FAIR AND BALANCED

In the interest of being “fair and balanced,” here are just a few current pieces coming in support of nuclear power. 

In light of the canceled reactors in South Carolina, and the questionable future of the two in Georgia, Duke Energy just announced the cancellation of its proposed twin reactors also in South Carolina, at a pre-construction cost of $354million, which they want the ratepayers/taxpayers to pay.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/duke-asks-to-cancel-planned-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors

An article the other day in Forbes, a conservative business media exemplifies the concepts of “fake news,” biased media brainwashing, and outright misstatements and lies.  James Conca, for years, has been a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry via Forbes, and has consistently not only promoted nukes, but more importantly argued vehemently against renewables.  Forbes is supposedly one of the more “respected” business media outlets, along with the Financial Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, etc.  All have been arrogantly ignorant of the positive business potentials of renewables, downplaying and misleading the “business community” about the status of wind and solar at any particular time. As with a lot of economists, they are miles behind reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/08/22/theres-more-than-one-way-to-get-nuclear-power/#e7a802c418b6

His claim that solar is too expensive (over $10billion for 1500MW) is based on the $2.2B cost for the 392MW Ivanpah solar THERMAL plant built several years ago.  That was one pilot project which probably will not pan out in the future, compared to the 150,000MW of developed PV throughout the world.  As stated in an earlier blog, 1500MW of PV solar today would cost closer to $1.5B…Spain just did it for under $1B…and the costs are coming down.

More importantly, there is absolutely no mention of the enormous future costs of decommissioning the power plants, the decommissioning and clean up of all the associated nuclear fuel infrastructure, nor the unknown issues and costs of the maintenance, storage, and ultimate fate of the High Level
Waste spent fuel.

The conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University just released a book by Cal and Fedor.

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/21/making-case-nuclear-energy/

Their main argument is that nuclear is so necessary to combat climate change…I thought that was a hoax!  Their claim that nuclear plants do not emit CO2 is one of those twisted facts.  The CO2 emissions from the entire fuel cycle are enormous, and all the other emission create their own separate problems.  The decommissioning of the tiny Humboldt Bay nuke will have resulted in close to 10,000 truckloads of wastes to Texas, Utah, and Idaho…20,000 since the trucks have to return.  Go figure the diesel fuel used…lots of emissions!!!

Again, they focus on just the building of current power plants with the promise of "new" technology being cheaper and safer than renewables.  The other underlying myth often stated is the renewables cannot be brought on line fast enough (compared to building nukes?) to make a difference.

They do make the point that there is not (has not been) a free market in energy.  Between the utilities, government regulators, and the big energy companies, the most logical, cheapest, cleanest, safest, and sustainable resources have been given very bad lip service.

The conservative “economic and business” media has historically been promulgating negatives and untruths about renewables…everything from “panels won’t last more that 15 years; they can never be cost effective as an investment; there is not enough sun or wind to make a difference in our growing demand for electricity; and something better and cheaper will come along.” 

Two of my favorites are:

            From Fox news, solar works in Germany but can’t work in the US because Germany gets more sun than the US!

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html

            A report from the prestigious Wyoming Institute of Technology (it’s just a fancy website) which influenced the town Woodland, North Carolina to outlaw solar energy because the town leaders feared for their children’s future.

            http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

            https://www.vox.com/2015/12/18/10519644/north-carolina-solar-town

A lot of things are starting to change…interestingly enough due to economics…high-level dollars and low-level cents…and the increasing impacts of climate change.  Most of us can just sit back and watch in amazement.  As my friend says, “there ain’t no fix for stupid.”

Some Economics of Solar vs Nuclear

The recent abandonment of the two nuclear reactors under construction in South Carolina deserves some scrutiny with regards to our energy technologies and policy.  There were two main reasons for scrapping the 45% completed projects: cost overruns, and falling behind construction schedule.

Each reactor would have been able to churn out 1000 megawatts (1 million kw) of electricity per hour, 24/7, for about 85% of each year.  That’s a lot of electricity.  We measure our own residential usage in kilowatt/hours.  The original construction cost estimate back in 2006 was $4 billion per reactor.  The most recent estimate is over $12 billion per reactor.  This translates into construction costs of $12,000/kw of installed capacity.  Comparing that to what is available today, new natural gas generation is coming in at about $1000-1500/kw capacity.  PG&E in Humboldt County recently built a new 160MW state of the art natural gas facility for $250m. This is just the cost to build the power plant, and does not take into account the cost of the fuel, the operation and maintenance of the facilities, and in the case of nuclear, the equally expensive future decommissioning costs, and the unknown storage and maintenance costs of the radioactive wastes.  That being said, it is important to realize that the biggest problem with nuclear plants already in operation, and new ones proposed, is that they cannot compete on the open market with the currently cheap price of natural gas.  That is why so many of the old nuclear plants are now being scheduled for retirement…too expensive to do the upgrades and the maintenance required.

But true to form, the powers that be in the energy world have been/are very reluctant to discuss the other major player today…the significance of renewables in this economic equation.  We've passed the point of saying solar is too expensive, too intermittent, and incapable of ramping up fast enough to meet our increasing (?) electricity demands.  Solar prices (the focus here is on photovoltaics) have decreased dramatically in the past 5+ years.  The magic number bantered around for decades, has been 50 cents/watt for solar panels to be competitive.  That means the equipment for the plant would have to cost $500/kw.  Add to that the cost of installation, and you can then compare total construction costs.  We're way past that…panels now cost between 25-35 cents/watt, and estimates are that those costs will be reduced even more by new technology using new materials and increasing efficiency.  Spain just installed a 100MW plant for 65 cents/watt…$650/kw INSTALLED.  A friend works for a major international company that manufactures and installs large scale PV tracking systems, and he just finished a project in Mexico…965MW for under $1/watt.  He now is being transferred to Australia for two years because of the growing market there.  Tunisia is in the planning stage of 4,500MW in the Sahara Desert, with three transmission lines sending that electricity to Europe.  Lots of sun in Tunisia!  And Australia!  And the US!

I am fortunate to have a lot of friends “on the inside” who are working and are knowledgeable of what is really going on.  The “fake” news media…actually, most of the media has shied away from reporting on the tremendous gains solar is making not only here, but throughout the world.   In 2016, The US installed 14,626 MW of solar with a total of over 40,000MW nationwide.  This is mainly large-scale commercial projects, and does not include residential solar which is difficult to tally because of the small size of those systems.  But those small and diverse systems on residential roofs, churches, schools, parking lots, ballparks, etc. do add up, and will continue to push the ramping up of our solar capacity to meet the new electricity demands in transportation and communications. The wind industry installed 8,203 MW in the US (2,611) in 2016, bringing the combined capacity total to 82,143MW.  All this data is readily available from government and industry sources, but rarely makes the mainstream media.

Here are several points to put all this in perspective.

1.          Renewables are by far way cheaper than building new nuclear power plants.  Enter the argument that the sun doesn’t always shine or the wind doesn’t always blow, and the 1/3^rd rule comes into play…it takes about 3X the capacity of renewables to match the constant output of a nuclear or fossil power plant over a long period of time.  Even so, construction costs still favor renewables.  And the big argument/dilemma is the need for constant base-load power, and the role of renewables and natural gas meeting peak load demand, which varies from geographic area and season.  With the advent of new smart technology in our management of the national grid, with changes in electricity demand due to efficiency, and with the soon to come introduction of battery and other storage systems, the base-load plants become unnecessary and expensive.

2.          A 1000MW plant takes 10+ years to build, and when it comes on line it would generate 1000+/- MW each hour that it runs.  If it has a lifetime expectancy of 30 years, it would produce some 7 million MW hours.  A lot of electricity.  The US installed 8,203 MW of solar last year, which will produce 8,203MW each hour that the sun shines…the ball park figure is 8 hours/day for 1/3 of the year.  Those facilities would crank out about 2 million MWH.  True…no comparison here…BUT if the US were to install 8,000MW of solar EACH year, the total output would be exponential…the 2016 installations would produce 240,000MW capacity over 30 years, and each additional new installation would contribute an additional equal amount EACH YEAR!  Large renewable projects take 2-3 years to construct, providing many jobs, and can be tailored to specific geographic needs.  New nuclear takes decades to plan and construct, and is limited to a geographic area.  The potential is overwhelming.

3.          Another major component in this discussion, which receives little lip service, is that the fuel for renewables is FREE.  That is the major stumbling block in our current capitalistic system.  There is no profit to come from exploration, extraction, processing, and transportation.  Once you've built the solar plant (like you build a nuclear or fossil fuel plant), it operates with a minimum of maintenance, expense, and oversight.  In 1990, my colleague and I tour several megawatt sized PV installations in Southern California.  We were not able to talk to anyone about those projects because the gates were locked and there was nobody there!  Yet the plants were fully operating on line.  That was 27 years ago, and the technology has improved greatly.  Much is made of the fact that natural gas is cheap…will it stay cheap?  It is definitely a transition fuel, which has its place as a compliment to renewable generation, but the big unknown as to its availability and future cost pales in relationship to the sun.

4.          The "hard" energy folks propose a lot of misstatements and untruths about solar PV cells.  Since there are no moving parts (just electrons), they should last forever.  Degradation due to the glass encapsulating materials and the external framework and wiring is vastly improving.  New cells are guaranteed to maintain 90% of their output at the end of 20 years.  Systems are warranted for 25+ years. New cells with new technology are on the immediate horizon, with estimates of 10 cents/watt coming soon.  This, of course, impacts manufacturing companies…the only way they will be able to make a profit will be through mass production…selling a lot of product at a low cost.  This is all part of the economic dilemma. Others argue about production processes, which do use nasty chemicals.  As with any manufacturing procedure, waste products are produced and have to be regulated to protect air, water, land, and people resources.  These wastes are nothing compared to the high-level and low-level wastes created by the nuclear industry fuel cycle, the coal industry, and the tar-sands and fracking technologies

5.          A last piece of this discussion must include the concept of technology change and time.  It is admirable to strive for 50%, 100% renewable for electricity generation, for electric cars replacing gas engines, and for a modern efficient grid to run everything.  This transition will take time, and we also need to realize that it is really not necessary or even possible to do completely away with burning fossil fuels, or even implementing new nuclear technologies as they are developed.  We need to be guided by the appropriate application of technology to the needs of energy demand, and address the full assessment of environmental, geographic, social, and economic impacts.   What I am hearing is that there are amazing new technologies coming very soon…cheaper, more efficient, easier to use energy technologies.  A lot of these cut out the middleman…the oil and energy companies, the big utilities, the traditional Wall Street investors, and the huge lobby interests.  It's politics at its pinnacle.  Why is Massachusetts moving forward on renewable implementation, while next door, Maine is almost outlawing solar systems?  Why are Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico…the entire South where the sun really shines, not leaping forward in developing their renewable resources?  There is an enormous potential for not only cheap abundant energy, but also for clean jobs, and even lots of money to be made.  Politics and Dark Money!  It's where we are today, but stay tuned, because things can change very rapidly in today's world.

A few recent reads:

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/SunPower-Unveils-Silicon-Valley-Pilot-Manufacturing-Line-for-High-Efficiency-Solar-Panels-1002254335?ref=yfp

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/01/utilies-solar-power-sales-energy-company-restrictions

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Solar-Costs-Are-Hitting-Jaw-Dropping-Lows-In-Every-Region-of-the-World

The Costly Demise of the Nuclear Renaissance

I feel like I won the lottery because I finally nailed down a bet I made in 2006 that the supposed nuclear renaissance was going to be a huge failure.  I predicted that the 30₊ new reactors being proposed would not be built, and the four that had actually gained construction permits would not be built on time, would be way over budget, and that even if they did come on line, their electricity would be so expensive it would have to be subsidized. The nuclear industry, on the other hand, claimed the new unproven Westinghouse AP-100- reactor would be cheaper to build and operate, would be safer, and would be the leading star in the “new” nuclear era here in the US and throughout the world.

The two Summer reactors under actual construction since 2008 in South Carolina were abruptly canceled last week after the utility confessed that the project was now estimated to cost $25 billion+ (up from the original $8 billion), was about 45% complete, and would not open before 2024.  If those plants were up and running by their original date of 2019, they would have been eligible for up to $8 billion in federal subsidies and tax credits.  Not going to happen.  So the big question now is who is going to "foot the bill" for the $9 billion that has already been spent on concrete, steel, labor, and executive's bloated salaries?  In 2007, the state legislature authorized an unheard of rule which allowed the utility (South Carolina Electric & Gas and the state-owned power company Santee Cooper) to immediately start charging the ratepayers for the construction costs, claiming it would be cheaper down the road since that would avoid borrowed money interest charges.  So the big question now is who pays?  The utility? Toshiba/Westinghouse, whose state of the art new generation design (the AP-1000) turned out to be a total disaster?  The state and/or feds, with a huge bailout?  Or do the citizens of South Carolina, who realistically had no choice in this boondoggle other than the empty promises of cheap electricity, construction jobs, increased local tax revenues, and the American dream? 

As one analyst reported, wrong assumptions were made from the start by the CEOs and other top brass who have so far profited immensely, and would have continued to profit from this white elephant if it ever went critical.  As many activists have purported, they knew because history repeats itself (think of the doomed half built Clatsop reactors sitting in Washington state because of the failed WPSS nuclear plan); and the environmental/anti-nuclear community told them, waging a battle offering knowledgeable testimony and discourse.  The big money won in the end.  It is interesting that the blame bantered around by the utility and the nuclear industry today does not focus on those damn environmentalists, as it has in the past.  Many of the reasons for the failure lie with the fact that this is a very complex and complicated technology that is very expensive to construct, and it must conform to stringent safety requirements and regulations.  The other big factor in this demise is the cheap cost of natural gas and the equally cheap and growing abundance of renewables such as solar and wind.  Add to that the third cost driver – efficiency – and no way would the large nuclear base-load dinosaur would ever be cost effective.  The decreasing demand for electricity, driven by such things as efficient LED lighting, better standards for appliances, and the shift to the digital age were not adequately addressed in the assumptions made 10-15 years ago.  The times they are a-changing, and most utilities are still in the dark ages dreaming of centralized control and profit.

The significance of the cancellation of this project now brings to the forefront the question of the two Vogle reactors currently being built in Georgia.  Begun about the same time, these nukes are way behind schedule, hoping to come on line in 2023; and the current cost estimate is $19 billion+, up from the original $8 billion.  A big difference here is that a consortium of investors all have a piece of this pie – Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Co, Duke Energy, and even Toshiba (the parent company of the now bankrupted Westinghouse Electric, whose same AP-1000 reactor is being used, and several other players.  This consortium was awarded an $8.5 billion loan guarantee from the feds in 2007.  Is that going to be paid back to us, the taxpayers?  It's already been spent.  We'll see.

All of this will play out over the coming years.  The nuclear industry continues to be oblivious to the fact that there is no future for nuclear power generation – not in advanced reactors, small modular reactors, or even fusion.  The fiscal competition from natural gas (for the moment) and from the decreasing costs of solar and wind make it a no-brainer. They will soon have to face the facts that as current reactors shut down (10 scheduled this year alone) there is an enormous bill waiting to be paid for decommissioning and waste management.  The big argument will be "who pays?"  A fiscal conservative’s dilemma!

Two of the many articles covering this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/08/04/the-energy-202-the-united-states-is-running-out-of-nuclear-options/5983925830fb045fdaef1117/?utm_term=.ff9c26b9ee16

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html