Friday, December 28, 2012

End of 2012 Summary



As 2012 draws to a close, here is my synopsis of the status of nuclear power and renewables.  At the suggestion of several of you, I am changing my format.  I will give you my opinion, and then footnote the appropriate references at the end.  Back to my old school days!
Overall, this has been a bad year for nuclear.  In the US, the “crown jewel” project of the twin reactors in Georgia has fallen behind schedule and over budget.  The new projects in South Carolina and in Florida are on hold; and construction has resumed in Tennessee on a reactor started over 20 years ago.  It will be at least 6 years before we see any of this unaffordable and subsidized electricity. (1)
In Japan, the news is equally grim.  In spite of the “conservative” element being recently elected to power, 50 out of the 52 available reactors are out of service, and will probably remain dormant for 3 or 4 more years…if ever they will come back on line.  The loss has had an impact on Japan’s economy, BUT they are not back “living in the cave” as some have predicted, and in the next few years other options, mainly renewables, will be developed for new electricity generation…maybe not cheap, but definitely cheaper than the nuclear option.
Fukushima remains a complete economic and technical mess, almost two years after the disaster.  They are nowhere close to just stabilizing  reactor #3, and the safe cleanup of the 4 reactor sites will take years…decades… and billions of dollars.  Just like Chernobyl, where a new huge dome is being constructed just so they can begin to slowly decontaminate and dismantle the failed reactor.  Again, billions of dollars and a lot of time. (2)
In Europe, the prize reactors in Flamanville and Olkiluoto are both in financial and timeline troubles.  Major reactor vendors are pushing their way with small non-free market countries to build reactors, and even though there is a lot of talk with Arab nations and Brazil, we’ll just have to wait the 5 or so years to see if any of this really happens.

Meanwhile, the renewables, IN SPITE of everything that is continuously being thrown at them, continue to thrive and grow.  The most startling announcement comes from the American Wind Energy Association which stated that they would like an extension of the Wind Energy Tax Credit, and phasing that credit out over 6 years.  In 6 years, wind energy will be more than cost competitive with any new electricity generation technology…it is very close to natural gas now! (3)

Two last bits of info.  There are many things that go into establishing the “COST” of electricity.  The first is the capital investment in constructing the generating facility; the second is the cost of fuel and operating and maintaining the facility; and then there are other costs…taxes, infrastructure, profits, decommissioning of facilities, etc.  For years, the nuclear industry has claimed (and they still do) that nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity…based on “production costs.”  Here is a recent quote from the Nuclear Energy Institute: “Nuclear power is the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. Nuclear production costs have remained steady for more than 10 years averaging 2.19 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2011. This includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel, and paying for the management of used fuel.”  So what does this mean, and how does this relate to solar and wind energy?  First, the renewables have no cost of fuel…no uranium mining, enrichment, fabrication, transportation, and waste management ( the waste management fee cited for nuclear is way, way to little as we have seen with the failed Yucca Mountain project.)  Although wind does have O&M costs, most PV solar systems have minimal costs.  In 1989, my college and I visited two 1MW PV facilities in Southern California.  Each was operating at full power on a sunny day, and yet we could not find anyone to give us a tour or talk about what was going on…all we saw were locked gates, and arrays of panels slowly moving and following the sun.  This was over 20 years ago…things have gotten better. We just passed a wind farm in Yolo County on our way home from Christmas, and I didn’t even see a truck parked at any of the turbines.  The capital costs of building these facilities are way cheaper than constructing a nuclear power plant by a factor of 3x.  So, the only thing true in above claim is “baseload” electricity.  The sun does’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow…but our new technology can/will deal with these intermitencies in the new smart grid. (4)

One last bit of homework for you.  The US energy data for 2011 has been analyzed again by LLNL.  I always found this chart a huge fountain of information…at least it is good bathroom reading! (5)

Happy New Year, and may the sun shine and the wind blow…hope for fewer big storms…but then again, that’s a whole other topic!

(1)   Nukes

(2)   Japan

(3)   Renewables


(4)   Nuclear Energy Institute

(5)   Energy use chart
















Thursday, November 29, 2012

Nuclear Power status at the end of 2012



With a lot going on to comment on, I’ll limit myself to a short update on the “nuclear renaissance.”  And again, the focus is on economics.

The big news is the delay of the completion of the only nuclear power plant under construction in the US.
First conceived in 2005 as part of a nuclear renewal of 100+, then 30, then 12, then 5 new plants, and now just this one, the prediction of huge budget overruns and delays continue to loom…again I say that if and when this one begins operation, it’s electricity will be so expensive that it won’t be able to compete on the open market without even more federal government subsidies.
Meanwhile, the industry remains locked in its ignorance and greed.
In Florida, the utility continues to charge consumers for future nuke plants that will never be built.  Sounds like a tax hike to me!
The old nukes are running out of steam…nobody wants to buy them at their “cheap” sale price, and license extension is now on hold.
Decommissioning costs are now beginning to become obvious not only here but in the rest of the world.  (Our Humboldt Bay nuke is now up to $800m+, with seven more years of work to go.)  Nuclear wastes are piling up everywhere around the world, and the costs of storing them is just starting to be understood.  Cleanup work in Fukushima and Chernobyl is running into countless billions of dollars, with no end in site.
The new small modular reactors will probably never be deployed due to economics, as well as nuclear materials concerns; and the next big accident will really put a halt to all this nonsense.

Meanwhile, in spite of everything and all the money the anti-renewable folks have put forth to stop wind, solar, and biofuels, those industries are doing fairly well.  It is amazing to understand the potential renewables has in terms of energy supply and security, job creation and wealth, and environmental benefits, and see the ignorance and greed by the 1%ers who control our energy policy.

A very interesting summary of where we are, and where we can go is available from Bloomberg.

It all boils down to money…and policy (which usually is controlled by money.)  But, the times they are a-changing!





Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Early History of Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant

Here are two historical articles on the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant.

#1 from the the local Eureka Humboldt Standard,  Feb 21, 1958


PG&E Head Reveals Huge Project Cost

The atomic power-plant which Pacific Gas & Electric Company plans to build near Eureka will cost 28 million dollars to build and operate for four years, according to PG&E President Norman R.Sutherland.. 
He said the 60,000 kilowatt plant, which will produce economical nuclear electricity, will be built by BechteI Corp  for 20 million dollars. This compares with 11 million dollars for a conventional steam plant.
Uranium to run the plant for 3 ½ to 4 ½ years will be rented from the government for five million dollars, Sutherland told a press conference Thursday.  It will cost another  Three million dollars to fabricate the uranium into pellets for the core of the boiling-water type reactor furnace.
Cheaper Than Oil
He said the eight million dollar cost for fuel is about-half that of oil used in steam plants, therefore, costs of building and operating the nuclear plant would begin to balance out with the costs of conventional plants with the second core or batch of uranium fuel.
Sutherland said Eureka was picked for the site of the new plant because it has moderately high fuel costs.   “Oil for steam ‘plants must be barged in and it is remote from our general transmission system,” he said. “Two 100,000 volt lines’ are brought ‘in 110 miles over the Trinity Mountains f r o m Lockwood, and standby facilities must be maintained.”
Negotiating for Land
Sutherland said PG&E is negotiating to buy land on the coast near San Francisco for future construction of a nuclear plant. He said studies are continuing, although so far surveys have indicated that such a plant would be competitive with steam and hydro electric plants.  Asked if he believed the’ Eureka plant indicated the coming obsolescence of steam am hydroelectric plants, Sutherland replied: “Emphatically no.”  It may do so. In the Eureka area,” he said, “but not in our general system. In fact, we now have five hydroelectric and three steam-plants under construction.”
Eureka Humboldt Standard
Feb 21, 1958   p9
**************************************************************
#2 From the Sierra Club Magazine, 1984

The Short, Sad Life and

                      Long, Slow Death of Humboldt Bay

NUCLEAR ENERGY made its California debut in 1958, when Pacific Gas & Electric announced that the state's first atomic-power plant would be built on the remote north coast. Two years later surveyors mapped out a site a few miles south of Eureka, and in September 1963 Humboldt Bay became the seventh nuclear-power plant in the country to go on-line.
In what was to prove an inauspicious beginning, Humboldt underwent two sudden emergency shutdowns within its first two months of operation. For ten weeks during 1965, faulty fuel rods released uncontrolled radiation. A near-meltdown occurred in July 1970, the year that Humboldt, which led all the nation's reactors in radioactive emissions, was labeled the country's "dirtiest" nuke by Science magazine.
The beginning of the end for Humboldt came in 1976, when a Forest Service geologist documented the existence of two active earthquake faults in the vicinity, one only 56 feet from the reactor. The plant was closed for refueling at the time, and ­following a petition by citizen intervenors to keep it shut down permanently-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that Humboldt should not be reopened.
The plant was removed from PG&E's rate base in 1979. In July 1983 the utility announced that it did not plan to operate the plant ever again and that the decommissioning process would begin.
Because the shutdown of the plant in 1976 had not eliminated the earthquake danger, citizen activists had begun their own decommissioning process years before PG&E's 1983 announcement. They sponsored conferences on decommissioning in 1979 and 1981 to focus community attention on the technical and financial problems facing Humboldt. No one had any clear idea how the decommissioning process was going to work, and PG&E had used the money collected from ratepayers for decommissioning to pay the utility's day-to-day operating expenses.
In 1983 the PUC ruled that all state utilities must establish an "external sinking fund," a separate fund for decommissioning that would be outside the utilities' control. The ruling did not settle the financial controversy over Humboldt.  PG&E now claims that, because it was fulfilling its responsibility to provide eco­nomical energy to its customers, the ratepayers should be responsible for the full costs of decommissioning; the utility has requested a $130-million rate hike for this purpose. Others argue that the majority of the burden should be borne by PG&E stockholders, because Humboldt failed to operate for even half its expected lifetime. The PUC has yet to determine who should pay how much for how long.
Technical questions remain as well. P&E has not made a formal announcement concerning its decommissioning plans, but it apparently intends to delay dismantle­ment of the Humboldt Bay facility until 2015. Meanwhile, it has already embarked on a modified version of safe storage: The fuel rods have been removed from the reactor core and placed in an on-site storage pool. Critics are concerned about the safety of the storage plan: The pool is below sea level and only 100 yards from the ocean-and the earthquake faults that were there in 1976 have not disappeared.
As an intervenor since 1978 in the NRC proceedings regarding Humboldt, the Sierra Club is asking for a full environmental impact statement on PG&E's decommis­sioning plans. The Club contends that decommissioning is a matter of great public interest and that approval of a plan would constitute "major federal action signifi­cantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
Humboldt Bay operated for a mere 13 years. Its afterlife could indeed be an eternity. -Annie Stine / Sierra #69, 1984
 



Friday, October 12, 2012

Maintaining the Nuclear Fleet



Some news last week shook up the global nuclear industry and is finally beginning to call attention to the under-reported and un-addressed issue of nuclear re-licensing.  A plant is normally designed for a 30 year operating life, and with nukes, they are given a 40 year license, since they spend several years of time off-line for refueling and maintenance.  Lately, it has been the policy of the NRC to grant 20 year license extensions to several older reactors, which the industry proclaims is necessary for our energy security.  This may come back to haunt us sometime in the future.  It is like having a car with 200,000 miles on it, and saying you can get another 100,000 miles out of it…without something major going wrong.  And a major accident here in the US or Europe would have devastating effects on the health of populations as well as the health of the fragile economies.  The real impact of Fukushima is just now beginning to be felt in Japan.
The whole issue boils down to COST.  It is very expensive to build a new nuclear power plant, and very few will be ever be built to replace the aging fleet of 105 current reactors, most of which will reach the end of their useful lives within the next 20 years.  Extending their lives saves the utilities, and the ratepayers money.  However, the cost of upgrading, replacing, modernizing, etc. these old plants, which may be cheaper than new construction, is staggering; and only prolongs the day of reckoning when those units will have to be replaced. 
The cost to upgrade reactors in Europe is a estimated to be $30 billion!
The cost to upgrade the Crystal River plant in Florida is close to $3 billion. (Remember, this is an industry that has ALWAYS underestimated what real costs are!) 
The cost to bring San Onofre in California back on line is over $3 billion. 
Repairs and replacements are showing up all over the global reactor world.
Add to this the future decommissioning costs (over $150 billion in the US alone), and the unknown cost of storing the high level spent fuel (another $150 billion+?) and we see a very expensive electricity future.  And the same issues are just now beginning to be addressed in Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world.  The glory days of cheap nuclear electricity is over, and it is time to move on to expensive (???) renewable energy.
Residents in Pittsburgh can buy electricity today that is cheaper than what the utilities would charge them.  And the price is coming down!
Those hoping for a magic high tech bullet, which can be controlled and manipulated by the big energy corporations, such as nuclear fusion, are again being deluded by greed and ignorance.
No one can own the sun or the wind, and right now it can’t be bottled and sold off the shelf.  That’s what big energy fears about renewables.
But the bottom line always winds up about money, control, and power, but at this time we are beginning to realize and understand the TRUE cost of the energy we need and use.  Making energy more expensive and valuable will force us to use it more wisely.  You get what you pay for!

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The Big Attack on Renewables

Big oil is going all out to squash renewables, through what seems like how we get things done today, the spread of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. The reality is that the subsidies for renewables are a small fraction of the total subsidies for oil, coal, gas, and nuclear.  Many of our energy policies make it difficult for small companies (like Solyndra) to survive without some kind of support…policy, financial, whatever.


An excellent article talks about the energy situation in California, without the 2200MW from the damaged San Onofre reactors. 
This explains peak power (hot summer daytime when demand is high) which is NOW being met with solar, and what the future could hold.  California survived a usual hot summer without any blackouts, etc.  Never came close to maximizing the available amount of electricity available.

So while we’re talking about subsidies and investment in the future, nuclear fusion has been in the news.  “After spending more than $5 billion to build and operate a giant laser installation the size of a football stadium, the Energy Department has not achieved its goal of igniting a fusion reaction that could produce energy to generate power or simulate what happens in a nuclear weapon.  If the main goal is to achieve a power source that could replace fossil fuels, we suspect the money would be better spent on renewable sources of energy that are likely to be cheaper and quicker to put into wide use”.  This from MIT.
Even if ignition is achieved in the laboratory in the next several years, scaling up to a demonstration plant will cost billions and may ultimately show that fusion is not a practical source of power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/a-big-laser-runs-into-trouble.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
There are still some optimists…they probably get government funding!

As for wind power, it is almost cost competitive today without subsidies, and the potential is huge not only here but throughout the world.


Solar power continues to grow, and if we don’t invest in it, others will.
China won’t let its renewable industry die…it will “subsidize” it throughout the world…to their benefit.

I paid $4.77/gallon for gas the other day.  Remember, US oil production is at it’s highest on more than 10 years, and we are exporting a lot of what we do produce here…drill, baby, drill…will get us lower gas prices?  It’s the same “message” we are hearing about renewables…big fossil business profits. 

Let the sun shine, and the wind blow….



Monday, August 20, 2012

Update In the Middle of Summer


It’s been a while since I’ve updated my gleaning of what’s going on out there in the real world.
Things in Japan, a year and a half after the nuclear boondoggle, are still in quite a mess.  The cleanup is very slow and expensive, mountains of waste are being generated that have to go somewhere for a very long time, and the people are finally realizing that they have been had by the nuclear utilities.  Our radiological tech here at Humboldt Bay has been able to monitor and record a very small amount of radioactivity here from the release at Fukushima (it has a very distinct fingerprint!)  And Japan is surviving the loss of output from 53 of their 55 nuclear units.


They must have heard from Ann Coulter!




In the US, nuclear units have had their share of leaks and shutdowns.  A lot of money is going to have to be spent upgrading many units, and we’ll see if ratepayers agree to higher rates, or whether another bailout is called for.  Canada has an oversupply of electricity from their nukes, and has to take a loss by selling it to New York.  Even the big boys are starting to see the economic demise of the nuclear industry.






Renewables in California, the rest of the country, as well as the whole world continues to make incremental progress in spite of all that the fossil industry tries to impede its development.  With very high temperatures in the past month in California, the grid has averaged a 20% surplus of available electricity, in spite of the shut down of  2000MW from the troubled San Onofre nuclear units.  Since the demand is highest when the sun is shining, the new solar facilities have done what they are supposed to do…produce electricity!  The wholesale cost of all electricity in the west has not increased very much…as a matter of fact, it has averaged between 2-3 cents/kwh, about the same as it has been for years.  Even the state of Georgia is now (20 years late) beginning to see the value in solar.







So life goes on, gasoline prices are still high, due to the bungled refinery practices at Chevron.  With record refinery prices last year, you would think they would have re-invested some back into maintenance and infra-structure! 


Fires in California and Idaho, drought in the Midwest, failed corn and soybean crops, low water in the Mississippi…hey...it’s the world we choose!
Don’t forget to vote in November!






Monday, July 30, 2012

Climate Change


For what it’s worth….

Richard Muller, for many years a Koch brothers funded mouthpiece as a “reputable”, “honorable”, “real scientist” climate change denier, has turned traitor.  His new study at UC Berkeley, 25%funded by the Koch brothers show overwhelming data that human induced climate change is occurring.  Why the change??…I guess they didn’t offer him enough money????  Maybe he is a “real” scientist and has finally analyzed his own data and that of the other 97% climate scientists, and has some moral principles to boot!





It’s been quite a year so far………………

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Unstated costs of Nuclear Power


While most concern is about the high cost of constructing new nuclear power plants, the real dilemma is in the “hidden” costs of the back end…the  waste/decommissioning issues.
The industry has always and still falsely asserted that nuclear power is the cheapest way to generate electricity.  This premise is based on a real slight of hand in hiding and not accounting for the “true” and real costs associated with the kwhs produced AFTER the plant has run its life.
We are still being told that nukes produce electricity at 1.5 to 3 cents/kwh.  This may be true, and is referred to as O&M (operating and maintenance) costs.  This usually includes fuel costs, and the day to day running of the plant.  It DOES NOT include capital investment, financing, major retrofits, decommissioning, and waste management.  If we apply the SAME cost analysis, solar O&M costs are less than 1 cent/kwh…the fuel is free, and operating cost are really negligible.  In many cases, the capital investment in solar is cheaper than today’s nuclear, and those costs are coming down.
The high “cost” of solar is due to our bookkeeping methodology, which discriminates against solar because the sun only shine for about a third of the time versus a power plant that runs full time.  There is no differentiation on the value of the electricity.  (More on this later.)

Meanwhile, here is an interesting piece from today’s news. 
The La Crosse reactor was a small 50MW nuke, similar to the Humboldt Bay nuke, that was shut down in 1987.  The spent fuel has been stored in a wet pool for 25 years.  At Humboldt Bay, the cost of maintaining the pool when it was operative was about $1 million/yr.  The estimated cost of putting the La Crosse fuel into dry storage is $45m.  So, we have about $70m in waste management that did NOT appear on the customer’s energy bill.  Somebody is paying for that now…and the final bill is not in.  Security at Humboldt Bay today is around $12m/yr for the 5 dry casks, and this waste may stay on site for the next 20…50…??? years.   And we don’t know how/if/where/how much this spent fuel will be dealt with in the future.  Like Humboldt Bay, the decommissioned Trojan plant is costing the Northwest ratepayers some $10-15m/yr…an unidentified “tax” on their monthly bill, that will probably never go away…paying for the “cheap” electricity generated back in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s.
The NRC just approved Indian Point’s conversion to dry cask storage.
Interesting issue here is that the fuel will be placed in a transfer cask, transported out of the fuel building, and then re-transferred into the permanent cask.  This has to be done underwater because of shielding requirements, and involves multiple handling of the fuel…very expensive, but probably cheaper than installing a larger crane in the old radioactive building.  No cost estimate on this procedure has been given; BUT, it will be paid for by the consumers, some of whom may have benefited from the “cheap” nuclear electricity generated by that fuel in the past. 
All this is happening/going to happen at all of the 105 nuclear plants we have in the US.  Expensive?  Who pays?  Cheap, cost effective electricity?  And then of course, what will the cost of final disposition of all the spent fuel be…Yucca Mountain cost $14 billion before it was abandoned, and the estimate in 2002 was over $100 billion to deal with this stuff in the future.  I’m sure that cost has not come down as rapidly as the cost of Chinese solar.
So, we’re being hornswaggled…from the front and rear!  We most likely won’t be building anymore new nukes, so we just need to keep bending over! 
Fiscal conservatism…cost effectiveness…big money business at its finest.


Sunday, July 8, 2012

Comparing Costs of Solar and Nuclear


In a recent Forbes article, the most glaring parameter is that the sun doesn’t always shine…a standard availability being 20-30%.  So, if you compare that solar production strictly against a base-load generator with a 70-80% capacity, you come up with a very big negative for solar, as well as other renewable. 


What is missing in this cost analysis is the “true” value of the electricity…other than just a  price per KWH.  Solar is peak demand KWHs…especially valuable and most probably more than cost effective and competitive on hot summer days when air-conditioning demand is at its highest.  There is usually no distinction between cost/kwh during the day and night when demand is low, and when a lot of costly generators are turned off.  As with so many aspects of the environment/climate change, the “true” costs and implications are marginalized.

Another strike against solar PV is the life expectancy of the panels itself.  For many years, a 20 year life was used…I guess today it is 25 years.  The argument was/is that there is not enough actual use history to extend that timeframe, even though those panels may work for 50, 60, ?? years.  A nuclear power plant has a license for 40 years, and most industrial facilities have a 30-40 year life expectancy.  So, if you depreciate, spread cost out over that life-expectancy timeframe, whatever economic  gimmick you use, etc...solar is at a big disadvantage.


One last point I usually make in my arguments is that the real cost of nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal is extremely understated.  Here at the Humboldt Bay Reactor which we are decommissioning, the cost is in excess of $0.12/kwh for the electricity it produced in its 14 year run.  The cost of dry storage of the fuel is about $12 million /yr until 2020…and after that, who knows what.

I know this is all so complex, and I am not an economist, but for all these years I have felt slighted by the “powers that be” in all my activism for sustainable, renewable energy. 

Monday, July 2, 2012

Happy 4th of July, America!


A few current news trends as we celebrate the birthday of the great American dream.


Gee, we could have used the Solyndra money to help pay for this!  Tsk, tsk.


You’ve got to put it somewhere…SC is probably as good a place as any!  Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Wisconsin???????


Nuclear subsidies?  The world over!  “The total amount of public money injected into Japan’s TEPCO is now at 2.5 trillion yen ($30.7 billion).”  Here in the US, we could have probably built one and a half new reactors for that amount.

Today, California is expected to hit a summer peak demand of  about 35,000MW, with available resources of 45,000MW…that gives about a 25% reserve…not bad.  All this without the 2200MW from the shut down San Onofre nukes.


As Japan begins to come to its senses and initiates investments into renewables, the demand for PV, wind, and other technologies will increase.  Too bad the US has abandoned its renewables industries…most of the product demand and jobs will go to China and Germany.  Another lost opportunity due to short-sightedness!



As the world deals with extreme weather, we continue to  spend our “intelligent” efforts dealing with gay marriage, immigration, minimizing healthcare for the poor, and further enriching the rich with more riches.

This is just the beginning…will it get better?  Or worse?  Do you believe the scientists, or the fossil fuel industry lackeys?  Time will tell…eventually the economic damage will reach such proportions that even the real fiscal conservatives will have their eyes and ears opened…as well as their pocketbooks.

Happy 4th of July, America!  The best democracy money can buy.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Off to Weiser tomorrow, so I thought I would update my thoughts and insights before I become "brainless."

The nuclear industry continues to stumble along.  In spite of increased cost estimates, the two Georgia reactors are still under construction, and it will be interesting to see if they are finished at all, let alone on schedule and on budget as promised.  Increased cost estimates have  failed to deter the continued push for new reactors in Florida and for the TVA in Tennessee.  After all, it's mostly public money, and CEO's are getting big salaries on all this.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energys-levy-county-nuclear-project-carries-on-despite-early-and/1232464  and
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405

Nuclear waste was issued a big blow when the courts ruled that on-site storage of fuel will be limited to 30 years.  Oh, what to do, what to do.  The Blue Ribbon Commission said it so well…there is NO solution to the nuclear waste issue.  So, we will thrown the ball around again, spend billions of taxpayer dollars trying to find a "political" solution, since it seems we've given up on SCIENCE in this country.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Court-rules-against-60-years-of-storage-of-3620443.php

Things aren't any better in Europe.  They are just beginning to address the extreme high costs of decommissioning, and they haven't even begun to look at the waste issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-hard-is-it-to-dismantle-150-nuclear-reactors-europes-about-to-find-out/2012/06/09/gJQA2EH0PV_blog.html?wprss=rss_policy
It's all still a dream.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/french-nuclear-watchdog-says-orders-won-at-too-low-prices.html

Meanwhile, in spite of the enormous and expensive effort by the Kock brothers and their "Americans for Prosperity" and other extreme right-wing  big money fossil fuel climate change deniers, renewables are doing quite well in the world.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/06/11/1981737/record-investment-in-renewable.html#storylink=rss  and
http://www.ocean-resources.com/industry-news.asp?newsid=11671

Too bad the old guard "Oldsmobiles" are spending so much money opposing the "Green Revolution."  Think of the jobs, the local developments, the sustainability, and the economic and environmental benefits we would be having now, if only….
But of course, it's all about education…..
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/12/498376/americans-for-prosperity-plans-protest-against-extremist-kids-flying-kites-in-support-of-wind/
and it's all about money…
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/report-gop-outside-groups-plan-spend-more-1-142453576.html

Too bad about Solyndra…just shocking!
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-28/bankrupt-nuclear-waste-firm-impact-services-gets-deadline   and
http://markey.house.gov/press-release/markey-burgess-call-gao-investigation-doe-support-near-bankrupt-usec
Fire up those subsidies.

Meanwhile, those dumb Chinese are moving head with new companies with a lot of help from the government.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/05/green_jobs_how_china_and_solyndra_left_america_s_solar_power_companies_fighting_each_other_for_scraps_.single.html
and in Taiwan
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2012/06/02/343055/Cheng-Uei.htm

It is going to be an interesting summer in California with two of its big nuclear reactors shut down.  The loss of 2200MW from San Onofre will be displaced by the 5000MW of renewables now available on the grid.  More later.

Enjoy the summer!



Monday, May 14, 2012

Electricity at a Crossroads


We are at a crossroads in a lot of social, political, economical, environmental, and moral issues, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
Here at home, three main issues need to be addressed in the future of electricity planning.

1.        Our power plants and transmission grid system is getting old, and need massive replacement and upgrades. 
2.        Regulations on pollution and climate change gases will continue to get tighter, as science and the resultant ramifications eventually trump politics.
3.        The cost of cleaner renewables is rapidly coming down, and beginning to gain significant market share.

The current cost of building two new nuclear reactors in Georgia is estimated between $14-25 billion.  Just to replace the 100+ current reactors in the US which will soon end their lives will potentially cost $2+ trillion??!!  Add another trillion $$$s for upgrading the grid, decommissioning those nukes, isolating nuclear wastes, and other technical necessities, and the future costs are astronomical. 

Meanwhile, Solyndra and other solar companies are going bankrupt because they cannot compete with the decreasing costs of solar equipment.  A lot of this is driven by the huge subsidies China is giving its solar industries, which we should also be doing.  Instead we quibble yearly about renewable tax credits and incentives, spend millions to “fight” the subversive renewable industry, and offer billions in support of the dying (if not dead) nuclear industry.

One would think that without federal aid and subsidy, renewables would continue to be a “hippie” dream.  Not true!  Solar and wind are making major inroads in this country’s energy mix in spite of the “big” business model.  It all boils down to the old argument of centralized vs. de-centralized technology.  Where once,  an individual person was responsible on their own for installing solar on their rooftop, there are now associations of residents and neighborhoods leasing and buying into community solar projects, ie. panels on the roof of a large church where individuals and financing entities share in the profits of solar electricity. 
One drawback of solar PV is that it produces DC power, and inverters to make it “grid compatible” were expensive and bulky.  Not any more.  Buy a panel or two, and just plug into a wall socket, and run your meter backwards! 
And remember, this is coming DOWN in price, as more and more small entrepreneurs , communities, individuals, and local agencies begin to realize the values and benefits…economic, sustainability, environmental, and social...that doing for yourself offers.  Just the tip of the iceberg, and big energy is trying to melt!  Just think of what we could accomplish if we had the full support of the federal government!

Meanwhile, electricity rates continue to go up in Florida for nuclear plants that will never be built
and the citizens in Japan pay an enormous price for its once blind trust in the nuclear industry.

You know what?  The “big boys” aren’t always that smart!

Which fork in the road do we take?  We’ll see if sanity prevails.  If not, economics will take us down the right (left) path,

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

My Latest Rant

Excuse my frustrating diatribe, but this issue goes to the heart of my deep concern for the future of this country.  This writing is in response to an ongoing dialogue I have with a friend up north:

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time writing all this because I know you won’t read it or even begin to comprehend what I am saying.  I realize that it is totally useless to try and have an intelligent and logical argument or debate about our opposing views. 

You obviously did not read the article I sent you that started this latest round
because your response has absolutely nothing to do with what it says; and what you did come back with is really the crux of the big problem…with you, and with the whole “Fox Effect” that is prevalent today in any kind of political discussion in this country.
Did you even read the article you threw back at me?  Or did you just look at the headline and make your assumptions…or did Hannity tell you what to think about this issue?
So here is the “real story” from that left wing media CNN
Yes, 50% of the refining capacity has been shut down in the Northeast.  Why? 
“The refineries are losing money because they are old and cannot process the cheaper, heavier types of oil that are increasingly in supply from Canada's oil sands, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and elsewhere.”  Old refineries have not been upgraded to deal with the new types of oil that are entering the global market.  (Now I can make an assumption here…not supported by the facts, that the oil industry has made billions in profits and not poured money back into new or upgraded refineries and infrastructure.) You make the assumption that it is Obama (and the wacko enviros) that have shut them down due to excessive environmental regulation.  Neither side is supported by what is said in the article.  We would both be wrong…and just stating our biases.  Read…and if you can, and try to comprehend!
Needless to say, the article goes on with “East Coast gasoline shortages are a real possibility -- but not because there isn't enough gasoline in the United States. The real problem lies in transporting that gasoline to the Northeast.”  Hence support for my original article that there is a glut of oil and gasoline in the US, and the industry is exporting product to other places in the world.
Nowhere does the article make any reference to $6 a gallon as you say….”So gas in New York is over $6 a gallon and rising.”  Actually, the current price is $4.11 today (cheaper than in Arcata), and is coming down.  http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/index.aspx?&area=COOPER&area=MANHATTAN&area=NEW+YORK&area=NYC&area=New+York+City

So in my opinion, what you are saying is just pure bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what is my "fixation" on Fox, Kocks, Ailes, Rove, et.al.?  I have emailed you my concerns over the years, but obviously you've never read them.  You are mirrored in their media ideology of mis-statements, lies, and distortion…all in the name of news.  Say what you want (whether it's true or not), say it often enough, and it becomes infixed in the brains of the mindless.  Pavlov was a great inspiration for Hitler, Mao, Jong, etc.  Create a menu of headlines, broadcast your interpretation of what the actual articles say, and hope no one actually reads them…and if they did, they’re probably too stupid to understand it and form their own opinion.  You did that exact thing on that article you sent me a while back with the headline claiming manmade global warming is a hoax.  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/06/458651/fox-news-again-turns-to-tabloid-for-climate-science/  You obviously did not read the article because it had no reference to “man-made influences;” and when I sent you the piece in which the actual scientist argued that he was misquoted and misrepresented by the reporter, and that his research had nothing to do with current climate change…you stood by your argument claiming you believed the “renown scientist.”  You believed the mis-statement of the facts by the reporter…not the scientist
Need I say more?   

Very scary…a terrorist threat to this country far greater than Al Queda, the federal deficit, health insurance, or Secret Service parties.  Integrity, morality, honesty, accountability...whatever...the best democracy money can buy!

And as to what I read… I try to look at a wide range of points of view.  Yes, every day I look at Huffington, Think Progress, Politico, Media Matters, Daily Kos…left wing stuff; but I also look at Fox News, Drudge Report, Breitbart. Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Forbes, as well as NY Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, LA Times, SF Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, and I scan Yahoo and MSN news service.  I also have several "collectors" that glean energy articles (no bias) and of course, a big focus on nuclear stuff (again, both sides.)  We don’t really watch TV…no Fox, MSNBC, CNN…although I cruise a few of those channels in between innings of the Giants games!

I guess I pride myself for trying to understand what is going on…sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wrong (or left); sometimes I agree; sometimes I disagree.  I'm constantly open to learning something, and I try to make up my own mind, rather than have someone else tell me what to think. Try it sometime!

Yes, I am a conservative...I care about the rights of all human beings and the environment we all live in, which is under attack from the greed and corruption of the few.

 ********************************************************************
Here are the emails exchanges that led to this final discussion!!!!
 EMAIL #4
Gee.................maybe this is not to be believed, as CNN is probably a right winger................
 I like your !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’s...............
What’s with your fixation on fox, kock, etc???           Brainwash works both ways you know......................Huff and Puff................
And, you bet..........I am a conservative...............and I am sure you are too..............

EMAIL #3 Subject: Re: drill baby drill
 READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a glut of oil and gasoline...we are exporting gasoline product!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DUHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep listening to the FOX, Kock, Rove, Adelson, etc million dollar bullshit.  You are such a good brainwashed fiscal conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EMAIL #2 Subject: Re: drill baby drill
I am sure you are aware that about 50% of the refineries on the east coast have shut down..........due to excessive EPA regulations, thanks to Obama................
So gas in New Youk is over $6 a gallon and rising................I think it is wonderful…..let them feel the pain…..

EMAIL #1 Subject: drill baby drill
 The US has a huge glut of oil...so much that a tanker carrying Alaskan oil returned to port with about a quarter of its cargo because there was no place to put it!  Yet the price of gasoline is, and is staying at an almost all time high.  Obama's fault...you bet, if you listen to Faux News.
 What is the cause...very complex stuff; but the bottom line is "the power of the world market."  So, we can drill, drill, drill, drill all we want in our National Parks, offshore, in the Arctic, wherever....Romney can personally build the Keystone Pipeline...it would all be like pissing in the ocean, except we'd be dribbling some down our pants!