Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Boosted by enormous government subsidies and various state mandates, wind and solar are all the way up to about 1.5% of our electrical power consumption,

Really? Do you bother to check facts or do you just like to spout **** because it sounds like good ****?

From Jan-Oct of 2011 wind alone was up to 2.8% of our electrical power consumption. By Oct of 2011 with the increases in generation, it made up over 3.2% of the total.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Some "niche" industry. It has delivered in excess of 20% of our total electrical power for over 30 years and, based on Dept. of Energy data

Only 20%? That seems to be your definition of "niche". At times I get more than 30% of my power from wind and yet you want to claim it is "niche."

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Some "niche" industry. It has delivered in excess of 20% of our total electrical power for over 30 years and, based on Dept. of Energy data

Only 20%?

Yes, 20%. Here's your own source, Dumbo! Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility that you, personally, account for 30% of total hot air generation Smile

http://www.eia.gov/nuclear/

Quote:

There are currently 104 commercial nuclear reactors at 65 nuclear power plants in 31 States. Since 1990, the share of the Nation's total electricity supply provided by nuclear power generation has averaged about 20%, with the level of nuclear generation growing at roughly the same rate as overall electricity use.

And btw, George is also right on the niche part "....wind and solar are all the way up to about 1.5% of our electrical power consumption, and, even with these subsidies and mandates cost almost three times as much as nuclear, coal or natural gas derived power."

Please stop making up statistics - it gets tiresome.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

What statistic did I make up High Seas? I am merely pointing out that 20% is probably a niche source of electricity since 30% is a niche.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

Please stop making up statistics - it gets tiresome.

I'm assuming you were talking to george since it's his statistics that you quoted that aren't currently factual based on the current numbers.

1 Reply

@parados,

I erred in reporting the wind and solar contribution at 1.5% when, using the most recent data it is closer to 2,5%. That's it ! Everything I wrote about the differences in cost, the extensive subsidies and mandates for these sources of so far trivial amounts of energy, as well as the long term contriobutions, low cost and high and efficiency of nuclear power were entirely accurate. To call this a "niche industry" is merely fatuous.

There is no detail to small or marginally related to the issue at hand to inhibit Parados from declaring a meaningless victory. These are the hallmarks of a pedantic zealot.

1 Reply

No, George, not accurate. You neglected the fact that the nuclear power industry, after 5o years of extraordinarly expensive government subsidies, still is not economically viable without those subsidies. The effect has been to shift a large portion of the costs, sometimes MORE than the actual cost of the power, onto the backs of taxpayers, and off the backs of the nuclear industry.

Quote:

February 23, 2011

After 50 Years, Nuclear Power is Still Not Viable without Subsidies, New Report Finds
Value of Subsidies Often Exceeds Price of Nuclear Energy Produced; Obama Administration Wants to Nearly Triple Loan Guarantees

WASHINGTON (February 23, 2011) – Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been propped up by a generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations. Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced.

“Despite the fact that the nuclear power industry has benefited from decades of government support, the technology is still uneconomic, so the industry is demanding a lot more from taxpayers to build new reactors,” said Ellen Vancko, manager of UCS’s Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project. “The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk.”

Pending and proposed subsidies for new nuclear reactors would shift even more costs and risks from the industry to taxpayers and ratepayers. The Obama administration’s new budget proposal would provide an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees to underwrite new reactor construction, bringing the total amount of nuclear loan guarantees to a staggering $58.5 billion, leaving taxpayers on the hook if the industry defaults on these loans.

The key subsidies for nuclear power do not involve cash payments, the report found. They shift the risks of constructing and operating plants -- including cost overruns, loan defaults, accidents and waste management -- from plant owners and investors to taxpayers and ratepayers. These hidden subsidies distort market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments.
The most significant forms of subsidies to nuclear power have four principal objectives: Reduce the cost of capital, labor and land through loan guarantees and tax incentives; mask the true costs of producing nuclear energy through subsidies to uranium mining and water usage; shift security and accident risks to the public via the 1957 Price-Anderson Act and other mechanisms; and shift long-term operating risks such as radioactive waste storage to the public. The report evaluates legacy subsidies that helped build the industry, ongoing support to existing reactors, and subsidies available for new projects. According to the report, legacy subsidies exceeded 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh), well above the average wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008. In effect, the subsidies were more valuable than the power the subsidized plants produced.

“Without these generous subsidies, the nuclear industry would have faced a very different market reality,” said Doug Koplow, the author of the report and principal at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consulting firm, Earth Track. “Many of the 104 reactors currently operating would never have been built, and the utilities that built reactors would have been forced to charge ratepayers even higher rates.”

The industry continues to benefit from subsidies that offset its operating costs, which include uranium mining, cooling water, accident liability insurance, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning. The exact value of these subsidies, however, is difficult to ascertain. According to the report, ongoing subsidies range from 13 percent to 98 percent of the value of the power produced. Even at the low-end however, subsidies account for a significant portion of nuclear power’s operating cost advantage over competing energy sources.

Subsidies to new reactors could significantly exceed those enjoyed by the existing fleet. In addition to benefiting from ongoing subsidies to existing plants, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 introduced a new suite of subsidies for nuclear power. The report estimates that these subsidies could be worth between 4.2 and 11.4¢/kWh, or as much as 200 percent of the projected price of electricity when these plants are built.

“All low-carbon energy technologies would be able to compete on their merits if the government established an energy-neutral playing field and put a price on carbon,” said Vancko. “Investing in nuclear power carries the unique risks of radioactive waste storage, accidents, and nuclear weapons proliferation that must be fully reflected in the technology’s costs, which is not the case today.”

Based on these findings, the report recommends that the federal government reduce subsidies to the nuclear power industry. If subsidies are necessary, the government should award them competitively to the most cost-effective low-carbon energy technologies. The report also recommends that the government modernize liability systems for nuclear power and establish regulations and fee structures for uranium mining, waste repository financing, and water usage that fully reflect the technology’s cost and risks.

“After 50 years,” said Koplow, “the nuclear industry needs to move away from government patronage to a model based on real economic viability. The considerable operational and construction risks of this power source need to be reflected in the delivered price of power rather than dumped onto taxpayers.”

###

(emphasis added)

Which exonomically puts it pretty much in the same boat as solar and wind power, except wind power is pretty unlikely to give us another Fukushima.

1 Reply

the cite for that is http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html

0 Replies

Incidentally, the cost of solar power has steadily dropped over the last several decades. During the steady runup in oil prices over the course of the Bush administration, it was generally calculated amongst the relevant companies that when oil passed $75-80 a barrel, solar started becoming competitive and investment started to flow. China bought most of the technology. They're already producing family-size solar power units that people in third-world countries can get for about $80. That's a market of about a billion people who live off the grid, with no chance of getting a grid extended to them. A billion-person market is not to be sneezed at. America isn't part of exploiting it. The Chinese are.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You didn't cite the author or source of this pasted screed, but it is innacurate and positively misdleading in numerous critical areas. The article does obliquely acknowlege the relative lack of direct subsidies for nuclear power operators, compared to the much larger direct subsidies and mandates that exist for the fashionable "renewable sourcrs". However it goes on to infer the existence of other indirect subsidies and here it is wrong in key particulars. The government has neither commissioned a facility for long-term nuclear waste storage nor accepted any long term operating risk for it. Government has, however, levied a special tax on nuclear power operators and used the money collected over four decades to build a storage site for this purpose at Yucca Mountain in the former Nevada Nuclear Weapons Test site. However as a result of a cynical political ploy the site has never been openaed and the Nuclear operators are still storing all their spent fuel, bearing the cost for doing so - and, to add insult to injury, still paying the special tax. It is not true that the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants is subsidized by the government as alleged. In fact nuclear power operators are required by law to fund their own decommissioning through a charge on current operations for the life of the plant something no other industry or power source is required to do.

Contrary to these vaporous and occasionally flatly false legacy or indirect subsidies, which the author falsely claims add up to 7 cents per KWHR - a value somewhat greater than the 6 - 7 cents/KWHR the nuclear plants charge for the power they produce, wind and solar power get direct subsidies much greater than that value and, even with them, their delivered cost of power proivided is more than twice the cost of the nuclear power.

Cutting and pasting an obviously biased and distorted article is fairly easy to do. It is much harder to know what you are writing about.

0 Replies

Should have bolded this as well, to give an idea of the true cost of nuke subsidies, and the distortion of actual energy costs they produce.

Quote:

Subsidies to new reactors could significantly exceed those enjoyed by the existing fleet. In addition to benefiting from ongoing subsidies to existing plants, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 introduced a new suite of subsidies for nuclear power. The report estimates that these subsidies could be worth between 4.2 and 11.4¢/kWh, or as much as 200 percent of the projected price of electricity when these plants are built.

0 Replies

As a matter of fact, I did source it. See above.

0 Replies

and I might add, the industries are at different points in the cycle. Solar and wind still have to be developed. Nuclear is a developed industry, if not particularly safe, as we have seen (the area around Fukushima is still evacuated for more than a dozen miles. The main contaminant is cesium, which has a half life of 30 years, which means there will still be significant quantities for at least sixty years). The R&D that established the industry was not subsidized by the government--it WAS the government, which means taxpayers pretty much paid the entire cost to create the industry, and it is no secret that government subsidies in the form of things like loan guarantees and insurance caps to shield the industry from the horrendous costs of a nuclear accident (again, think Fukushima) artifically lower its costs (and charge us for them). The article is accurate. You're unaware.

Nuclear was developed and paid for by the government, i.e. by taxpayers. Remember Atoms for Peace? But you guys bitch, bitch, bitch, about driblets and drablets of bucks spent on Solar for Peace or Wind for Peace (yeah, yeah, I know those don't exist, but they would put alternative energy on an equal footing with the huge bucks we spent for nukes).

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I erred in reporting the wind and solar contribution at 1.5% when, using the most recent data it is closer to 2,5%. That's it !

The most recent data is over 3%. Wind power is projected to be 20% of our electrical power by 2030.

But, it's only a niche.

0 Replies

At 3% wind power is still a niche industry.

Propellers and windmills have been around for a very long time. Technologically they are far more mature than are either nuclear or compound gas turbine power plants. Apart from the relatively new application of carbon fiber lightweight propeller blades, no significant advances are likely.

More significantly, the capital cost of constructing wind power turbines is, on a unit of power actually delivered basis, significantly greater than that required for new nuclear power plants. The reason is that, because the wind doesn't blow all the time and the turbines must be dessigned to take the local peak winds, the actual power output over time from a wind turbine is less than one third of the design capacity. Worldwide the average capacity factor (the ratio of designed power output to actual output) is about 28% and that includes dats for the most efficient North Sea offshore installations, which are extraordinarily expensive to build and maintain, but have capacity factors approaching 32%. The best onshore turbines have capacity factors closer to 25%. In contrast the average capacity factor for our 100 nuclear power plants over the past ten years, including refuelling shutdowns, is over 92%. Interestingly the operating costs of wind turbines are also much higher per unit of power produced than that from any conventional plant, including nuclear.

Despite all the hysterical reaction and reporting, no one was killed as a result of the Fukushima reactor failures in the wake of the combined earhhquake and tusnami which struck the region and killed more than twenty thousand people. Based on available data, one worker received a radiation dose above the level at which ANY future health effect is projected, and he has so far experienced no adverse effect. In contrast many hundreds of people died in commuter trains that were washed away by the tusnami.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Thats TSUNAMI georgeob. Im the designated spelling monitor and I hve to give you a yellow card. One mroe and you get a red card.

Ive been following a TIDAL ROTOR project in the By of Fundy nd the Pssamaquoddy bay areas. These things are like screw pile rotors that rise and sink with the tides (ties VERRY ltger in By of Fundy) nd, as a result of the high tides, the tidal heads times the speed of water at peak nep nd rising tide is like 6 knots. These are submersible , and are kept in shipping lanes because they are in waters over 450 vft deep. They crank out like 30 megatts for each group of ten (I bleieve its ten) wter wheels. All of these re being set up in Canadian Waters because of tax benefits (Imagine aying that CANADIANS even have a tx benefit). Theyve just begun building the big things and will be setting them out sometime in 2013 .
Im gonna be following this because , if its rel, its like algae biodiesel or solar power, its efficient, nd PREDICTABLE

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Thanks for the correction. it was no typo - I've been misspelling Tsunami for a long time. Red card accepted.

If I'm not mistaken the Bay of Fundy has the highest Tidal fetch (the height difference between high & low water), as well as perhaps the fastest tidal currents in the world. (There may be some remote narrowing inlets in Alaska the rival it, but none so large & well known. ) I agree this is as reliable (as steady as the moon) , and, on a human scale, inexhaustable source of energy as can be found anywhere, and the scale of its potential warrants the capital investment involved to do it right.

I agree about biodeisel as well. However scaling up the feedstock collection and distribution is still a problem. Wind and solar applications have that problem too, in addition to enormous land use issues, but their zealous advocates appearently don't see their defects.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

At 3% wind power is still a niche industry.

And you completely ignore that it will by 20% of power in 2030.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

And you completely ignore that it will by 20% of power in 2030.

My use of the word "niche" is being taken the wrong way by all sides. Perhaps it was me who used it wrong. Regardless, it is not being taken quite in the way that I meant it.

When I used the word "niche" I was only arguing against the idea that solar/wind/renewables are able to cover 100% of our energy needs.

In other words, we need something in addition to renewables, like nuclear power.

I'm not saying that renewables shouldn't/won't/can't play a large role in our energy supply. They in fact can, and should, and will, play such a role.

But nuclear has an important role too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And we need something in addition to nuclear power. Relying solely on ONE power source puts us at risk. That means EVERY one of the sources is a "niche" by your definition.

I never said wind would be 100% of our energy needs. That would be your strawman.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know