclear power is also included. Annex 6 provides an overview table with key data on the world nuclear industry by country.
The 2013 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report also includes an update on nuclear economics as well as an overview of the status, on-site and off-site, of the challenges triggered by the Fukushima disaster. However, this report’s emphasis on recent post-Fukushima developments should not obscure an important fact: as previous editions (see www.WorldNuclearReport.org) detail, the world nuclear industry already faced daunting challenges long before Fukushima, just as the U.S. nuclear power industry had largely collapsed before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident3. The nuclear promoters’ invention that a global nuclear renaissance was flourishing until 3/114 is equally false: Fukushima only added to already grave problems, starting with poor economics.
The performance of the nuclear industry over the year from July 2012 to July 2013 can be summed up as follows:
Two years after the Fukushima disaster started unfolding on 11 March 2011, its impact on the global nuclear industry has become increasingly visible. Global electricity generation from nuclear plants dropped by a historic 7 percent in 2012, adding to the record drop of 4 percent in 2011. This World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 (WNISR) provides a global overview of the history, the current status and the trends of nuclear power programs worldwide. It looks at nuclear reactor units in operation and under construction. Annex 1 provides 40 pages of detailed country-by-country information. A specific chapter assesses the situation in potential newcomer countries. For the second time, the report looks at the credit-rating performance of some of the major nuclear companies and utilities. A more detailed chapter on the development patterns of renewable energies versus nuclear power is also included. Annex 6 provides an overview table with key data on the world nuclear industry by country.
The 2013 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report also includes an update on nuclear economics as well as an overview of the status, on-site and off-site, of the challenges triggered by the Fukushima disaster. However, this report’s emphasis on recent post-Fukushima developments should not obscure an important fact: as previous editions (see www.WorldNuclearReport.org) detail, the world nuclear industry already faced daunting challenges long before Fukushima, just as the U.S. nuclear power industry had largely collapsed before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident3. The nuclear promoters’ invention that a global nuclear renaissance was flourishing until 3/114 is equally false: Fukushima only added to already grave problems, starting with poor economics.
The performance of the nuclear industry over the year from July 2012 to July 2013 can be summed up as follows:
Operation and Construction Data (1 July 2013)5
- Operation. There are 31 countries operating nuclear power plants in the world.6 A total of 427 reactors have a combined installed capacity of 364 GWe7. These figures assume the final shutdown of the ten reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi and -Daini. It should be noted that as of 1 July 2013 only two (Ohi-3 and -4) of the 44 remaining Japanese reactors are operating and their future is highly uncertain. In fact, even if four utilities are expected to submit restart requests in July 2013, many observers believe that a large share of the suspended Japanese units will likely never restart.
- The nuclear industry is in decline: The 427 operating reactors are 17 lower than the peak in in 2002, while, the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 375 GWe before declining to the current level, which was last seen a decade ago. Annual nuclear electricity generation reached a maximum in 2006 at 2,660 TWh, then dropped to 2,346 TWh in 2012 (down 7 percent compared to 2011, down 12 percent from 2006). About three-quarters of this decline is due to the situation in Japan8, but 16 other countries, including the top five nuclear generators, decreased their nuclear generation too.
- The nuclear share in the world’s power generation declined steadily from a historic peak of 17 percent in 1993 to about 10 percent in 2012. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production plunged to 4.5 percent, a level last seen in 1984.9 Only one country, the Czech Republic, reached its record nuclear contribution to the electricity mix in 2012.
10MB download: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130712msc-worldnuclearreport2013-hr-v2.pdf
July 12, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-myth-us
Peter Bradford is adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, teaching Nuclear Power and Public Policy, former commissioner at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine Utility Regulatory Commissions
To download the Nuclear Industry Statur report go to
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2013-.html
Nuclear renaissance was just a fairy tale
In 2009 the NRC had 31 new reactor applications were pending, only 4 are on track to actually be built. And, as Bradfor puts it, "those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket."
...In the astonishing persistence of the global appetite for false nuclear promises lies the critical importance of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published on Thursday.
It sets forth in painstaking detail the actual experience and achievements of nuclear energy around the world. It is based for the most part on generally accepted data distinctively graphed for clearer understanding. Where the authors introduce judgment, they explain what they have done and why. The report has a track record stretching back years. It is much better than the embarrassing exuberances of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association or the pronouncements of most national governments.
Most of the myths on which the purported nuclear renaissance rested founder on the rocks of the information presented here.
Is new nuclear power cheaper than alternative ways of meeting energy needs? Of course not. What about low-carbon "baseload" alternatives? See page 71 of the report. Can a country grow its economy by building nuclear reactors? What don't you understand about the employment consequences of imposing rate shock on industrial and commercial customers? Are the consequences of the Fukushima meltdowns really being overstated by antinuclear activists? Maybe, but see the chapter on the status of Fukushima.
In short, the nuclear renaissance – whatever it may be called throughout the world - has always consisted entirely of the number of reactors whose excess costs governments were prepared to make mandatory for either customers or taxpayers. Investor capital cannot be conscripted. Investors of the sort that nuclear power must attract study risks carefully. They know the information in this report, and so should everyone else with responsibility for energy decisions that allocate nuclear risk.
It sets forth in painstaking detail the actual experience and achievements of nuclear energy around the world. It is based for the most part on generally accepted data distinctively graphed for clearer understanding. Where the authors introduce judgment, they explain what they have done and why. The report has a track record stretching back years. It is much better than the embarrassing exuberances of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association or the pronouncements of most national governments.
Most of the myths on which the purported nuclear renaissance rested founder on the rocks of the information presented here.
Is new nuclear power cheaper than alternative ways of meeting energy needs? Of course not. What about low-carbon "baseload" alternatives? See page 71 of the report. Can a country grow its economy by building nuclear reactors? What don't you understand about the employment consequences of imposing rate shock on industrial and commercial customers? Are the consequences of the Fukushima meltdowns really being overstated by antinuclear activists? Maybe, but see the chapter on the status of Fukushima.
In short, the nuclear renaissance – whatever it may be called throughout the world - has always consisted entirely of the number of reactors whose excess costs governments were prepared to make mandatory for either customers or taxpayers. Investor capital cannot be conscripted. Investors of the sort that nuclear power must attract study risks carefully. They know the information in this report, and so should everyone else with responsibility for energy decisions that allocate nuclear risk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/11/nuclear-renaissance-power-myth-us
Peter Bradford is adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, teaching Nuclear Power and Public Policy, former commissioner at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine Utility Regulatory Commissions
To download the Nuclear Industry Statur report go to
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2013-.html
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
