Feds offer $1.3 billion loan guarantee for major Ore. wind farm

[phantom power]

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday offered support for a major wind energy project planned for the Columbia Plateau in Eastern Oregon.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the department was offering to guarantee $1.3 billion of the financing for the $2 billion Caithness Energy LLC Shepherds Flat project.

"This project is part of the administration's commitment to doubling our renewable energy generation by 2012, while putting Americans to work in communities across the country," Chu said in a statement.

...

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the loan guarantee removed the last major obstacle to the project. He had pressed the Air Force to drop its objections.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-or-wind-farm-loan,0,775174.story

[Nihil]

1. That can't be right ...

... billion dollar loan guarantees are *BAD* as it means that the technology
is unreliable, unprofitable and unwanted ...

:silly:

[kristopher]

2. Good Bet v. Bad Bet

Wind farms pay back their loans.

Nuclear power has a horrible history of defaulting on financing AND the forecast by the Congressional Budget Office predict a better than 50% probability of default on the current crop of loan guarantees.

"19 US fission plants (20%) retired before 30 years, and more than $20 billion was spent on 121 plants that were later cancelled. Thus more US reactors (140) were closed prematurely or cancelled (amid construction) than those (104) now operating."
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

[FBaggins]

3. "Wind farms pay back their loans." Then why do they need a federal guarantee? n/t

[kristopher]

5. It moves them from a venture capital financing structure (18%+ interest)

...to financing that would be comparable to what is available when a utility build a generating plant of any kind, probably around 6%.

It is a subsidy, but the risk of significant cost to the taxpayer is nil.

[FBaggins]

7. That doesn't answer the question so much as dodge it.

Why on earth would such a rock-solid bet like a wind farm need venture capital financing? That's for companies that can't justify normal financing terms.

So it's really the same question. Care to try again?

[kristopher]

8. Venture capital financing IS "normal financing" for start up businesses.

Are you of the mind that the fossil fuel industry has not enjoyed structural benefits that exclude competition from renewable energy sources?

This places renewable energy projects on a level playing field with the preferences given to large scale centralized generating sources.

Nuclear already enjoys the structural benefits that fossil fuels get but it can't compete even then so they need substantially MORE kinds of subsidies than anyone else, and they are STILL such a bad risk that only a very few projects are moving forward in locations that are especially friendly to the idea of shifting 100% of the risk to ratepayers and taxpayers.

[FBaggins]

11. Lol... how many 45 year old companies are "start up businesses"? n/t

[txlibdem]

4. And as we all know, what happened in the past is 100% guaranteed to happen again

That sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I heard it on BSG.

The main reason for cancellations and closures of nuclear power plants were the constantly shifting legislation and regulations along with countless lawsuits (nuisance and frivolous included) that pushed the timelines so far out in the future that the backers either decided to cut their losses or simply ran out of money.

Those conditions do not exist today so you cannot simply extrapolate from past conditions when times have changed. Sorry, the nuclear power industry is not dead. Booga-de-booga! Scares ya, don't it...

[kristopher]

6. Tell that to the Congressional Budget Office

Want to thank you for stripping away your facade of impartiality and revealing that you are a full blown nuclear energy apologist.

CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk... that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?


Here is an analysis from Citigroup of the quality of merchant reactors as an investment in England. The dynamics affecting economic viability are the same.

Citigroup 2008 impact of renewables and energy efficiency

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

[txlibdem]

9. No facade of impartiality - I never claimed to be impartial

I am a staunch opponent of coal and oil. You, on the other hand, are a coal industry booster for sure.

Everything you post that is false and misleading about wind power and nuclear power tells the truth about your pro-coal leanings. You should stop to think that every coal plant that can be shut down should be. And it has to be replaced by something.

I have made no secret of my preference that America be free of carbon fuel sources. You have tried your best to cause as much confusion and put up so many roadblocks to others' understanding that your impartiality is no longer in question. I'll start calling you "Kristopher Koal-man" just so I can remember what a coal industry lacky you truly are.

For the rest of us who actually want to save the planet, who actually want to get rid of fossil fuels, who actually want to close down all the coal plants, we all know that every tool in our arsenal must be brought to bear against the continued use of fossil fuels that will -no question of IF, there is only WILL- destroy our planet and our way of life.

We understand that solar PV, solar thermal, onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal power, wave power, and space based solar need to all be used to the fullest extent possible. We understand that the grid has to be upgraded to be able to efficiently carry the power from the areas best suited for solar or wind to the population centers where it will be used. We understand that nuclear power is also an important part of our energy future and to fail to improve upon it and use it where it is needed is to GUARANTEE continued dependence on coal power plants that will cause great ecological damage.

[kristopher]

10. Then I guess all the major environmental organizations are coal people too?

When you argue for nuclear you are arguing for policies that slow the effort to transition to a carbon free energy infrastructure. I challenge you to support your position that nuclear power is a MORE effective means of addressing climate change than renewables/energy efficiency.

Find an established environmental organization that agrees with you.

[FBaggins]

12. In effect if not always in intent (and hardly "all")... yes. n/t

[kristopher]

13. What major environmental organizations endorse nuclear power?

[FBaggins]

14. What sense would answering make...

...if we already know that you'll define "major" and "environmental" to exclude any such groups?

[txlibdem]

23. Anti-nuclear power is in effect if not always in intent PRO-COAL

Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built. The demand for electricity has never stopped going up. The utility companies know that if they do not supply enough power to exactly match demand there will be disastrous results like brown outs and black outs. That is the nature of electricity. It isn't a series of tubes.

The energy users in America, residential, corporate and industrial, are not going to wait 30 years for the amount of renewables we need to be built. A total switch of our energy sources is going to take decades. We need to have as much solar power as we can get, it does not matter if that is on your roof or a huge field of solar panels or solar thermal power. We also need as much wind energy production as we can possibly implement as well. The same goes for geothermal power plants, wave and tidal power and biofuels. Even landfill gas should be tapped as a source of energy. As a side note, it makes me sick to my stomach to see the landfill in my area burning off the methane produced by the landfill. They are in the process now of installing a generator there and I can't wait till it comes online.

But to deny that nuclear power has a very important role to play in helping America to finally end our addiction to fossil fuels is pure insanity.

To answer the question of which environmental groups supports nuclear power, look at the former leader of Greenpeace. He has come to realize that the coal industry is the main beneficiary of Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear power.

Look at the fiasco of the California Air Resource Board decision to end the electric car mandate for California (which effectively killed off the electric car, or at least helped). I see the same effect happening in the environmental groups.

[kristopher]

26. Typical nukie lack of consistency

It is amazing how many nukies come on this board pretending to be "open minded" about all energy sources; they initially embrace renewables but always do it in the context of the false construct of "renewables can't do it alone so we need nuclear too".

In fact (as has been shown here on EE time after time after time) the actual position they are trying to promote is "WE NEED NUCLEAR". It always becomes obvious soon after these nuclear envirnmentalists begin posting on energy that the lip service they give to renewable energy is nothing more than greenwashing for their actual agenda - the attempt to persuade people that nuclear *must* be used.

Take this case in point. I posted above that both past performance AND current analysis based on expected market conditions predict that new merchant nuclear power plants have a very high chance defaulting on payback of their capital investment. The historic record shows a terrible pattern of default and a Congressional Budget Office forecast in 2003 that there was a better than 50% chance of default based on prices that were 1/6 - 1/4 the prices that exist in 2010.

What was the response? Maybe this will remind you. It was as if the CBO and Citigroup analysis I'd included didn't exist:

And as we all know, what happened in the past is 100% guaranteed to happen again.
That sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I heard it on BSG.
The main reason for cancellations and closures of nuclear power plants were the constantly shifting legislation and regulations along with countless lawsuits (nuisance and frivolous included) that pushed the timelines so far out in the future that the backers either decided to cut their losses or simply ran out of money.
Those conditions do not exist today so you cannot simply extrapolate from past conditions when times have changed. Sorry, the nuclear power industry is not dead. Booga-de-booga! Scares ya, don't it...

So the assertion is that we cannot look to the past to predict future performance.

To an extent that is true; the past is only one area of information we need to examine when we try to understand our path forward. In the case of nuclear plants what it tells us (see graphs) is that claims made based on uncritical acceptance of the data provided by the nuclear industry consistently underestimate the costs of nuclear power in all areas.




Is that a surprise or controversial to any rational, open-minded person that an industry would try to promote a picture of themselves that favors their economic well being? Of course it isn't. But we get absolutely bizarre responses from the nuclear environmentalists that are unfounded in fact or reason; their only purpose of such bizarre replies seems to be to insulate the nuclear industry from any criticism at all by any means necessary.

Another favorite meme of the nuclear environmentalist is that "if you oppose nuclear power, then you are a de facto promoter of coal and fossil fuels". Let's look at how the supporting logic for that claim is laid out:

Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built. The demand for electricity has never stopped going up. The utility companies know that if they do not supply enough power to exactly match demand there will be disastrous results like brown outs and black outs. That is the nature of electricity. It isn't a series of tubes.

The energy users in America, residential, corporate and industrial, are not going to wait 30 years for the amount of renewables we need to be built. A total switch of our energy sources is going to take decades. We need to have as much solar power as we can get, it does not matter if that is on your roof or a huge field of solar panels or solar thermal power. We also need as much wind energy production as we can possibly implement as well. The same goes for geothermal power plants, wave and tidal power and biofuels. Even landfill gas should be tapped as a source of energy. As a side note, it makes me sick to my stomach to see the landfill in my area burning off the methane produced by the landfill. They are in the process now of installing a generator there and I can't wait till it comes online.

But to deny that nuclear power has a very important role to play in helping America to finally end our addiction to fossil fuels is pure insanity.

To answer the question of which environmental groups supports nuclear power, look at the former leader of Greenpeace. He has come to realize that the coal industry is the main beneficiary of Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear power.

Look at the fiasco of the California Air Resource Board decision to end the electric car mandate for California (which effectively killed off the electric car, or at least helped). I see the same effect happening in the environmental groups.

This poster is well aware of the FACT that it takes much, much, much longer to bring nuclear power online than it does to bring renewable energy online. Nuclear power is also far more expensive than the renewable/energy efficiency alternative. So, any money that is spent on nuclear is, IN FACT, slowing the transition away from carbon based fuels.

However, that knowledge doesn't stop our nuclear environmentalist, no. That mindset sees PROOF in their cherry picked slice of the historical record here, whereas before such a slice (and it was in the proper context) was rejected as being only worthy of derision. Yes, instead of the earlier ridicule, we now have, "Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built"

That is true, but when we think about how it comes on the heels of the first statement criticizing the use of history as a means of determining future performance it really is more informative at a deeper level related to the perspective of the nuclear environmentalist. We can at least find some consistency in the position however, when we note that in both cases contextual analysis is ignored in order to promote a false position that is favorable to the nuclear industry's efforts to improve public opinion of their product.

A comprehensive analysis of renewable energy resources and technologies was accomplished by the UN for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This analysis demonstrated that we could, in fact, operate a modern culture on renewable energy sources alone with existing and very near term technologies. Those "near term" technologies are now being deployed at an incredible rate. There is no dispute in any academic literature focused on design of energy and environmental systems about the ability of renewable energy to deliver what we need. It is a settled issue and has been for nearly 20 years.

The nuclear environmentalist would have you believe that coal interests are opposed to nuclear power - and a few of them are. However, a comparison of the range of economic stakeholders for coal is almost identical to the range of economic stakeholders for coal. Again, this is a demonstrable fact. The minerals mining industries, huge project developers like Halliburton and Bechtel, the utilities, boilermakers, even the grid operators are all financially dependent on the existing centralized energy system and they have opposed the deployment of renewable energy since it started being an issue in he 70s.

They know that the type of distributed grid that supports renewable energy will reduce their role in supplying power to a role that is better described as peripheral rather than central. We will need them to move wind energy and large scale solar around but that will ultimately be less than perhaps 40% of the electricity consumed. In other words, if push comes to shove, consumers will be able to get along without them.

The new big players will be companies like Sharp or BYD, large electronic manufacturers that will make money selling devices at the costs of manufacturing instead of charging for the energy itself.

So it is pretty clear where the economic interests supporting nuclear power are. It is also clear that the misinformation being distributed by nuclear environmentalists is designed to tackle the biggest obstacle faced by the nuclear industry - lack of public support.

Detailed analysis of public beliefs and values tells us that concern for climate change DOES NOT predict whether a person supports nuclear power. What DOES predict whether they support nuclear power is if they trust the nuclear industry. The broader research further tells us that such trust in the nuclear industry is a result of the same values that predict support for coal and petroleum. Again, this is information that is well known on this board, but still the nuclear environmentalists try to portray support for renewables as indicating secret support for coal.

And finally one last point. Note the use of Patrick Moore as greenwashing for the nuclear environmentalist. That is in spite of the FACT that Moore is paid by the nuclear industry specifically to perform that function. He is paid to go around the world and support nuclear energy, trading on his early involvement in Greenpeace. That is his sole function - to be a recognizable "green voice" that supports the nuclear industry. He doesn't work to make nuclear power better, he is simply a paid shill.

As do all other major environmental organizations that I am aware of Greenpeace itself totally rejects nuclear power as a viable path to a noncarbon, clean and sustainable energy system.

[bananas]

28. Bullshit - total bullshit. nt

[Nihil]

31. I agree.

Oops. I thought you were replying to .26 ... my bad.

[bananas]

29. Al Gore: "I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."

You wrote, "But to deny that nuclear power has a very important role to play in helping America to finally end our addiction to fossil fuels is pure insanity."

You are very wrong and very misinformed on this issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273/

Grist: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

Grist: Won't, or shouldn't?

Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

[TheWraith]

15. Haven't you ever noticed that this is pretty much only in America?

Nobody else has the same problem with nuclear we do: not China, not France, not the UK, not Canada, not Japan, not Russia... NOWHERE ELSE in the world do you find the same level of opposition. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the uncounted billions of dollars being flowed into our political structure from the coal and oil companies. :sarcasm:

[kristopher]

16. That isn't true.

Point us to the past dozen turn-key plants that have been built anywhere in the world so that we can look at the public price figures and required time to build statistics.

You do know what a turn-key plant is, right?

Coal and nuclear not only have the same base of public support but they also have an almost complete overlap of economic stakeholders.

[TheWraith]

19. You just can't go without repeating the same false nonsense, can you?

Even after you got called out on the fact that the poll you were quoting had never been done by the people you were quoting it from.

[kristopher]

20. Come on, time to put up.

Point us to the past dozen turn-key plants that have been built anywhere in the world so that we can look at the public price figures and required time to build statistics.

You do know what a turn-key plant is, right?

Coal and nuclear not only have the same base of public support but they also have an almost complete overlap of economic stakeholders.

[TheWraith]

21. Repeating the exact same nonsense I just called you on...

Right down to the false poll. If that doesn't sum up your "debating" technique, nothing does.

Why should I bother doing any more research for you when you've ignored the last ten pages or so I've done showing cost studies, numeric extrapolations, reactor deployments in China, new reactors going up in France, right down to calculating the amount of area on the Earth that's covered by human habitation to show you that solar panels would require more construction than in all of human history? You're just going to ignore the facts I pull up, and move the goalposts to demand something else, never admitting how many times you've been proven wrong.

[GliderGuider]

32. OK, so if they have the same set of stakeholders and base of support

What do we lose by trying to get those stakeholders to build nuclear instead of coal? If we're really trying to reduce CO2 generation, this seems like a perfect, real-world opportunity to do that. After all, if it's the same base they won't have any ideological objections to nuclear, and if they were to choose nuclear instead of coal they end up building a lower-carbon source of electricity.

Of course, if it's all about scoring ideological points, then by all means carry on.

[FBaggins]

34. I don't understand how you can ask that question.

If the two have the same base of support and you support nuclear power... then by definition you support coal as well. So how can you even contemplate convincing anyone to build one instead of the other.

This is all very confusing. It's almost as if the premise must be wrong. :)

[GliderGuider]

35. That thought did occur to me...

:hi:

[FBaggins]

36. I guess some people can only debate strawmen.

Which, of course, speaks to the weakness of their argument.

[kristopher]

37. Objective analysis of the benefits and costs has nothing to do with ideology

Why are you so eager to perpetuate the power of these entities to negatively affect our planet? Why are you fighting so hard for a substandard solution instead of putting your efforts behind the best solutions?

Your stated motives are diametrically opposed to your stated positions.


From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.


WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.


BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[Kolesar]

17. Coal and oil companies do not lobby against nuclear

:crazy:

[TheWraith]

18. Right, they fund "grassroots" groups to do it for them. nt

[Kolesar]

22. In fantasyland...eom

[txlibdem]

24. One of us lives in Fantasyland. It's not me or TheWraith.

Fantasyland denizens did not believe that the Tobacco industry paid researchers to claim that smoking was GOOD for you, and funded tv commercials with DOCTORS telling us all.

Fantasyland denizens did not believe that the oil industry has funded at least 40 so-called "grass roots" organizations and web sites to spread their FUD.

Fantasyland denizens do not today believe that the Tea Party was started by Republican Dick Armey and is funded by some other deep pocketed very, very conservative nutjobs.

[zeaper]

25. What did I do with that tin foil hat?

[txlibdem]

27. Tin foil hat vs tin foil blinders

Please do not disturb me in my comfortable ignorance. :sarcasm:

:hi:

[kristopher]

30. Tell us again about those blinders?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261024#261386

[GliderGuider]

33. Of course they don't. They win in the marketplace instead.

Oil serves different purposes than electricity, and coal is cheaper than nuclear. Oh yeah, plus the renewable folks have done such an effective job of lobbying against nuclear that the coal industry doesn't need to do a damn thing. Every time a nuclear plant gets cancelled the coal industry snickers.

[kristopher]

38. You are demonstrating with every post

that the fallback position for the fossil fuel industry and integrated utilities is nuclear. Their choice is based solely on what is good for their profits, not what is good for society and the planet.

Why are you helping them? It doesn't serve the goals you claim to believe it.

[GliderGuider]

39. Why do I support nuclear power?

Because it's better than the fossil-fuel alternatives. If nuclear power is not available, the obvious candidate becomes coal - at least in those places where renewables are not a practical option. I'd rather see those places build nuclear than coal.

[kristopher]

40. "Renewables not available" - that itself is part of nuclear industry propaganda.

The same old discredited line that "renewables can't do it".

[GliderGuider]

41. For example there are large parts of northern China and Canada that are unsuitable for renewables

There isn't enough wind to make that technology viable. They don't get enough strong, consistent sunlight close to the ground to make solar viable. The hydro potential is either not there or is already maxed out. The Earth's crust is too thick to permit geothermal power, and they are too far from oceans to permit tidal power. So what are the options? Nuclear, and coal.

I know which one I'd pick.

[kristopher]

42. Wow what an incredibly inept and self serving resource assessment.

Just the quality of work we've come to expect from you.

[GliderGuider]

43. And the quality of response I've come to expect from you.

Let's take a look at Canada.

First we'll look at a wind map.

From http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php:



Notice the big blue diagonal band band stretching down through Ontario and Quebec?

How about solar?



Again, not that hot. Maybe doable in the far south if we get better storage and still cheaper cells.

Hydro? From http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/freshwater/consumption/hydroelectric/1

Hydroelectric generation is the predominant form of electric generation in Canada. A major part of the economic history of Canada consisted of the development of sites with large hydroelectric potential such as Niagara and Shawinigan. Hydro developments have had a substantial effect on rivers and lakes in Canada. There have been relatively few large hydro sites developed since the 1970s as the environmental and human effects to be avoided or mitigated in such large projects make them increasingly difficult and costly to plan and build.

Geothermal? From the Canadian Encyclopedia:

In Canada geothermal potential is found in the sedimentary rocks of the prairies and in a broad band bordering the oceans. The central area of the Canadian landmass, the SHIELD, is too old and cool to yield useful heat. The total potentially usable heat in hot water in the sediments of the prairies is equivalent to 300 times Canada's total energy needs in 1987, but only a small fraction of this heat is readily exploitable at current energy prices and with current technology.

So to expand on my offhand comment previously, there is good wind potential, good hydro potential and some geothermal potential in British Columbia. There is wind and some hydro available along both coasts and some possibility for solar in Southern Ontario as the technology matures. But in the broad corridor that stretches from Montreal to Calgary and contains two thirds of Canada's population, there is little significant renewable potential. That means the options in that area are coal and nuclear.

Ontario is 50% nuclear, and I'm quite happy that we're not getting that 50% of our power from coal.

[kristopher]

44. Being optimal for economic exploitation isn't the same as not being there.

The picture you are using is (again) a snapshot in time that disregards the establishment of renewabels as the basis of our energy infrastructure. By the time we have a full developed system we will be using resources of all kinds that are considered marginal or insufficient with today's economics and technologies.

And it needs to be pointed out that this "resource assessment" you've presented sucks as bad as the first one. For example, geothermal can be a huge contributor just going down below the frost line and contributing to heating and cooling; and biomass is a resource you've totally ignored (deliberately I'm sure).

All you are doing is trying to manufacture a plausible reason for supporting nuclear power when there really isn't one.

Why?

[GliderGuider]

45. I never said they weren't there.

The phrase I used was "places where renewables are not a practical option". Which means with today's economics and technology.

I'm not a fan of large-scale biomass electrical generation, because of the impact on forests. Canada currently has 1600 MW of biomass capacity installed, mostly in British Columbia and northern Ontario. Most of the south has been deforested to such an extent that large-scale biomass generation isn't an option. Small scale operations, especially biogas from farm waste and landfills, are being pursued vigorously.

British Columbia gets about 18% of its power from renewable sources, compared to 1.6% in Alberta, right next door. That's the difference resource availability makes.

[kristopher]

46. Your ability to do fundamental research and produce such creative conclusions is amazing...

Greening the Grid in Alberta

Greening the Grid report
Alberta's growing demand for electricity can be entirely met by tapping into the province's vast renewable energy resources.

Pembina's analysis of green electricity scenarios clearly demonstrates Alberta has incredible potential to become a leader in green power production and energy efficiency and doesn't have to rely on dirty fuels.

Greening the Grid outlines two scenarios for meeting Alberta's electricity demand. The more aggressive "green scenario" shows how Alberta could move from 70 per cent coal to 70 per cent renewable energy in just 20 years....

http://www.pembina.org/re/greening-the-grid-in-alberta

[GliderGuider]

47. Oh Pembina, my Pembina

Let's look at that Pembina study a little more closely.

The first thing I note is that the constraints they list for each renewable technology include: insufficient grid capacity and complementary technologies (wind); public acceptance, environmental impact and lack of proximity to infrastructure (hydro); distance between fuel supply and demand, low density of fuel production and land use (biomass); uncertain resource, drilling challenges and uncertain costs (geothermal); and high costs for micropower such as solar PV and microwind.

Of course, each of these barriers is carefully hand-waved away with appropriately breathless speculation. It should be kept in mind however that the "resource scale" assessment applied to each resource is couched in terms of theoretical upper limits, and any barriers will obviously reduce the development of the resource even in favourable circumstances. To their credit, they note that cogeneration is not actually renewable, although they complicate the issue by breaking out cogen and recovered industrial heat from efficiency, when they are more properly seen as different aspects of energy efficiency.

Now lets get to Pembina's fun with numbers.

On page 69 they show a chart with their calculation of the expected energy portfolios sourced under three scenarios - Business As Usual (BAU), Pale Green and Green. This presumably is where we can derive the 70% renewable figure you quote.

When I did the sums, I immediately saw the actual "renewable energy" component of the green scenarios is much lower than I would expect. When the efficiency components are is factored out (because efficiency isn't actually a renewable energy source, after all), we are left with hydro, biomass, wind, micropower and geothermal supplying the renewable component. This core "green energy" amounts to 18% of the portfolio under BAU, 28% under Pale Green and, oddly enough, only 35% under the Green scenario.

One other salient feature is that "efficiency" is set to 0 under BAU when there is absolutely no reason to expect that. If they can project the installation of CCS under that scenario and keep a straight face, they should be able to give the poor province the opportunity to implement some efficiency measures. In fact, under the Green scenario half of the replacement for nuclear, coal and conventional gas used under the BAU scenario comes from efficiency measures (including cogen and recovered industrial energy), and only 37% of that replacement comes from increases in actual renewable energy sources.

So if only 35% of the energy portfolio in the green scenario is actually "green energy", what the hell happened to that other 35% we were supposed to find in the Green scenario? Well, it comes from the inclusion of some natural gas (as cogeneration) and oil (as recovered industrial energy which they admit runs on oil) as "renewable energy" sources. Sorry, I was born at night, but not last night.

Now I don't think this is Pembina's mistake. They never quote a 70% figure anywhere in that paper. I think it's your mistake.

Of course Pembina has done some fancy dancing with this one. I'm not surprised that it's convincing to someone who is predisposed toward believing whatever the green energy think-tanks tell them - at least if it's skimmed lightly and without engaging critical thinking skills.

[kristopher]

48. Typical meaningless screed of a cornered nukie...

Frankly your trash isn't even worth rebutting any longer; the only point I'll adress specifically is that the 70% is straight from their website.

You said Alberta hasn't the resources - that is patently false. The resources are there. You try to buffalo your way through the embarrassment by a rant that is barely rational and totally meaningless to the point of posting the study - Alberta has renewable resources and doesn't need nukes.

Here are the qualifications of the duo that did the assessment. They are both properly trained, experienced professionals in fields qualifying them to perform the analysis they've done.

You are not.

You are a poster on a Progressive internet forum with a monomania for promoting nuclear energy and denigrating renewable energy. Your remarks have zero substance.

About the Authors
Jeff Bell, MES, works with the Pembina Institute’s Alberta Energy Solutions Team and leads the work to promote clean, efficient electricity in Alberta. His past research has focused on how rate structures, interconnection policy and technology choices affect incentives to invest in grid-connected energy, and the global economic potential for decentralized energy in various markets. Prior to joining the Pembina Institute, Jeff worked as the Program Director at the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE), where he gained considerable insight into policies and approaches around the world aimed at promoting energy efficiency, distributed generation and renewable energy. He has authored and contributed to numerous publications on clean energy for the United Nations Environment Program, the International Gas Union, the International Power Finance Review, the International Oil and Gas Finance Review, the Renewables Global Status Report series, Energy Policy Journal, and Cogeneration and Onsite Power Production magazine. Jeff is fluent in English, French and Spanish and holds a Bachelor of Science from the University of Alberta and a Master of Environmental Studies from Dalhousie University.

Tim Weis, M.Sc., P.Eng., is the Director of Renewable Energy and Efficiency Policy at the Pembina Institute. His research focus is on technical and policy options to advance efficient and sustainable energy systems in Canada. Tim has written numerous reports and manuals on renewable energy and energy efficiency on issues at national, provincial and municipal levels, as well as issues specific to First Nations and northern contexts. He has assisted more than 20 communities at various stages of development of renewable energy projects. Tim is currently completing his PhD at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, studying wind energy development in remote Canadian communities. Tim has also worked as a renewable energy consultant examining wind energy challenges in northern communities. Tim has a Master of Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Alberta, where he studied ice adhesion to wind turbine blades.

[GliderGuider]

49. So that 70% BS was their mistake after all.

I think even less of Pembina's integrity now than I did before. I stand by my assessment: natural gas and oil are not renewable resources, and including them in that category is mendacious beyond belief. Did you read that paper before you posted the link to it?

I'll let the readers judge the rationality or lack of it in this discussion.

[kristopher]

50. The only BS is the twaddle you try to pass off as any kind of analysis

You produce more crap than a blue whale.

You said that Alberta hasn't the renewable resources to develop and must have nuclear. The link proves you wrong.

You aren't going to change that with a bunch of nonsense questioning the credibility of the authors - you've worn that stick out.



"Throughout 2010, the Senate has struggled to reinflate the renaissance. For Republicans, this is faith-based energy policy. They promised 45 reactors by 2030 in the 2008 presidential campaign. Having lost, and with nuclear economics worsening by the week, they doubled down, proposing a goal of 100 new reactors by 2030.<13>

For Democrats, extensive support for new reactors was viewed in part as bait with which to troll for Republican support for climate change legislation. However, Democratic bargaining – if it can be called that – has been so inept that Democrats have become nuclear Sancho Panzas to the Republican Don Quixotes (a metaphor enhanced by the vigor with which lead Republican spokesman Lamar Alexander actually does fulminate against windmills).

...Those who assert that the problem of climate change is so urgent that “we have to do everything” (or, another popular substitute for serious thought, “seek silver birdshot, not silver bullets”) overlook the fact that we can never afford to do everything. The urgency of world hunger doesn’t compel us to fight it with caviar, no matter how nourishing fish eggs might be. Spending large sums on elegant solutions (especially those with side effects) that provide little relief will diminish what we can spend on more promising approaches."


http://www.electricitypolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=99&Itemid=710

[GliderGuider]

51. The 70% number appears in the link on their web page.

To be fair, the authors themselves probably weren't responsible for it. The authors are probably fine, educated, honest fellows. As I said, that 70% figure doesn't appear in the paper itself. Because I accessed the paper directly, and not through the web page, and you didn't say in your post that you had copied the number from anywhere, I thought it was your own invention. It turns out now that somebody at Pembina made the mistake - probably some innocent headline writer... It's too bad that they let it stand, because not many people will do what I did - go through the paper itself and deconstruct the numbers to check the analysis at even such a minimal level.

Maybe you can explain something to me. I'm asking in good faith because I'm truly puzzled about this.

I'm well aware that we have different positions on these issues, and by now I understand pretty well what yours is, even though I don't share it. I also understand that our positions seem irreconcilable. What I don't understand is why it's so important that I personally acquiesce to your world view. Even if your position was correct and mine wasn't, why does it matter so much? You seem to get quite worked up over my intransigence, to the point of becoming personally insulting. If I was in a position to influence policy I might understand your intensity, but this is just the internet and I'm just one guy. I'm just not worth getting that wound up over. Why all the sturm und drang?

[kristopher]

52. this isn't "opinion" or "interpretation" - you are spreading misinformation

And there is every indication that you are doing it deliberately.

Why?

[Dead_Parrot]

53. Yeah, you, stop spreading misinformation

:popcorn:

[GliderGuider]

55. Hey, the Nuclear Evangelical Institute expects results for their money!

If I don't keep spreading misinformation they've threatened to bury me in the concrete base of a 5 BW(*) wind turbine. :scared:

*BW: BrazilionWatt

[Nihil]

54. Typical meaningless screed of a cornered Kristopher ...

Diverting the thread after being proven wrong? Check

Dodging the issue? Check

Denigrating the poster? Check

Appeal to authority? Check

Slandering the poster? Check

The only thing missing from the list is a multi-page cut & paste
of an unrelated article that has been posted many times in the past
(usually in similar "let's swamp the thread" points).

Let us be grateful for small mercies.