Crack. Crack. Crack.
...Actually, I have no idea what a splintering glacier sounds like.
By Moe Lane Posted in Energy — Comments (80) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While we were all doing something else, last week, the first crack in a certain glacier appeared - one that might have catastrophic consequences for the environmental lobby industry.
No, not one from either ice pack: I'm talking about the support enjoyed by the anti-nuclear power crowd. Our new Speaker moved just the tiniest bit on this one:
Part of the response to climate change could be increased use of nuclear power, Pelosi said in response to a question from Representative W. Todd Aiken, a Missouri Republican.
The House speaker said she now has "a more open mind" about increasing nuclear power as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"We need to compare it to the alternatives … I think it has to be on the table," Pelosi said, adding that waste disposal "is the big challenge."
Read on (sparked originally by this, btw)
Reactions here and here, with the story mentioned in passing here: any other week this might have made more news in the 'sphere, but last week we were all busy watching John Edwards go all patriarchal over his wayward bloggers, not to mention blinking uncomfortably at Ms. Smith's death. Probably just as well: it gives us a chance to think about what this all entails.
Well, for a start: it's a positive sign, obviously - unless you're the sort who spits at the idea of nuclear power. In that case, you'd better get cracking at repairing your ties to the Democratic Party. Nope, I haven't gotten the order mixed up. The Democrats have been nursing a grudge against the Greens for, oh, just over six years now: if they could do them dirty, they will. And what better way than to strike against one of the fundamentals of the Green Party's religion? Excuse me: "core political views". And if you don't think that the GOP won't hand the Democrats the knife with which to do the dirty deed, then you don't know the GOP very well at all, at all.
But my main point is not mocking crazed environmental fanatics, fun as that is: it's to note something that our colleagues on the other side of the global warming policy debate should consider. To wit, that they are under no obligation to get themselves involved in the Green's shiving.
Here's the situation. One side is convinced that global warming via the man-made production of greenhouse gasses is going to sucker-punch human civilization unless said production is seriously reduced, starting Right Now. The other side is not so convinced, and is both in a position and generally inclined to put the brakes on any legislation that addresses the concerns of their opponents. Fair enough, so far?
Now, again, the one side would like greenhouse gas production reduced. The other side would like the current restrictions on nuclear power - which does not produce greenhouse gasses - reduced or eliminated. From what I can tell, the other side (my side) would be thrilled to junk oil and coal plants in favor of the equivalent in nuclear... just as they'd/we'd be thrilled to get electrical power cheap enough to make this a toy for the middle class instead of the rich. We'll do it laughing in our collective sleeves, of course - to think that They traded more nuclear power for less greenhouse gasses! - but so what? I mean, really: so what? The climate change people want the coal and oil plants gone, right? They want more electric cars, yes? They'd like less greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere, correct? Well, there's a deal to be made, here: and deals where both sides think that they're skinning the other guys are the very best deals of all.
Of course, all of this implies that the climate change people are going to need to break with the folks who see 'nuclear power' and read 'demon'. Again: so what? It's people like that who've helped made this controversy what it is in the first place. They're in the way.
In the way of the future.
« Winning The Battle on Drilling — Comments (7) | The Curious Case Of The Alternative Energy Source That Wasn't Allowed To Bark Much In The Night — Comments (27) »
Crack. Crack. Crack. 80 Comments (0 topical, 80 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Nuclear power won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Very little of our electric power comes from burning oil, so unless we convert our vehicle fleet to run on electric power, we will be using the same foreign oil as always.
Electicity generation from oil is less than 3% of the total in the U.S., and most of that is from small utilities and/or for intermittent operation. Nuclear can't fill those niches. Replacing coal is a good thing, but nuclear isn't the only option or even the best option.
Fascinating.
Moe
PS: For the record, I own no stock in and am not employed by any energy companies.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Firstly, oil is a very small share of our electicity production. Secondly, nuclear can not replace it for two reasons. The first reason is that the remaining oil power plants are primarily run by utilities too small to consider having a nuclear power plant. The second reason is that oil power plants are used intermittently, while nuclear needs to run continuously. It is not a matter of what anyone may want to do - it's a matter of economics and engineering that prevents nuclear from replacing oil.
You should help my utility understand.
http://www.fpl.com/environment/plant/power_plant_projects.shtml
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I did mention all the other stationary consumers of oil and other fossil fuels that could be converted to electricity if it we had a cheap and abundant supply, but you choose to ignore that bit.
I also mentioned (quoted out of your precious MIT study) the bit about why the costs of nuclear have been so high. The unexpected costs are not inherent in the construction of nuclear power plants. Government could take the costs out of the equation if it chose to. You ignored that bit as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The history of nuclear power is one of high costs. The MIT study (which is pro-nuclear BTW) says those high costs will continue. There is necessarily going to have to be government oversight of nuclear power plants, because the materials involved are very dangerous. If government were to be removed from the equation, you'd also need to remove its subsidies to nuclear power, namely its reduction of risks to investors/utilities.
Given the capital cost of nuclear, there is high risk that the initial outlays won't be recouped, especially if other generation sources (new technologies especially) become cheaper. MIT assumes that construction and operating costs will be 25% lower in the future than they have been, and that financing cost is comparable to fossil plants even though the risk is greater. In other words, it's optimisitic about nuclear, and it still shows the costs being high.
reality. Currently, nuclear generation is cheaper than natural gas, cheaper than coal and cheaper than oil. Current Nuclear operating costs are approx 1.8 cents per kw hr, including capital costs. these costs have been falling every year as capacity figures have increased. In the late 1970's and 1980's the nuclear capacity figures were only in the 60's and refueling outages typically lasted 90-120 days every 18 months. Current capacity figures are around 96% average and refueling outages typically run 20 - 25 days every two years. The increase in operating efficiency is what has resulted in the drop in costs for nuclear as coal, oil and natural gas fuel costs have skyrocketed.
nuclear generation is [...] cheaper than coal
EPRI, the research consortium for the US electrical utility industry, says otherwise. Even assuming capital costs for new nuclear plants fall to $1700/kW of capacity, pulverized coal is still cheaper than nuclear. Modest carbon taxes would reverse this, however.
(The same reference also has wind being considerably more expensive than nuclear.)
It depends on many factors such as old coal plant operating without scrubbers, whether the plant is a mine mouth plant and whether they have to burn low sulfur coal. In general, I know that our nuclear plants run cheaper than our coal plants. We have a lot less volatility in our fuel costs. If you look at new construction, meeting all environmental regulations, the capital costs will probably look very similar per Kw of installed capacity, with nuclear having a large advantage in the fuel charges.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Replace coal with nuclear power, convert coal to oil.
Result; energy independence and less CO2 in the air.
We can readily use oil distillates, propane, or NG to power a transportation fleet. We use massive quantities of all of these things in stationary applications (heating, industrial uses) right now. If we could cut the cost of electricity by half it would become competitive with those other fuels. It would start to cut into our total usage by quite a bit.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Even in the event that vehicle transportation shifted significantly toward electric (and that would likely be pretty limited within the lifetime of a power plant), there are more cost effective (and carbon effective) ways of carrying the electric load than nuclear.
there are more cost effective (and carbon effective) ways of carrying the electric load than nuclear
And don't say natural gas unless you have some brilliant idea for ensuring an expanding domestic supply when we can't seem to drill anywhere domestically for it. We have already run into NG price shocks. We can't just keep adding more and more fixed demand without adding supply. We cannot easily ship this stuff overseas. It has to be produced in North America.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Easily the most cost effective energy "source" is using less of it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Please turn off your computer, right now. The planet is depending on you.
Electric demand can only be reduced to a certain point, then new generation is required to meet demand. If you look at studies of load growth, you can see that demand only falls in recessions. Also, in order to rep the types of efficiency gains postulated by the Rocky Mtn Institute, we'd have t replace almost all existing electric appliances and replace the existing houdsing stock with dwellings that don't meet building code in many municipalities. Neither of thesee things is going to happen.
If by "efficiency" you mean replacing equipment, it obviously makes no economic sense to do so now, or it would be done. If I can perform an improvement that will last 10 years but pay for itself in 3-5 years I'd do it. OTOH, if it won't even pay for itself over the left of the improvement (and make a decent return), there is no way I'm going to pay for it.
So the options are:
1) taxpayers are going to have to pick up the tab
2) we will tell people what they have to buy and force them
3) we will pile taxes onto energy to change the economics of the improvement
4) we will ration energy
Some nice options you got there. I'll pass.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
we can only give the nuclear power to the trusted though. you kno what woiuld happen if we gave nuclear energy to the north koreans? or how about the ianians? as it is now, we can't trust very many at all with keeping it to a energy only resource. however, i do feel that we need to switch our power supply to something other than what we are using now.
i heard that a country switched to sugar in replace of oil, we need to look into that as a first step, then oil would be so low theyd practically be giving us free oil. i mean by that, close to a 5 dollar margin per 50 gallon drum. then we'll see how high and mighty those arab princes are.
here in the US. It makes no sense, and nuclear power is much more clean than other forms of power making.
I am sure Nancy will change her mind back though, once the angry letters from the anti nuclear power crowd start pouring in.
Nuclear waste and/or the potential for accidents is a big part of opposition to nuclear, but there are economic reasons as well. The Rocky Mountain Institute outlines the reasons: basically, it's cheaper to increase efficiency and develop other sources of energy.
They're players in the sustainable-energy industry.
You got any objections from people not scheduled to take a bath if cheap power becomes available?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Their front page is just wrong. I mean really wrong, really really wrong, well you get the idea.
* It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected—and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.
* Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.
* Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.
* And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)
Its the cheapest power we can get especially once you take aways the subsidies other power sources receive.
Theyre financially risky because we allow protesters to be an annoyance. Nothing that a change in the permitting process can't solve.
Number three is combination of the lies of point one and two to produce a third larger lie.
60 years of history argue against you and those wastes are actually becoming valuable resources in themselves.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
An ad-hom would be suggesting that the anti-nuclear power crowd would rather see people die than admit that they've been pushing an antiscience agenda for forty years.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Where is your information on the cost of nuclear power? If the cost in the future is anything like the cost in the past, it is indeed expensive.
Here is The Future of Nuclear Power, a 2003 MIT study. It indicates that nuclear should be an option, but also says,
But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.
The "high relative cost" is the key, even though it has little to do with the focus of nuclear opposition. RMI uses MIT's estimate of nuclear cost and compares it against other alternatives, like cogeneration, efficiency, and wind. The opportunity cost of nuclear is what makes it a poor choice for combating climate change: you'd be better off spending money elsewhere.
From the Wilson Quarterly
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=20304...
Theres a for against and a guide to the technology.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Shulz' assertion about the low cost of nuclear is pretty silly, as pointed out in the rebuttal by Smith and Makhijani:
In his article, “Nuclear Power Is the Future,” Max Schulz claims that there would “be little controversy over splitting the atom” if cost were the only consideration. But he failed to add up all the costs. His figure of 1.8 cents per kWh ignores the most important cost element: capital cost. By the same argument, wind power would cost only half a cent per kilowatt hour. When capital cost is included, the total cost of electricity from new nuclear plants is between 6 and 7 cents per kWh. This was the conclusion of studies published by MIT in 2003 and by the University of Chicago in 2004, both of which advocate nuclear power. In fact the authors of the MIT report concluded that nuclear power would not likely be a sound choice for a merchant plant because it would be “just too expensive.” That’s the main reason the nuclear industry hasn’t ordered a plant in over a quarter of a century—they’ve been waiting for the kind of government subsidies enacted by Congress in 2005.
It is obviously not a reasonable argument to ignore the most important cost and then say nuclear is cheap!
What is not open to interpretation, however, is the fact that nuclear power produces about 20 percent of America’s electricity. Wind generates a fraction of one percent. Whether nuclear power is an economic method to produce electricity or not is something I am happy to let the market decide. Same with wind and other renewables. So far, the market is making a very definitive statement about the relative merits of these technologies.
We were talking about power sources without government externalities driving their prices ? Just how much of a tax break does wind get ? Solar ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There's a reason wind power is increasing rapidly while no new nuclear is planned: wind is cheaper. That wasn't true until recently, but now market forces are realigning toward wind and away from nuclear.
While the use of wind power is increasing, it isn't going to be a major component of the electric grid because thee are limited siting opportunities with consistent wind speeds. Also, wind power isn't all that reliable in the long term. Look at any large bank of wind turbines. At any one time, you'l see 20 - 25% of the turbines out of service for maintenance. While the fuel may be free, the maintenance isn't.
.
Any argument that the market if moving away from Nuclear ignores reality. I just spoke with the project manager for the 2 new reactord being planned by Duke Power. They are moving ahead with siting and design. Their latest cost figures show the plant as cost efficient, without the energy bill tax credits. The palnts being planned today are based on pre-approved and pre-licensed designs. The expected construction times are 5 years, not 15 years as in the past. Also with stable interest rates, they will be no more expensive to build than large coal plants with scrubbers.
There's a reason wind power is increasing rapidly while no new nuclear is planned: wind is cheaper.
Wind is 'cheaper' only because it is receiving huge government subsidies. By itself, it is currently not competitive, especially when the quality of the power it produces is considered (non-dispatchable power is inherently less valuable to a utility.)
Referred to more intelligent not being more partisan
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
An economic analysis which ignores initial capital costs is fundamentally flawed. Is gasoline the only cost of having a car? It's very basic economics of which I'm sure the author was aware but chose to ignore because it undermined his argument.
You might try using the numbers and doing the math yourself.
I say this all the time but I forget most people would rather win their arguments than actually make correct ones.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
the nuclear industry estimates the current cost for new plant construction at $1500/ KW. This gives us a cost of 1.5 billion dollars per gigawatt of base load. Nuke plants operate at 99% plus uptime so we can expect that plant to produce 8.76 terrawatt hours or 8.76 billion KWH yearly.
Assuming the utility uses bond financing to fund the power plant and pays 7% on the bond. The annual interest on the bond is 105 million dollars and allowing for the plant to be linearly depreciated over 40 years with 0 remaining value adds an additional 2.5 % or 37.5 Million in carrying costs. This adds an additional 1.6 cents per killowatt hour.
So we get a number between 3.4 and 4.5 cents per KWH
Of course if you hadn't been so anxious to make the point that NUKES ARE EVIL and instead been willing to exercise that 3.5 pounds of lard between your ears you would have gotten this.
And if you looked at the cost of current clean coal power plants you would have seen they are currently running $1200/KW
Whats the capital cost of that wind turbine?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...and a member of Resources for the Future, a notorious anti-nuke organization.
Don't insult our intelligence. I want fair-minded groups, not shills.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I wonder: how many of his colleagues are likewise pushing an agenda?
Well, I'm sure that you'll be able to clear them all.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
It mentions "regulatory delays, redesign requirements, construction management, and quality control problems" as the contributing factor. It is pretty obvious that these things would have to be dealt with, and could be dealt with, before anything would go forward.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
were stagflation and high interest rates under Carter and the construction delays associated with the required plant modifications following the TMI accident. Interest rates north of 15% coupled with delays up to an additional 5 years in some cases almost ran utilities bankrupt.
Neither of those causes are present in todays economic climate.
A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (€45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was £0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.054/kWh — offshore wind is £0.072/kWh.
Nuclear power remained at £0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.
And it seems odd that the French and Japanese would have been throwing money away all these years when cheaper substitutes to nuclear power were available to them.
I am a really big supporter of alternative energy, just not for global warming reasons. It would be nice the next time the iranians try to pull something we could drop the price of oil to $5/barrel till they cry uncle.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Considering that Nuclear Power plays a huge part of the French power grid, I can see where liberals would love it. All we need is for Jaques F. Kerry to go over to Paris, get educated and then proclaim he was FOR nuclear power, until he was against it.
"We make war that we may live in peace."
--Aristotle--
where they've had no meltdowns, or Three Mile islands where even the cows weren't affected.
Nancy finally got something right,though our government has been working on the question of waste disposal for a modest 50 + years and at a cost of billions. Can't rush the guvmint.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
is sometimes still an idiot.
The only catch to your "so what?" is how they plan to get us moved over to nuclear power. If the lefties have it their way, it will be an immediate AGW excise tax on fossil fuel and SUVs, used to build government-owned nuclear plants.
Because it's for our children.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Points out the political problem of AGW:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/28950.html
I hope this an area the Republicans can work with the Democrats on implementing. It is good to see the environmental movement taking a second look at nuclear power. Even the founder of Greenpeace is on board with nuclear power. Let's not shun these new converts, but welcome them with open arms.
Many of our other future alternative energy proposals also require plentiful amounts of cheap power, such as hydrogen-powered cars.
This is issue probably doesn't register very high on many conservatives minds, but I believe nuclear energy would transform this country, and admire Giuliani for taking this issue up.
Environmentalists are starting to realize that solar panels and wind generators have no real impact on increasing power production. Nuclear power is clean, cheap, efficient, and now safe.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
That a splintering glacier sounds like a series of gunshots.
Lets hope it doesn't come to that :-)
___________________________________________________________
The word "independence" is united to the accessory ideas of dignity and virtue. The word "dependence" is united to the ideas of inferiority and corruption.
~ Jeremy Bentham
What really happened with nuclear in this country is that the electrical utility industry gave up on it for new plants (none stated in America since the 1970s) as too costly and too uncertain. The reason it became too costly were all the incredible delays caused by environmentalist and sometimes NAMBY community groups, which sometimes won over state governments as well (e.g. in NY).
Nuclear plants have high capital costs and very low operating costs. So the economics depend crucially on how many costly changes are made in construction and how long the money is tied up without earning a return. Construction times ballooned (as endless environmentalist motivated new safety reviews of construction plans were fought over and sometimes ordered by courts). And power generating opening times were delayed even more. This was all an intentional part of the opponents strategy. It became a matter of a decade or more that hundreds of millions of dollars might get tied up before earning a return. And sometime it had to be entirely written off, as for example in the case of the large Shoreham plant in central / eastern Long Island which was completely built but never operated, due to legal and then political opposition.
What needs to happen to restart nuclear power plant construction is to address these problems. Plant sitting should be a federally regulated and determined process, with no local decision making allowed by federal law. That is power companies make proposals, the feds listen to them and community groups and environmental groups in a reasonable but accelerated timetable with a definite cutoff. And then the federal ruling would be unchallegable except on grounds of not following their own regulations. And then the siting challenge period should be on a strict timetable and then irrevocably cut off. No coming in after construction has started (and all that money raised and tied up).
A similar process should occur with respect to power plant designs. Utilities and designers (companies like GE, etc.) should submit favorites. The feds decide what’s acceptable on a similar accelerated by reasonable review timetable. Designs should be submitted in stages prior to finalization so the feds are up to speed and there’s give and take. A limited number of approved designs should be encouraged so that safety can be focused on by all concerned within a reasonable timetable. (I think pebbles are probably the way to go.) Utilities can then chose between those federally approved designs.
Finally there should be limited company liability for accidents, except in the case of fraud or clear gross negligence. The feds are the big ticket pickers up of liability over some threshold but even then only to a point. No emotional distress claims honored, etc. Maybe other caps. You’re serious about global warming, right? You want the plants built, right?
The French do things similar to all the above. Except with more government total control and ownership. Don’t think that’s the best way, but there does need to be much government involvement for lots of reasons, from safety to blocking attempts to endlessly stall in the courts. It introduces inefficiencies probably or certainly, but by far the most expensive and indeed blocking inefficiency is endless legal battle related delay.
The feds should basically pre-empt all that. And yes that can be made legal within our system, with the right set of Federal laws.
...coupled with severe legal penalties for trying to disrupt the construction or operation of nuclear power plants in compliance with the above. With no well of sympathy from mainstream political entities. We've been told by the Democrats that energy independence is a matter of vital national security, and you know? I agree with them. Time for them to accept the consequences.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
done. The new generation of nuclear plants will be based on pre-approved, pre-licensed plants. With a streamlined licensing process, there is less opportunity for intervenors to streatch out the licensing process. Nuclear liability for accidents has been limited for some time by the Price Anderson act. Nuclear plants are exclusively licensed by the federal government. The only involvement t the state level is at the state Public Utility Commision level, only in states with regulated utilities. Many of the large utilites such as Exelon have separate generation subsidiaries, which are unregulated by the state PUC's. Thes subsidiaries will b the companies building the next generation of Nuclear plants.
After all, he is a big-time opponent of Yucca Mountain. And Pelosi and Reid have already butted heads this year on the earmark stuff among other things. That could provide an added incentive for Pelosi to come out and mention nuclear power. I can't see anything coming of it, though. If we can't drill in the tundra for oil when gas is over $3 a gallon, we certainly aren't going to do this.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
After all, he is a big-time opponent of Yucca Mountain.
One can support nuclear power and think Yucca Mountain is a ridiculous and unnecessary boondoggle.
It turns out it's easier, cheaper, and all around just better to store spent fuel on the surface, in armored 'dry casks', rather than pour billions of dollars into a federal government hole in Nevada. A recent apples-to-apples comparison found the cost of this surface storage to be more than six times cheaper than geological disposal (with future costs properly discounted using the same interest rate of 3% in both cases.)
If, eventually, this changes and burial or reprocessing becomes competitive, then there's nothing stopping that future generation from cracking open the casks and doing as they wish. But it's silly to spend the money now burying the stuff for reasons that basically amount to a phobia.
Socrates said—
excise tax on fossil fuel and SUVs, used to build government-owned nuclear plants.
A carbon tax makes a great deal of sense. Not as a huge additional new tax burden. That would be disastrous for the economy. But as a substitute for existing burdens.
It’s relatively flat or regressive in nature, so it should substitute not for income tax but for other flatish taxes. Such as social security for example. Maybe you add in state sales taxes up to a point where all or the great majority of states now tax (say 5%), with the states getting the equivalent revenues as a cut of the carbon tax. Probably should be from the carbon fuels sold in their states since that will cause automatic population adjustment more or less the ways sales tax numbers do.
The main remaining objection I think would be that rural areas would be much more heavily impacted as a percentage of income. (Suburbs more than the city is not a winning political argument.) I’m not sure how much that’s true actually, given commuting and all. More than inner city dwellers yeah, but again not a winning political argument. My basic feeling is that food costs should adjust accordingly (and we definitely want to promote energy efficiency in that sector) – that’s a good idea. As for other rural populations, well they get a lot of relative subsidy already. And their lifestyles are genuinely more greenhouse gas expensive so they should have to adjust accordingly.
But there would probably need to be some compromise to some degree or other. Can’t be much though or the purposes of the tax would start to be significantly eroded. Maybe we can work out some way that states get credits for having lots of carbon sinks (plant grow) per capita. And so that gets worked through as more sales tax relief for them or some such.
This worked exceedingly well against acid rain. It failed in EUrope, because they had integrity issues in reporting their overall emissions level.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
Zuiko said—
If we can't drill in the tundra for oil when gas is over $3 a gallon, we certainly aren't going to do this.
I disagree. I think we ARE going to do this. It’s just a matter of how long it takes. The sooner the better. For BOTH global warming AND energy independence reasons. (Yeah we get a lot of uranium from Canada etc, but that doesn’t worry me. It’s not that expensive anyway. It’s building the things that costs.)
I agree that the blockage of the ANWAR drilling proposal, with all the proposed safeguards, was enviro idiocy, of a typical environment. But that’s a somewhat different case from this one.
For one thing, ANWAR involved what Tom Friedman memorably called “cathedrals of environmentalism” – that is a wilderness area. And a particularly pristine one. (Though all the parts anywhere near the drilling are a frozen desert most of the year and an incredibly insect infested bog the rest of it, that virtually no one ever visits to this day.) (Friedman still came out on the wrong side of the issue, probably in part to balance is Iraq hawkishness at that point and try to remain (barely) allowed inside liberal circles.)
That’s the emotional hart of the issue for greens. That and the hated oil companies being on the other side of it.
With nuclear you’ve got a long dormant issue that most or anyway many current enviros and certainly the up and comers never much fought over. But the big this is this:
There simply does not exist with current or likely any near term future technology, any other greenhouse free or very light source of massive amounts of energy – either to substitute for existing hydrocarbon burning, or to especially to provide additional net new energy for the developing world. They’re projected to triple or at least double world energy use from current levels, even if they develop using energy thriftier Euro consumption patterns rather than American ones.
Wind and solar can only make a small dent – and wind at least is incredibly ugly when deployed on a large scale. Fuel cells are a way of making electrical energy efficiently portable. Producing the hydrogen costs lots of energy. Which could come from nuclear.
I don't believe that nuclear is any less of a sacred cow to the enviros than ANWR. I think it is the other way around. Nuclear has only been a dormant issue because they won on it, and they won huge. Only recently have people begun to make utterances about nuclear, after being gone from the scene for over 20 years, and they still aren't very serious about it. Wait until we start talking about actually building specific plants in specific places and see what happens.
I don't believe this will get that far, though. It is talk... just like talk of energy independence from the "can't drill anywhere for anything" Democrats.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As if by coincidence, today's Wall Street Journal has an article on Patrick Moore, who was at one time director of Greenpeace International. Today he's regarded as an "eco-Judas" and an "eco-whore" -- because he believes that "Nuclear power is a non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and help satisfy a growing global demand for energy."
From the article:
---
So what made him change his mind? Dr. Moore traces his metamorphosis to a day trip he took seven years ago to Devon in southwest England. There he met another controversial figure, British scientist James Lovelock.
"I had always been fascinated by [Lovelock's] Gaia hypothesis [which argues that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism]...and when I found out he supported nuclear power I was even more intrigued," Dr. Moore says. "We spent an entire day walking, lunching, supping and into the evening discussing Gaia, climate, nuclear energy."
"Lovelock matter-of-factly said he would gladly take a bundle of used nuclear fuel, put it in his swimming pool and use it to heat his home," Dr. Moore recalls. "This shook my brain into realizing that nuclear waste is no more dangerous than many other chemicals. The trick is to keep it contained and limit our exposure to it."
--
And I love this quote:
"I left Greenpeace because my fellow directors were drifting into policies that I did not believe had any basis in logic or science," says Dr. Moore, now chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., a Vancouver consulting firm.
http://tinyurl.com/2cb8v8 (subscription required)
A key thing for libertarians, conservatives and centrists (like myself, I’m an anti-PC centrist net, net, with libertarian but not hyper low tax leanings) to remember as we start to sign on to doing some reasonable and relatively cost effective things to help slow global warming, is that we should continue to refuse to re-sign or ratify the Kyoto treaty.
The key reason is that i) it is grossly unfair to the US and ii) we will be subject to a huge double standard in outcry and shaming for failing to meet goals we have agreed to, compared to others.
As to the first, it’s unfair because in addition to demanding that the US reduce it’s emissions the greatest percentage (out of three percentages) below those on the benchmark date, even more importantly it set the date at 1990, a full decade BEFORE Kyoto was expected at the earliest to be ratified by enough countries to go into effect and almost a decade before any country signed it.
Why was that date chosen? Not for any scientific reasons. Even if Kyoto were completely complied with by all countries asked by it’s drafters to take action, it would make only a trivial difference in the temperature rise by 2100. Truly trivial. So what do its proponents say about that. That it’s a first step, and we have to do something and get going. That sort of thing. Hair shirt thinking basically. Quasi religious thinking. Moral crusade thinking for sure.
Back to why unfair. 1990 was chosen so that Europe wouldn’t have to do anything to automatically meet the targets without doing anything. Or anyway much of Europe wouldn’t and as a whole Europe wouldn't and they figured the rest would work out some method of inter Euro sharing of the good fortune for little or no cost. Credits trading. Why not? First, because natural gas emits half as much CO2 as coal, and the UK and some other countries were massively switching from the first to the second (or oil which is intermediate in emissions) through the 90s for electricity generation and other things - for reasons having nothing to do with Kyoto.
Second, horribly inefficient in every way Eastern European (especially East German) smokestack industry from the Soviet era was being shuttered throughout the 90s. Presto. Europe's done, or much of it is. And they can try to hamper that terribly red in tooth and claw US capitalism's advantages with Kyoto and lord it over us morally as we feel pain they don't have to.
So how did the US let this happen to us? We have weight in international forums, right? Well the Euros ganged up on us that's how, sometimes with help from their ex colonies. Global Warming alarmism is a widely held secular religion in Europe especially. And Al Gore who was the head of our delegation wasn’t exactly the fiercest negotiator on our behalf on these issues. But to be fair some of our delegation did fight hard. But the biggest reason is that the thing was initially structured as a one country one vote affair with no one having veto power, or voting power in proportion to population or economy or anything else, like a lot of other 90s Euro pushed efforts at international agreement (International Criminal Court, Landmines, Biological Weapons, and so on). And Europe has what, some 35 countries in the EU (including e.g. Monaco and Lichtenstein and Angora) or desperately trying to get in and not above selling votes (Eastern Europe, Turkey)? Maybe more. And then most of the rest of the world wasn’t being asked to actually do anything. Well Australia joined us in not agreeing. Canada which is one of the few countries that were similarly screwed like the US (though not quite as much mostly because they haven’t grown as fast) actually seriously considered not ratifying but in the end the liberal party then in government Canadians to swallow and be good internationalists, as is Canada’s wont.
Well Canada isn’t remotely on track to meet it’s targets. And European countries that didn’t automatically meet them for the reasons I gave above aren’t either. And Europe’s emissions have grown faster since 2000 (which would have been a fair threshold date) than the US’s have.
Few people now know these things, except for the last. We need to tell them.
So that there’s no rush to sign on to Kyoto here. (It doesn’t do didly for the problem anyway.)
China's rapid industrialization has been very impressive. So has its record as the world's most heedless polluter, reports Der Spiegel. Some unappetizing facts:
• The country is home to 16 of the world's 20 dirtiest cities.
• The country's factories and power plants emit more sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide than Europe does.
• In a few years the country will surpass the United States to become the world's biggest carbon dioxide producer.
• The amount by which China increased its power production last year is greater than Britain's entire capacity.
• China uses more coal than the U.S., the EU, and Japan combined.
• Every seven days a new coal-fired plant comes on line.
• It's estimated that 400,000 Chinese die from air pollution every year.
• Particulates from China are causing sore throats in Japan.
From 2Blowhards
The Chinese government is not even fully in control of this. There are a lot of illegal coal-fired power plants being built there. There are a lot of illegal coal mines being operated as well. They usually only get discovered if there is some accident that kills a bunch of workers. Even then they may not stay closed down for very long, because illegal or not, they need the power.
Nuclear is probably inevitable but they have vast coal resources that they certainly want to use. They could make better use of the coal with better pollution control equipment... something the illegal plants often don't have at all.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
at least 10 large nuclear plants. The yare currently bidding several projects.
What they're doing now (a massive, multi-decade coal-powered buildout) is meeting all their goals.
Zuiko said--
The Chinese government is not even fully in control of this. There are a lot of illegal coal-fired power plants being built there. There are a lot of illegal coal mines being operated as well.
Coal burning generating plants and coal mines are not easy to hide.
It's called corruption. And/or not giving a rip whatsoever about policing. EASY policing.
Many of the "illegal" coal plants are probably illegal for international consumption only, and that the relevant domestic Chinese players know that.
Rather like the "illegally" pirated US software and movies openly for sale not only by furtive street vendors (as occurs in some places, particularly Chinatowns in the US, e.g. ours in Manhattan, but also there in open and established shops.
Meanwhile the Chinese are "trying" to crack down on this.
Just ask them.
The federal government in China doesn't have great control over its regional and local units of government. There's been a number of scandals involving governors and local officials doing their own thing against the wishes of the big wigs in Beijing. Sometimes they get away with it. Sometimes they don't. This illegal coal mine and power plant stuff is simply a part of that. The economic incentives for more power plants are there, but the central government is refusing to recognize that, so the local units of government look the other way and plan to ask forgiveness after the plant is operational.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
just as they'd/we'd be thrilled to get electrical power cheap enough to make [Tesla link] a toy for the middle class instead of the rich.
Um, that comment assumes the Tesla is a toy for the rich because power is expensive. That's like saying a Lamborghini is a toy for the rich because gasoline is expensive.
The real problem with the Tesla is that the batteries are too expensive. Solve that problem and electric cars (particularly plug-in hybrids) would be very competitive, even at today's electricity rates.
I figure that battery research will benefit from cheaper, more plentiful power.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I figure that battery research will benefit from cheaper, more plentiful power.
Why? Electricity is a small part of the cost of doing research. Most of the cost is people and facilities.
...based on the notion that if you make a commodity cheap enough, somebody will eventually figure out how to make a better cup for it.
I dunno. Ask my wife: she's the engineer. I write poetry. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The average US retail electricity rates are equivalent to gasoline at $.75/gallon, so this effect would already have kicked in.
You are also under the misapprehension that nuclear-generated electricity will be significantly cheaper. It's not. That's why the US has all those coal-burning plants, and dozens more under construction.
I hadn't heard of the crack in
the White Witchthe Ice QueenSpeaker Pelosi's stance on this one. The bottom line is this: nuclear power is safe, inexpensive, clean, and ridiculously efficient. We can solve, not all, but a good number of our energy woes by getting on the fast track toward nuclearizing our energy in this nation - ditto for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.Imagine, all that clean, pure power, just from the reaction in the nucleus of an atom which results from the fact that the sum of the mass of the parts is more than the mass of the whole - and thus, the fact that, when multiplied by the square of the speed of light, the mass gained by breaking that whole into its parts creates such powerful energy that we can do...well, whatever we want with it!