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
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Vermont Yankee: A Nuclear Battle Over States’ Rights [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)22. 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 nations 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 (1517 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIAs business as usual reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (3235 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.
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 nations 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 (1517 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIAs business as usual reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (3235 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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations