INVESTING IN A SOLAR ELECTRIC (PV) SYSTEM

SOLAR INVESTMENT- ANSWERING THE WRONG QUESTION

When I tell people that I’ve installed a solar (PV) system on my roof, almost all of them seem to be ignorant about the big changes in the solar industry in the last few years, and they usually ask two questions. 

1. Are you hooking up to batteries, and being completely self-sufficient?  The answer is NO.  I am still hooked up to PG&E.  During the day, the panels produce electricity which supplies my electricity demand at the time; and if/when I produce more than what I need/use, it spins the meter backwards, putting electricity into the grid.  At night, the meter spins forward, as I buy electricity from PG&E.

2. How long will it take to pay back the cost?  Although this is a valid question, it provides only part of an answer to a much more important question: “Is it a good investment?”  That is a more difficult question to answer because there are so many variables, personal situations, fiscal mindsets, and choices that we all confront in our financial planning and portfolios.  But for me, today, it is a solid investment.  Here is my situation…Spu’s Econ 101!

The simplest answer to the question is that I estimate the payback period to be around 20 years.  A lot of people shake their head! That means I will be in my early 90’s before I get my money back!  Bad investment???  Not necessarily so.  The reason is that the money I invested into the solar system is really about a 5%, tax-free, fixed income investment.  This fits right in there with my “balanced” financial portfolio.  At my age, I am not looking for investments that will “grow” in the future; I want an investment from which I can draw off income (dividends, interest, or some payment) that I can spend now, or reinvest, if I want to.  Investing in stocks has always been the standard for long term wealth generation…the value of the market has usually gone up over time; you can always sell your stock when the price is high and you need the money; some stocks pay dividends (Apple currently at 1.8%; PG&E is 3.2%, ATT 5.3%.)  Some stocks pay higher dividends, and there are funds that can get you 10-12%+ right now, but since the amount of a dividend is based on the value of the stock, you run the risk over time of the market falling, profits dropping, stock prices plummeting, dividends being reduced, bankruptcy, etc., as we evidenced in 2008. 

Another investment option, especially for income generation, is bonds.  Right now, the bond market is terrible…around 2-4% for either tax-free munis, or even corporate holdings.  If you buy bonds at a good price, the return you get is a fixed amount, regardless of what the market does and/or what the price of the bond is at any particular time.  So a 15 year 7% bond I bought at a par value of $10,000 ten years ago is still paying me 7% ($700) per year, even though the value of that bond has dropped to $7500 today if I were to sell it.  No big deal…I’ll hold it until it matures, or until it is called in because the company can refinance at a lower interest, at which time I get my original $10,000 back.  Pretty safe, although I had some General Motors bonds a number of years ago that tanked in the 2008 depression when General Motors went bankrupt!

So what can I do with $10 –20,000 today to invest in a relatively safe, secure source of fixed income?  SOLAR!

My total solar installation bill came in at around $17,000 for a 2.5kw (10 panel) system.  I could have done this cheaper, but my solar guy was an ex-student of mine, who has run a fine business for the past 10 years; and we agreed to go with the best equipment….Canadian panels with 25 year warranty rather than cheaper Chinese panels, an Enphase inverter for each panels, a state of the art mounting system on our new roof, full internet monitoring, all the permitting, licenses, etc.) This is the best quality system available today, and I realize that I paid top dollar for it.  He is also rewiring the electrical service box (which I installed myself in 1974!), putting in a transfer switch for my generator, and some other upgrades.  I get a 30% federal tax credit ($5100), the 20% state credit is gone.  So, my cost is around $12,000.  This is $4.80/watt installed, higher than the national average of $4.53; but I do have all those extras added in.

California has ‘net-metering’ for solar, which means when the panels generate more electricity than the house is using, the excess goes into the grid…spins the meter backwards.  The price I get “paid” by PG&E is the same price that I pay for each KWH I use and buy from them.  This is a big bone of contention with utilities across the nation, since I’m getting paid a retail price, and not a wholesale electricity price for what I contribute.  On a utility bill, the actual cost of the generated electricity is typically around 50% of the price of a KWH…the other 50% is for transmission, distribution, maintenance of facilities, taxes, insurance, nuclear decommissioning fees, profits, etc.  Today, PG&E charges me $0.14/kwh…the price just went up a bit, and is supposed to go up another 15-20% by next August!  An important factor is that at the end of the year, if I produced and put more electricity into the grid than I used, PG&E will not pay me for the excess…that’s the political compromise as of today in California.  So my system is aimed at producing around 75% of the electricity we use.  For a variety of reasons…our low electricity use, the physical space on our roof, etc…this 2.5kw system is what we chose for now, although it will be very easy to install more panels when/if we choose to do so.  McKinleyville isn’t exactly the solar capital of the world!  Our goal is to generate around 4200kwh per year, valued at $600/yr that I save (as income), and the system pays for itself in about 20 years.  Time will tell whether these expectations come true.  Each solar window site is different due to micro-climates; the larger climate and weather patterns are changing; the price of electricity is going up, etc, etc.  I have a tree I might prune or take down because it shades part of the system in the late afternoon in the dead of winter.  The only maintenance necessary is to wash the panels when I clean my gutters, etc.  The system is monitored on-line by me, my installer, and PG&E, so any problems become obvious.  And another key advantage is that the income (savings on my electric bill) is tax–free.  This brings the investment return closer to a 6.5% taxable yield, without the volatility and worry of the market!  Better yet, this will change as the price of electricity goes up; and I can easily add more panels if I choose, as the price of solar equipment continues to come down, and the money keeps on coming in. 

One last major point needs to be made.  The popular belief is that solar is expensive, and you need batteries, the right solar rooftop site, and up front money to invest.  Old school!!! The changing financial markets are now allowing average citizens to borrow cheap money to install a system.  Some new companies will actually pay for everything and take a percentage of the solar electricity savings.  You can even invest in systems on someone else’s “roof” if you don’t want it on your property.  We are beginning to see solar as a long term, safe capital investment that generates money…so there is profit to be made by all.  In a recent solar meeting, someone from Goldman Sachs said they are not interested in financing a system on your roof; but 1000 roofs gets their attention; one million mortgage loans for solar systems is definitely causing some lips to smack!  Think of the potential in places like Southern California, Arizona, Texas, Florida (the Sunshine State) with payback returns of 6-7-10+%.  And the price is coming down!  A true capitalist, fiscal conservative’s dream!  Yet today, this solar revolution is a nightmare for the established monopolistic utilities and big energy industries, because it allows anyone to partake in making money directly from energy production, something they had exclusive monopolistic control over. Big Energy is doing everything in its power to squash the solar revolution; but in spite of all this, the industry is growing…mainly because there is money to be made!

Investing in solar is the right thing to do for our planet, our economy, and for people…good local jobs, clean affordable electricity, and power to/by the people!

So, let’s ask the right questions, and then let the sun shine!!!!!!!!

PS.  As I write, here is a news bulletin saying Exelon, one of the big nuclear power plant owners in the US, is cutting its dividend by 40%!  Insiders say they will probably shut down some of their nukes because they cannot compete with solar and wind generated electricity!  Their CEO says they will “seek customers interested in contracting with Exelon for wind and solar power. Such power purchase agreements would guarantee steady and predictable returns.”  Their stock has ranged from $51 to $27 over the past 5 years, and is currently at $37.  The dividend yield was 3.31%.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-07/business/chi-exelon-nearly-halves-its-dividend-20130207_1_exelon-shares-electricity-prices-exelon-ceo-christopher-crane

The time’s they are a-changing!

A Summer 2014 Update on Nuclear Decommissioning

A major milestone is about to be met on the decommissioning (decom) of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, where the final pieces of the reactor vessel are now being cut up, and will be packaged and shipped off by this November.  After some 2000+ shipments of mid-level radioactive materials to Texas and Idaho, all that will remain is “lower-level” contaminated concrete, piping, and soil, which will be gone by 2019.  The decom project is on schedule and on track with its estimated $1+ billion price tag.  After 2019, the site will be contamination free, and all that will remain will be 6 dry casks containing the high-level spent fuel stored in a secure bunker.

The experience and implications from Humboldt Bay translate directly to what is being planned at several locations in the US, where shut down nuclear reactors await dismantlement.  The just released decommissioning plan for the twin reactors at San Onofre in southern California, a power plant 30x larger than Humboldt Bay, is currently estimated to cost $4.4 billion, and take 20 years to complete.  I believe this is overly optimistic, coming from an industry that has historically underestimated everything they’ve planned and said.  Humboldt Bay decom costs went from $95 million when the plant shut down, to $380 million in 2004 when actual work began, to the current $1+ billion estimate.  Whatever the final figure, this cost explodes the myth that nuclear power is cheap, clean, and economically feasible.

With 105 reactors in the US needing eventual decommissioned in the next 20-60 years, no one knows what that actual total cost will be…$200 billion…$300 billion…half a trillion dollars?????  Costs in nuclear technology have always gone up.

Two major points need to be put in perspective.  In the few reactors that have actually been decommissioned, decom cost have more often exceeded actual initial construction costs.  These “back-end” expenses are not identified or quantified in the real, true cost of the nuclear electricity which is produced.  At Humboldt Bay, the decom price alone is about 20 cents/kwh for the 5 billion kwhs that were produced in the 13 years the plant operated.  That cost was not reflected directly on the ratepayers electricity bill 40 years ago, but has since been levied, and even today, and for the next 5 years, is being paid for by PG&E consumers who never used any of that nuclear electricity.  If decom costs were truly incorporated in the price tag of the two Vogle reactors currently being built in Georgia, the $14 billion subsidized capital investment would swell to $28 billion…$40 billion…$??????  Amortizing that cost over the 40-year life of the reactors would make that nuclear electricity very, very expensive.  Nobody is talking about that.  What the industry is doing is what it has always done in the past…claiming we need this cheap, clean source of electricity, and defraying well into the future the huge backend decom and waste storage costs, and basically letting our children and future generations deal with it.

The second issue deals with the 80,000+ tons of high-level wastes in the form of spent fuel stored all around the US.  The current strategy for storing this highly radioactive material involves moving the fuel rods from basic cooling swimming pools to air-cooled dry casks.  At Humboldt Bay, a bunker was built in 2004 at a cost of $10 million; the purchase and loading of six dry casks was $10 million each; and the security and maintenance costs since then have been about $10 million per year.  Thus, through 2025, spent fuel storage will approximate $270 million…just for the tiny amount at Humboldt.  No specific details have been released for San Onofre as to how many casks will be stored on site for the next 25…50…??? years, or the costs. The Federal government actually owns this material and is responsible for its ultimate disposal.  However, there is no place to put it, except to leave it on site!  For the past 30 years, a small fee was attached to the cost of nuclear electricity to pay for ultimate disposal.  In early 2014, about $30 billion had been collected into this Waste Fund.  Out of this, $15 billion has already been spent on the defunct Yucca Mountain project, and a federal court just ruled that the Fund, and its remaining money, was an absurdly ridiculous low amount to do anything, and ended the Fund and its collection. In 2003, Yucca Mountain was estimated to cost over $100 billion for construction and operation.  Thus, costs for what we are going to do in the future…whatever that will be...are unknown, and most likely will be very expensive.  And, it is now the fiscal responsibility of the federal taxpayers.

Putting all the spent fuel into dry casks is an enormous challenge.  At $10 million per cask, and estimated 6000+ casks needed for the volume of waste produced to date… we’re looking at $60+/- billion which you and I are going to pay for.  These casks are designed to last for 50-60 years.  Then what?  Re-cask with newer technology?  Move them to a central storage place?  Bury them in some underground vault?   That’s just for high-level spent fuel.  Add to all this the cost of cleaning up everything else associated with the nuclear power industry…uranium mining wastes, decommissioning and cleaning up the enrichment and fuel fabrication plants, and dealing with low-level radiation dumps (many of the old ones are leaky messes)…a trillion dollars????…all to be paid for by the taxpayer.  And the reality is that all this with no real positive benefit to society, other than the few jobs this cleanup industry creates.  It’s sort of like the trillions of dollars we spent building nuclear weapon systems we prayed we would never have to use.  Maybe we can’t afford health care for the poor and elderly, social security for our seniors, protecting our health from a toxic environment…but we, and future generations, will pay this bill.  Chernobyl and Fukushima have proven a mandate for it.

The definitive question is “why do we want to build more nuclear power plants, when renewables offer us a much cleaner, safer, cheaper, and sustainable future?”  The industry claims that the new generation of reactors and the so-called new modular reactors (many years from actual development and testing) would be cheaper, cleaner, and safer.  Again, another pipe dream.  Nuclear reactors will always produce radioactive wastes…basic laws of physics.  A lot of this new technology would rely on reprocessing, or “recycling” wastes; and leads us into the “breeder” plutonium type of reactors, which are dangerous on so many fronts.  This direction has been tried for over 50 years in many countries, and has proven to be very expensive, technologically infeasible, and actually produces more volumes of radioactive wastes, in more difficult to manage forms, than current reactors.  New reactors may be safer…but they can never be perfectly safe.  As for costs, again the industry claims new modular reactors will be cheaper to construct.  Since these technologies have never been built, and won’t even be tested until 2023 or beyond, the industry’s optimism is hard to believe.  And once again, in all this optimism, there is no discussion of the back end…decommissioning, waste disposal and storage, etc. 

Meanwhile, renewables are beginning to make tremendous headway into the production of electricity worldwide. The potential exponential growth and decrease in costs in solar and wind is being held back by the continued campaign of mis-statements, half truths, and narrow, shallow thinking of the big moneyed corporate interests and their political lackeys.  Eventually, it all boils down to the free market and to clean, safe, economical, and sustainable energy.  Renewables are beginning to at least become major players in this battle.

Here are a few pertinent references for the above discussion:

            https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-dismantling-cost-4-162806143.html

            http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/02/tp-plan-to-dismantle-plant-unveiled/

            http://line.idaho.gov/pdf/Overview%20of%20Dry%20Cask%20Storage.pdf

            http://news.yahoo.com/promises-easier-nuclear-construction-fall-short-134430968.html

            http://www.gazettetimes.com/business/local/944a9b2c-1496-11e4-a804-0019bb2963f4.html

            http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-startup-transatomic-power-scores-170833215.html

Feel free to ask me questions, ask for citations for my statements, and engage me in a meaningful discussion of these and any associated issues.  I welcome “old school” concept of people actually talking and learning from each other!

Decommissioning Costs for the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant

Decommissioning Costs for the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant

The final Environmental Impact Statement in 1987 stated the decommissioning cost as $95 million. In 2006, after a thorough review by the TLG consulting firm, the cost was raised to $378.5m. In 2011, at one of the Community Advisory Board meetings, the cost was revised to $550m. In 2013, in an official publication, the final cost through 2025 was estimated at $1.08 BILLION. (see attachment)

There are several reasons for this huge amount.

First, this plant was really very dirty, and the way it was built allowed RA contamination to seep all over the place...into concrete gaps, pipe holes, etc. After all the surveys, it was deemed easier and more cost effective to treat almost all the concrete structures as low level waste, carefully demolish them, and haul it all away to Texas, Utah, and Idaho; rather than to painstakingly try and separate out the more contaminated components. This, of course was expensive and required a lot of controlled demolition, packaging, and transportation by truck.

A second reason for the cost increase was the demand by the community and PG&E's acceptance that all the RA contamination below ground be removed. This reactor was below grade, and the concrete caisson in which it sat was contaminated due to leaks, activation, etc. Since Humboldt Bay is just a few hundred feet away, this caisson sat within the groundwater at the site. At one point several years ago, water actually was seeping INTO the caisson and had to be sealed. So again, instead of trying to remove the more radioactive portions of the caisson, the whole thing will be demolished and shipped away. In order to do this, a 300+ ft slurry wall will be built around the footprint of the plant down to a depth of 120 feet, the water will be pumped out and treated, the concrete caisson will be demolished and hauled away, and then the hole will be backfilled. The estimated cost of of this is about $400m.

A third reason for the high expenditure is that the Spent Fuel is covered under the decommissioning fund. Close to $70m was spent in 2008 to build the ISFSI storage facility on site where the fuel and reactor internals are in 6 dry casks located in a concrete vault. The cost of maintenance and security runs about $12m/yr, although the actual number is hard to get out of PG&E. If you look at the 2013 PG&E budget, you'll see that $471m was spent up to 2012, and $1bn to be spent completely removing the plant by 2017, and in the years to 2025, the costs of final environmental remediation and spent-fuel storage takes the cost out to close to $1.2bn. What the costs for security, etc. after that remains to be seen.

As to who pays for all this, it is definitely NOT the utility of its stockholders; but the ratepayers, and to some degree, the taxpayers. In the '70's and '80's, two funds were set up to assure money for spent fuel storage and decommissioning. The first was a fee of 1 mill ($0.001) for every nuclear kwh of electricity generated. Some $24bn has been collected; but this is all moot now, since the rulings late last year where the Federal courts have suspended collection to this fund, some $12bn was spent on Yucca Mountain, and several utilities have sued and been re-reimbursed for some of the moneys they put in. So it looks like the taxpayer will wind up paying for the storage and ultimate disposal (if that ever happens) of the spent fuel around the country.

The second fund...the decommissioning trust fund...was set up by PG&E to collect money from the utility ratepayers as a fee on their monthly bill. In 2006, there was $265m in the fund; and in spite of the economic downturn, in 2011, PG&E stated there was $332m in the fund. Over the past 5 or so years, the PUC has authorized the collection of somewhere around $15-18m/yr to be added to the fund.

My next quest to to get a real handle on how much has been collected over the years, how much has been spent out of the fund, and more importantly, how much will continue to be collected to pay the $1.2+/-???? for the future. An interesting point is that people today, and our kids and grandkids tomorrow will pay for the “cheap” nuclear electricity generated over the past 40 years. I've estimated the the HBNPP produced about 5 billion kwh of electricity in its 14 years of service. This amounts to over 20 cents/kwh just for decommissioning, and add to that the inestimable costs of High-Level Waste in the future. Then there is the costs of decommissioning all the support infrastructure, uranium mines, enrichment plants, etc, etc,....$$$$$$$$$$$s!!!!!!

I am thrilled to see these issues beginning to come to light with the recent closure of San Onofre and the pending closure of Vermont Yankee. Both of these reactors sites are getting national press as to how decommissioning will occur, how long will it take, and most importantly, WHO will pay HOW MUCH for it. This is a battle I have bee n fighting for over 30 years.

Politics and Energy Policy

Here are just a few readings gleaned from just one day:

Ohio's renewable energy industries spent $1 billion here, employed 3,500. A nine-man squad of business leaders has parachuted into the political fray over renewable energy and energy efficiency with one message -- jobs and investment.

World's largest solar array set to crank out 290 megawatts of sunshine power. The Agua Caliente Solar Project represents a significant advance compared with just four years ago, when the largest solar facility in the U.S. generated only 20 megawatts. "Solar has completely arrived as a competitive energy resource," says Peter Davidson at the U.S. Department of Energy.
North Dakota is the deadliest state to work in. Fracking has done some incredible things for North Dakota: It has the fastest-growing economy and lowest unemployment in the nation. But as with any gold rush, the boom comes with a human cost for those involved – illness, injury, and fatalities.

Nuclear power is economically dead in this country. The new issues will resolve around waste disposal. Here, workers find damage to underground radioactive storage bags at WIPP. This was the “holy grail” for waste storage...supposed to keep this stuff safe for 10,000 years.
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2014/05/workers-find-damage-to-underground-radioactive-storage-bags-at-wipp.html

Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards. Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, is the first to reject new K-12 science standards proposed by national education groups mainly because of global warming components.

Boehner: Dems’ climate proposals would kill jobs

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/205605-boehner-dems-climate-proposals-would-kill-jobs

Koch brothers, big utilities attack solar, green energy policies. $$$s!!!!
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420-story.html#axzz2zZQ9z37Z&page=1

'Nothing Works' Because Republicans Are Willing 'To Say No To Everything' $$$s!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/obama-republicans_n_5287319.html

Take Home Exam

I miss my old days of teaching, although I do not miss the time and effort required in grading exams and papers.  However, I often learned great things from my student's responses.

 

 

For Nuclear Waste 101, here is your mid-term exam, posed by Forbes.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/31/where-would-you-put-our-nuclear-waste/?ss=business:energy

 

Remember, that what we're talking about is high level waste (spent fuel) that is highly radioactive and puts out radiation and heat; that if we were to put it into 12 inch canisters, there would be some 10,000+???? of these canisters, requiring careful packaging, transportation, and handling; and that we do not yet have the technology to drill 12 inch bore holes miles into the earth; nor the technology or materials to encase the radioactive for eons.  Do not consider low-level wastes, decommissioning wastes, uranium mine tailings, etc.

 

This stuff has to be isolated from the environment for a minimum of 10,000 years...a long time.  Be sure to consider the seven characteristic criteria listed, that are commonly deemed as necessary in the scientific protocol.  Also keep in mind the problems at Hanford; WIPP in New Mexico; Barnwell, South Carolina (reported today: http://www.wltx.com/story/news/local/2014/03/31/tritium-plume-barnwell-site/7050761/); Paducah, Kentucky, etc.etc,etc....even though these sites deal with low-level and intermediate wastes, and not high level spent fuel.  What concerns might you have about impacts in the future, should your choice fail to meet its objective.

 

And finally, try to estimate the dollar costs involved in your decision, and who/how this would be all be paid for, and a timeline for this to be done.

 

Your exam is due in my box by 5pm, Friday.  After I have graded it, I will send it off for an un-biased second grading by Fox News. 

 

Good Luck!

 

UNRELIABLE VS INTERMITTENT

Curious...one of the big arguments against renewables is that they are unreliable. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, and that we need 24/7 base load from nuclear, coal, and gas.

Here are some ideas for thought.

1. By law, and common sense, all utility system operations are required to have a 20-30% reserve of power available. A lot of times this is “peak generators” which can fire up within a few minutes and come on line quickly. Other units may already be warmed up, and ready to connect to the grid. The point is to have enough generation capacity to meet demand.
2. A big argument against renewables is that they often require redundant systems to make up for what they don't produce at night, or during times when the resource is not generating electricity. These back ups are usually expensive because they only operate for short periods of time. Without storage, renewables can only produce electricity when they can...for solar, that is during the day when the largest demand is made, and for wind, at various times in the day.
3. This does not mean these resources are unreliable...they are intermittent, and their availability can be predicted and compensated for with strategic planning.
4. What is proving to be unreliable is our aging fleet of nuclear power baseload plants. What happens when a 1000MW, or a 1200MW plant suddenly goes off line? It is a huge scramble for the system operator to come up with enough of these back up peakers to continue to meet the demand. Much more of a problem than trying to match up producers for expected night time production, or period of low wind.
5. Storage is the big new challenge and adventure. It will come in the next few years in the form of batteries, and what I still hold forth...hydrogen and fuel cells. Until then, there will continue to be a mix of renewables and natural gas.

In the first half of March 2014 alone, 4 large reactors experienced unplanned shutdowns! Bang...scram...no generation...no electricity! But the lights did not go out, and our power bills didn't go through the roof, as the diversity of our available generation resources meet our needs. This happens a lot, and is going to get worse, as our nuclear fleet reaches the point of no return (investment $$$S?), and just keeping them running will not be cost-effective.

It's all a matter of perspective and of course profit $$$$s, power, and control. The whole utility/independent producer role in supplying electricity is rapidly changing, and will lead to cheaper power, more individual freedoms and choices, less big government interference; and, of course, a cleaner sustainable environment.

Fermi shuts down. (1085MW)

http://www.examiner.com/article/fire-shuts-down-nuclear-power-plant

Susquehanna shuts down  (1260MW)

http://citizensvoice.com/news/troubled-nuclear-reactor-shut-down-again-1.1654548

Nine Mile Point shuts down again (1144MW)

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2014/mar/11/nuclear-plant-shut-down/

Limmerick shut down  (1150MW)

http://mariamuir.com/limerick-nuclear-power-plant-shutdown/

An Amazing Update

Here we are in March 2014...180 degree flip-flop from just a few years ago, and the price of solar will continue to come down; while the price of nuclear will continue to go up...and add to that the recognition of all the huge associated costs with decommissioning, waste disposal, etc., etc.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

Solar at less than 5cents/kwh

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2kwh-austin-texas/?utm_source=Cleantechnica+News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=357c33c3fb-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b9b83ee7eb-357c33c3fb-331989049

 

Nuclear can't compete even with its subsidies

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/03/pilgrims-owner-pushes-for-market-changes-to-help.html

 

Then there's wind power...

http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=6044

 

Just think...if WE really wanted to, we could NOW create so many jobs, build up our renewables industries, march forward with new ideas and innovations, lessen our dependence on oil and gas (domestic or imported), and more rapidly approach the sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally clean energy world we will eventually have.  Follow the money!

 

A Brief Nuclear Update

Here is a brief update on what’s going on in the nuclear energy world.

The Obama administration has finally authorized the guaranteed loan bailout for building the two new Vogle reactors in Georgia.  Construction is already behind schedule and over budget.  Again, I say, if these reactors ever do come on line, the electricity they will produce will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers, just like the construction costs.

There are huge rumors about multiple nuke plant closures in the next couple of years, due to age, cost of upgrades and maintenance, and the biggest issue…their inability to economically compete with natural gas and renewables.  The exponential growth of renewables is leading to rapid deployment of thousands of megawatts of capacity in a very short space of time, and at decreasing costs.  The private sector and Wall Street are beginning to understand that here is an investment potential that is guaranteed to make money.  In the upcoming year or two, major changes will be made in how utilities set their rates for energy generation and their costs of transmission and distribution, and this will open the door to even more investment.  Very complex stuff!

On the back end of nuclear power, Fukushima continues to bewilder the industry, with new leaks of radioactive water announced just this week.  In spite of “global” help, they are still unable to come up with any methodology or technology to clean up the mess.  Current estimates are 50 years and $130 billion.  Lots of wiggle room!

In the US, a major blow to repository storage comes from the pilot plant in New Mexico, where contaminated military waste is supposedly being stored, monitored, and evaluated in the salt formation geology.  An unknown leak has released traces of plutonium up at the surface of this facility.  So much for that process of containing even more radioactive wastes for 10,000 years!

The fuel fabrication plant in South Carolina, which is supposed to convert nuclear warheads into MOX fuel, has jumped from $4 billion already spent, to over $30 billion, and years behind schedule.  Then there is the cost of retrofitting reactors to accept this type of fuel.  The hope of new small modular reactors, thorium fueled reactors, and of course, the endless supply of fusion power continue to be “holy grail” concepts that are decades away from any real commercial applications, and will ultimately be completely unaffordable.

The world is slowly begin to recognize the huge costs of nuclear wastes, with the UK estimating the decommission and cleanup of their Sellafield site at over $130 billion, Germany beginning to estimate $35 billion to cleanup their nuclear program, and Japan having no clue as to how much it will cost to eliminate their nuclear plants.  Taiwan has recently tied the opening of two new units to a complete plan as to where their wastes will go.

Interesting times, as we plod along, and keep adding new wind, solar, and other renewables to our energy mix.  Think of what we could do if the Koch brothers were in the renewable business!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/02/06/nuclear-energy-operators-say-market-stacked-against-them/

http://www.am1280thepatriot.com/news/articles/nm-nuclear-repository-monitored-for-radiation 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/14/14247/nuclear-waste-cost-south-carolina-fuel-plant-goes-billions-dollars-again

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-57e6-Sellafield-shutdown-costs-to-reach-70-billion#.UweNT85Bspt

CURRENT THOUGHTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

A recent article in the climate debate tells us a lot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

If you actually read the article, and try to understand what it is saying, it summarizes a major point of contention between believers and deniers.

Has there has been no significant increase in temperature between 1998 and 2012?…a very complex number, based on how/where readings are taken and analyzed…surface temperature, atmospheric, ocean, polar, equator, northern-southern hemisphere…many measurement yielding a single number. 

1998 was chosen as a base-line because it was regarded as the hottest year on record.  Since the subsequent years were not hotter, the argument is that we have peaked, and things are cooling off.  “Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.” 

One such explanation is that because of the melting polar ice caps over the last several decades…a commercial ship made it through the Northwest Passage by itself earlier in the year…the freshwater influx into the ocean has altered the dynamic of heat transfer, so the oceans have absorbed more heat than before, altering the surface global temperature readings.  “Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.” 

Hence my reference…the argument now is moot.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/NOAA-World-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record-5162377.php

2013 was hotter than 1998…that 14 year “cooling” trend was just a down blip in a long range, many year graph of increasing temperature data.  “The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 – and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.”  There is so much we do know, and so much more we do not know…the bottom line is that the earth is warming, the vast majority of scientists agree that fossil CO2 plays a large part in that, and that the impacts on climate worldwide will continue to be felt with more changes in weather patterns, more extremes in rain, snow, heat, cold, drought, flooding, sea rise, ecological succession, etc.

Why is there now a drought in California.  Here in the redwoods, we’re at 26% normal rainfall.  Meteorologists can show us satellite images of the “Polar Vortex” pushing cold moist air over the north towards the east coast, when it should be dropping moisture of the west coast.  Why?  El Nino, El Nina…all driven by ocean temperature differentials between the tropic and the polar regions…very complex stuff.  Meanwhile, California is about to ration water, farmers are worried about their crops, the wine industry is concerned about what low water will do to the years vintage; and elsewhere Australia is burning up, Canada announced that last year insurers paid out close to $3 billion for weather related damages, and the rest of the world struggles with flooding, drought, and other weather events.

Again, this is very complex and serious stuff, so I ask the question: “what if human CO2 is responsible for even more extremes in the future?”  We would have wasted a lot of time and a lot of money not making the inevitable transition to a lower carbon energy society when we had the time and money to do so.

This is a scientific dilemma, a political, economic, social and moral one as well.