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

kristopher

Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

What a crock of nuclear loving bullpuckey

German Utilities Hammered in Market Favoring Renewables
By Tino AndresenAugust 12, 2013

<snip>

RWE AG and EON SE are getting hurt by falling power prices and a shrinking market share this year. They’re set to report second-quarter earnings this week just as RBC Capital Markets said both may need to raise capital.

“Lower earnings for RWE and EON have knock-on implications for the balance sheet of both companies,” John Musk, an analyst at RBC Capital in London, said last week. “The market has yet to factor in the longer-term earnings impact of German power prices,” which have dropped about 27 percent in a year.

Across Europe and some of the U.S., utilities that a decade ago dominated markets now struggle to cope with lower prices exacerbated by subsidized renewables that don’t pay fuel costs. The pain is most acute in Germany, which led the world installing solar farms and has the largest offshore wind plans. Clean energy also has preference over fossil fuels in European wholesale markets, a job killer at traditional utilities.

EON of Dusseldorf and Essen-based RWE are considering halting coal and gas plants with capacity exceeding 20,000 megawatts and can supply 21 cities the size of Cologne, risking some of the combined workforce of more than 10,000.

“A significant part of our business model is now facing new challenges...


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-11/german-utilities-hammered-in-market-favoring-renewables-energy



RWE to close or idle power plants
14 August 2013 Last updated at 13:54 ET

German power giant RWE says it will mothball or shutdown some of its gas and coal-fired power stations because of an increase in renewable energy.

The company said a boom in solar energy meant many of its power stations were no longer profitable.

A total of 3,100 megawatts of generating capacity will be taken off line, representing about 6% of RWE's total capacity.



RWE is one of the biggest energy generators in the world. Its power stations affected are in Germany and the Netherlands.

German rival E.On has also begun taking generating capacity off line.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692530


FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff: Solar ‘Is Going to Overtake Everything’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112752417


Renewable energy study tips viable reality by 2030
Date August 24, 2013

Peter Hannam
Carbon economy editor


Renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydro power could supply electricity at prices comparable to fossil fuels by 2030, according to a study commissioned by the federal government.

Modelling by the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that 100 per cent of power from clean energy would be technically viable by 2030 - although with a price tag ranging from $219 billion to $252 billion.

But a Community Summary of the report published this month without fanfare by the government has rekindled debate by stating that 100 per cent renewable power may cost no more than fossil fuels.

...

''It's kind of incredible that we haven't modelled (a 100 per cent goal) before now, given that the costs are basically the same,''...

...''We're exposed to rising carbon prices, we're exposed to rising gas prices,'' Dr Riesz said. ''What this is saying is, that for around the same price you can build 100 per cent renewable energy and completely protect yourselves from all of those risks.''

...

http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/renewable-energy-study-tips-viable-reality-by-2030-20130823-2shby.html


Cost of Solar Power to Drop 75% by 2020?
by Stuart Burns on AUGUST 20, 2013


Not one to shy away from overstatement, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a writer we would normally quote extensively; well-renowned as the Telegraph newspaper is, for which he frequently writes in the Business section, but his article last week on solar power trumping shale gas even had us sitting up and taking notice.

True, many of the figures quoted in his article come from firms involved in the solar industry and as such we can expect them to put a positive gloss on the numbers, but we wouldn’t count the US Energy Department to be biased and they are quoted as saying they expect the cost of solar power to fall by 75% between 2010 and 2020.

By then, average costs will have dropped to $1 per watt for big solar farms, $1.25 for offices and $1.50 for homes, achieving what the Telegraph terms the Holy Grail of grid parity with new coal and gas plants without further need for subsidies. That’s the crunch, isn’t it – the subsidies. But if we think subsidies in the US or UK have been high, consider Germany, early starter in the solar power race.

Households have been bled dry to subsidize solar power – around €100 billion or more has been frittered away on costly feed-in tariffs. In addition, German investors have lost their shirts on a string of solar ventures that have gone bankrupt, only to see the gains leaked out to copycat companies in China which are able to undercut German rivals in their own market with cheap labor and giveaway credit.

Still, that artificially created market has spurred investment around the world; even the US defense establishment is heavily involved, with Evans-Pritchard quoting a string of projects, each of which will help bring down costs and improve efficiencies....









Read More at http://agmetalminer.com/2013/08/20/cost-of-solar-power-to-drop-75-by-2020-us-military-embraces-it/
Copyright © 2013 MetalMiner


AND THAT PROCESS LEADS TO THIS HAPPENING HERE

German energy giants pull plug on conventional power

German power company RWE is shutting six domestic plants and rival E.ON is threatening to relocate to Turkey as the sector tots up the cost of the government's energy policy turnaround.

...But the turnaround is depriving utilities, including market leaders RWE and E.ON, of massive profits from their atomic plants and turning their gas and coal-fired stations into loss-makers as they are sidelined by rival renewable sources of energy.

...Following the boom of solar power in recent years, nourished by generous subsidies, the capacity of renewable sources of energy is such that, if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, Germany can actually do without its conventional power plants.

In the period from April to June, a number of RWE's plants were operating at less than 10 percent of capacity, said finance chief Guenther.

And with wholesale electricity prices at the current lows in Europe, that means substantial losses. That was the case with gas-fired plants until recently, but coal-fired generators are now barely profitable as well, he said....


http://www.afp.com/en/node/1039622

Don't let anyone like "hunter" tell you things are not changing.

(AU) 100% Renewables feasible by 2030

Renewable energy study tips viable reality by 2030
Date August 24, 2013

Peter Hannam
Carbon economy editor


Renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydro power could supply electricity at prices comparable to fossil fuels by 2030, according to a study commissioned by the federal government.

Modelling by the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that 100 per cent of power from clean energy would be technically viable by 2030 - although with a price tag ranging from $219 billion to $252 billion.

But a Community Summary of the report published this month without fanfare by the government has rekindled debate by stating that 100 per cent renewable power may cost no more than fossil fuels.

...

''It's kind of incredible that we haven't modelled (a 100 per cent goal) before now, given that the costs are basically the same,''...

...''We're exposed to rising carbon prices, we're exposed to rising gas prices,'' Dr Riesz said. ''What this is saying is, that for around the same price you can build 100 per cent renewable energy and completely protect yourselves from all of those risks.''


http://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/renewable-energy-study-tips-viable-reality-by-2030-20130823-2shby.html

Vermont Yankee timeline

Vermont Yankee timeline
• Nov. 30, 1972: Vermont Yankee opens in Vernon.
• 1998: Federal government’s plan to remove on-site highly radioactive waste for safe storage is shelved.
• 2002: Eight local utilities sell Vermont Yankee to Entergy Nuclear of Mississippi for $180 million.
The sales deal included a revenue-sharing provision: If the plant continued to operate after 2012, it would share 50 cents of every dollar earned above a specified price, for 10 years.
That same year, Entergy and Vermont agree to abide by the Public Service Board’s decision on whether the nuclear plant could continue providing power after March 2012.
• May 2006: Legislature passes measure saying the Public Service Board needs lawmakers’ approval before considering extending the plant’s license for 20 years after it expires in 2012. The legislature also approves a plan to temporarily store spent (but still radioactive) fuel rods on-site, in concrete casks.
• Aug. 21, 2007: A cooling tower structure at Vermont Yankee partially collapses, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the structure and causing Entergy to reduce power output by 50 percent until repairs are carried out.
• 2008: Vermont Yankee runs out of indoor storage space for spent fuel rods...


The timeline is a column to the left of the main article-
Reversing course, Entergy to close Vermont Yankee in 2014
Gov. Shumlin calls move 'the right decision for Vermont.'

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130827/NEWS07/308270007/Entergy-closing-Vermont-Yankee-2014-promises-safe-decommissioning?nclick_check=1

NOAA: Virus likely causing dolphin deaths

Source: AP via Seattle Times

By BROCK VERGAKIS

NORFOLK, Va. —
Federal officials say a virus is likely what's causing hundreds of dead bottlenose dolphins to wash ashore along the East Coast.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 333 dolphins have been stranded between New York and North Carolina since July 1. That's more than nine times the historical average for the region during July and August.

Earlier this month, NOAA declared an unusual mortality event to provide additional resources to study what's causing the deaths.

NOAA says the tentative cause of the deaths is the cetacean morbillivirus. Dolphins with morbillivirus typically experience skin lesions, brain infections and pneumonia. The virus killed off more than 700 dolphins in the 1980s. Using that die-off as a guide, officials say the deaths could spread southward and last through spring 2014.

Read more: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021694023_apusdolphindeaths.html



Three more washed up on S. Jersey beaches this past weekend.

RMI (Lovins) infographic Solar Options for Homeowners

Nnadir and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are in sync

ALEC's Agenda (from their website) -
Recognizing the Large and Growing Need for Commercial Nuclear Energy

Resolution Recognizing the Large and Growing Need for Commercial Nuclear Energy and Urging the President and Congress to Make Steady Progress toward a Permanent Geologic Repository for Used Commercial Nuclear Fuel and Such Nearer-Term Priorities as Interim Fuel Storage and Research into Fuel Reprocessing and Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Model Resolution

WHEREAS, America’s 103 commercial nuclear plants generate 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity with remarkably high levels of efficiency and reliability while producing zero emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS, projected U.S. electricity demand will increase by 40 percent by the 2030, requiring the nuclear industry to bring online 50 gigawatts of additional generation just to maintain nuclear energy’s present 20 percent share of the electricity generation fuel mix, and

WHEREAS, more than a dozen nuclear utilities and consortia are actively exploring plans to pursue construction and operating licenses for more than 30 new commercial nuclear reactors in the next several years; and

<snip>


NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the American Legislative Exchange Council hereby urges the President and Congress to work together with the commercial nuclear industry, State and Local governments and other interested parties to encourage development of safe new nuclear plants as a key component of American fuel portfolio diversity and energy security; and

<snip>

Approved by ALEC Board of Directors in 2007.


http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-recognizing-the-large-and-growing-need-for-commercial-nuclear-energy-and-urging-the-president-and-congress-to-make-steady-progress-toward-a-permanent-geologic-repository-for-used-commercial/



And lest people are fooled by ALEC's expressions of concern for GHG emissions while they justify their support for nuclear (sound like anyone we know here?) this is what you'll find elsewhere on their website.


State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Initiatives

WHEREAS, there has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increasing costs of doing business in the State of ______;

WHEREAS, forcing business, industry, and food producers to reduce carbon emissions through government mandates and cap-and-trade policies under consideration for the regional climate initiative will increase the cost of doing business, push companies to do business with other states or nations, and increase consumer costs for electricity, fuel, and food;

WHEREAS, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of cap-and-trade policies will be borne by consumers and will place a disproportionately high burden on poorer families;

WHEREAS, simply reducing carbon emissions in the State of ______ will not have a significant impact on international carbon reduction, especially while countries like China, Russia, Mexico, and India emit an ever-increasing amount of carbon into the atmosphere;

WHEREAS, a tremendous amount of economic growth would be sacrificed for a reduction in carbon emissions that would have no appreciable impact on global concentrations of CO2;...

http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/state-withdrawal-from-regional-climate-initiatives/





Resolution Opposing EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck
WHEREAS: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed or is proposing numerous new regulations, particularly in the area of air quality and regulation of greenhouse gases, that are likely to have major effects on the economy, jobs and U.S. competitiveness in worldwide markets;

WHEREAS: EPA’s regulatory activity as to air quality and greenhouse gases has become known as the “train wreck,” because of the numerous and overlapping requirements and because of the potentially devastating consequences this regulatory activity may have on the economy;

WHEREAS: Concern is growing that, with cap-and-trade legislation having failed in Congress, EPA is attempting to obtain the same results through the adoption of regulations;

WHEREAS: EPA over-regulation is driving jobs and industry out of America;

WHEREAS: Neither EPA nor the Administration has undertaken any comprehensive study of what the cumulative effect of all of this new regulatory activity will have on the economy, jobs and competitiveness;

WHEREAS: EPA has not performed any comprehensive study of what the environmental benefits of its greenhouse regulation will be in terms of impacts on global climate;

WHEREAS: State agencies are routinely required to identify the costs of their regulations and to justify those costs in light of the benefits;

WHEREAS: Since EPA has identified “taking action on climate change and improving air quality” as its first strategic goal for the 2011-15 time period, EPA should be required to identify the specific actions it intends to take to achieve these goals and to assess the total cost of all these actions together;

WHEREAS: The Legislature supports continuing improvements in the quality of the nation’s air and believes that that such improvements can be made in a sensible fashion without damaging the economy so long as there is a full understanding of the cost of the regulations at issue;

WHEREAS: The primary goal of government at the present time must be to promote economic recovery and to foster a stable and predictable business environment that will lead to the creation of jobs;

WHEREAS: Public health and welfare will suffer without significant new job creation and economic improvement, because people with good jobs are better able to take care of themselves and their families than the unemployed and because environmental improvement is only possible in a society that generates wealth.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the legislature of {insert state} calls on Congress:

1. To adopt legislation prohibiting EPA by any means necessary from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including if necessary defunding EPA greenhouse gas regulatory activities.

2. Imposing a moratorium on promulgation of any new air quality regulation by EPA by any means necessary, except to directly address an imminent health or environmental emergency, for a period of at least two years, including defunding EPA air quality regulatory activities.

3. Requiring the Administration to undertake a study identifying all regulatory activity that EPA intends to undertake in furtherance of its goal of “taking action on climate change and improving air quality” and specifying the cumulative effect of all of these regulations on the economy, jobs, and American economic competitiveness. This study should be a multi-agency study drawing on the expertise both of EPA and of agencies and departments having expertise in and responsibility for the economy and the electric system and should provide an objective cost-benefit analysis of all of EPA’s current and planned regulation together.

http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-opposing-epas-regulatory-train-wreck/


Intrastate Coal and Use Act
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/intrastate-coal-and-use-act/

Resolution on Best Available Control Technology FOR Coal-Based Electric Generation
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-on-best-available-control-technology-for-coal-based-electric-generation/

And from the press:

In Chicago, ALEC Reboots Failed Strategy for Attacking Renewable Energy Policies

Jeff Deyette, asst director of research & analysis, Clean Energy
August 7, 2013


Having failed completely in its attempt to repeal state renewable electricity standards (RES) during the spring 2013 legislative season, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is shifting gears. Their new strategy is more nuanced, but the goal remains the same: support their fossil fuel cronies by rolling back renewable energy policies. Fortunately, this latest scheme is likely doomed to fail as well.

Some explaining to do
This week, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) will host its annual meeting in Chicago, during which the group, which provides powerful corporations with behind-closed-doors access to legislators for the purpose of drafting ‘model legislation’ that serves their interests, will discuss the next phase of its ongoing effort to dismantle state renewable energy policies across the country. But first, ALEC leaders will likely have to explain their failures to their fossil fuel industry funders, including Koch Industries, Exxon-Mobil, and Peabody Energy.

Just last year, ALEC made it very public that repealing state RES policies would be a legislative priority in 2013, doubling down on its recent efforts to roll back these standards. ALEC adopted model legislation, written by climate skeptics at the Heartland Institute and innocuously dubbed the “Electricity Freedom Act”, which had the sole purpose of repealing state RES policies. Along with the Heartland Institute and a host of fossil fuel-funded cohorts, ALEC launched a disinformation campaign targeting several state RES policies, including high-profile attacks in Kansas and North Carolina.

The good news is that ALEC’s efforts completely failed: not a single state RES was repealed. Instead, 14 new pro-renewable energy bills became law nationwide, including stronger RES targets in Colorado, Minnesota, and Nevada.

Don’t mess with success
How did ALEC misfire so badly? ...


More at: http://blog.ucsusa.org/in-chicago-alec-reboots-failed-strategy-for-attacking-renewable-energy-policies-197

ALEC to States: Repeal Renewable Energy Mandates (‘Electricity Freedom Act’ model bill adopted)
by Todd Wynn
November 1, 2012

“Households in 29 states are and will continue to see higher electricity rates, lower economic growth and, subsequently, lower standard of livings without outright repeal of these crony capitalist policies.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest non-partisan association of state legislators boasting more than 2,000 members from all 50 states, recently adopted a firm stance opposing misguided government intervention into the electricity market which works against affordable, reliable electricity.

ALEC’s model bill for state legislators, entitled the Electricity Freedom Act, repeals a state’s renewable energy mandate stating:

“…a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources…”

- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/11/alec-repeal-state-energy-mandates/#sthash.4Bsxs4aN.dpuf


You go Nnads, you and ALEC.

Amory's Angle: Three Major Energy Trends to Watch

Amory's Angle: Three Major Energy Trends to Watch
By Amory B. Lovins


Popular media and political chatter are abuzz with a cacophony of energy news and opinion. Amid the chaos, some orderly strands can be discerned. Here are three themes that merit attention:

EFFICIENCY IS ACCELERATING
Government forecasts predict U.S. energy intensity (primary energy used per dollar of real GDP) will continue to decline roughly two percent annually through 2040, but that the drop will be steepest in automobiles.

Motivated in part by more stringent fuel economy standards coming down the pipeline, lightweighting—the core of the new “platform fitness” approach, which focuses on optimizing a vehicle’s structure first before addressing propulsion technology and fuel source—has been the industry’s hottest strategic trend for several years (see “Battling America’s Automotive Obesity Epidemic,” page 28). In short, the auto industry is finally beginning the fundamental change we’ve been advocating since 1991. And as automakers and government adopt RMI’s fitness-first, ultralighting-focused strategy, they’re finding that making costly batteries or fuel cells fewer rather than cheaper can make electric cars more affordable with less time, cost, and risk. This can save severalfold more oil than the government forecasts, use 80 percent less autobody manufacturing capital, de-risk automaking, and save (in the U.S. alone) half an OPEC’s worth of oil.

Meanwhile, U.S. autos’ four percent average asset utilization—that is, they sit idle 96 percent of the time—is driving remarkable new carsharing and ridesharing programs, smartphone apps, and emergent automaker business models based on leasing mobility services rather than selling autos. These developments, adopting Natural Capitalism’s powerful “solutions economy” business model, could profoundly reduce the need for autos to yield the same or better mobility and access at lower cost....


http://www.rmi.org/summer_2013_esj_amorys_angle_three_major_energy_trends_main

Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming

If you want to learn about climate science, look to climate scientists, I always say. But if you want to learn about climate policy and energy technology, well, you might try looking elsewhere. - J. Romm


Climatologist Myles Allen Says We’re ‘Doomed’ If We Keep Burning Carbon, Then Embraces Dubious Silver Bullet
BY JOE ROMM ON MAY 29, 2013 AT 7:33 PM
Why carbon capture and storage isn’t “the solution” to our climate problems

If you want to learn about climate science, look to climate scientists, I always say. But if you want to learn about climate policy and energy technology, well, you might try looking elsewhere.
A case in point is British climate scientist, Myles Allen. He noted in the Daily Mail On Sunday (MoS) that “we’re doomed to disastrous warming” if we keep burning carbon — even if a recent paper he coauthored about a low climate sensitivity turns out to be true. But then he went on to argue that the only solution — and he does mean only solution — is to mandate that companies capture and store the carbon they release.


Actual caption in MoS: “Futile: Subsidising windfarms, like Whitelee on the outskirts of Glasgow, is a pointless policy, argues Professor Allen.”


Allen’s policy discussion is precisely the kind of nonsense you’d expect in the Mail, whose climate coverage is so atavastic, it makes the Wall Street Journal editorial page look like Climate Central. It is simply head-exploding that any serious climate scientist would publish a piece in publication discredited by so many climate scientists.

Back in 2010, two top climate scientists and the National Snow and Ice Data Center accused the Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them or their work. Last year, the UK’s Met Office, part of its Defence Ministry, took the unusual step of releasing a statement utterly debunking David Rose’s assertions in the paper as “entirely misleading” — and pointing out that they spoke to Rose before the piece came out but he chose to ignore what they had to say.

And so we’re subjected to this cranium-destroying headline and sub-head:
Why I think we’re wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist
The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britain’s eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention…. from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves


Ahh, those green fanatics. How much wiser our climate policy would be if not for their obsession with clean energy policy!! Seriously....


More at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/29/2066701/climatologist-myles-allen-says-were-doomed-if-we-keep-burning-carbon-then-embraces-dubious-silver-bullet/

Between 2006 and 2010 (inclusive) globally solar grew at an average rate of 58%

In 2011 China doubled down on building manufacturing and the prices started plummeting, causing the rate to rise to 74% in 2011.
Here is the global version of the chart in the OP



The number you floated was obviously hyperbole, but let's take a look at 4 doublings over the next ten years, or on second thought, to make it simpler I'll use a doubling every 3 years.

If cumulative capacity of solar were to double thru 2015 to 12.5GW, then double again through 2018, again thru 2021, and once more thru 2024, we could hit 100 GW of capacity at that time.

The US used 95.1 quads (1quad=1.05EJ or 33.5GWy) of PRIMARY ENERGY off all types in 2012. Of that, only 37 quads was actually consumed by a final user. This distinction is important.

If we assume a capacity factor of 18%, that 100GW of solar would be 18GWy of production for Final Consumption.

Total Energy produced by the US Electric Sector for Final Consumption was 415GWy in 2012.

Of that, nuclear provided 88GWy while renewables including hydro provided 127GWy. The remaining 200GWy were provided by coal and natural gas.

If 4 more doublings of solar occurred over an additional 12 years it would bring the total to 1600GW of capacity or - still assuming 18% cf - 288GWy of Final Consumption.

The EPA is preparing rules to regulate carbon emissions. How much room for continued growth do you see?

Oh, and before you answer that, you might want to consider one more important piece of the puzzle:

Cost of Solar Power to Drop 75% by 2020? US Military Embraces It
by Stuart Burns on AUGUST 20, 2013


Not one to shy away from overstatement, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a writer we would normally quote extensively; well-renowned as the Telegraph newspaper is, for which he frequently writes in the Business section, but his article last week on solar power trumping shale gas even had us sitting up and taking notice.

True, many of the figures quoted in his article come from firms involved in the solar industry and as such we can expect them to put a positive gloss on the numbers, but we wouldn’t count the US Energy Department to be biased and they are quoted as saying they expect the cost of solar power to fall by 75% between 2010 and 2020.

By then, average costs will have dropped to $1 per watt for big solar farms, $1.25 for offices and $1.50 for homes, achieving what the Telegraph terms the Holy Grail of grid parity with new coal and gas plants without further need for subsidies. That’s the crunch, isn’t it – the subsidies. But if we think subsidies in the US or UK have been high, consider Germany, early starter in the solar power race.

Households have been bled dry to subsidize solar power – around €100 billion or more has been frittered away on costly feed-in tariffs. In addition, German investors have lost their shirts on a string of solar ventures that have gone bankrupt, only to see the gains leaked out to copycat companies in China which are able to undercut German rivals in their own market with cheap labor and giveaway credit.

Still, that artificially created market has spurred investment around the world; even the US defense establishment is heavily involved, with Evans-Pritchard quoting a string of projects, each of which will help bring down costs and improve efficiencies....





Nuclear, the gift that keeps on taking - San Onofre wants bail out for their screw-up

SoCal utility wants Wall Street-style bailout
bykos

A couple of years ago, Southern California Edison had Mitsubishi build and install new generators for its San Onofre nuclear power plant. The two companies worked together both on the design and implementation of the project, yet two years later, the generators failed and the whole plant had to be shuttered. Thus, the $680 million Edison paid for those generators ended up being almost entirely wasted. Take a moment to weep for Edison's management and investors.

Or don't, because Edison doesn't think it or its investors should have to suffer the indignity of losing out on a bet.
Edison is asking the [California Public Utilities Commission] to allow it to recover about $2 billion for its capital expenditures alone through 2017, including a return on its capital investment of more than 5.5%. The PUC would have to decide how to apportion that sum between ratepayers and shareholders.

Got it? Edison wants ratepayers to pay for cost of the f'd up generators, the cost of building the plant itself, and, for good measure, a five percent profit to top it all off. And why would the utility ask for something this crazy?

...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1232983/-SoCal-utility-wants-Wall-Street-style-bailout?detail=hide
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »