Slashdot Mirror

Nuclear is about 4 times to 8 times the kwh price of natural gas, wind and solar.

You do realize that I have access to the internet, don't you? I can fact check this. It's real easy for you to fact check it too. Here's a place to fact check that:
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Nuclear power is cheaper than off shore wind and every form of solar power. Nuclear is marginally more expensive than onshore wind and hydroelectricity. Natural gas is real cheap, nearly half the price of wind or nuclear. The problem with natural gas is the CO2 output. If the goal is to replace this natural gas with something reliable then that's going to be nuclear or hydro. We don't have many places left for cheap hydro, that leaves nuclear as our only choice.

The argument isn't if we will build more nuclear power plants, it's when and how many. We've run out of choices for cheap and reliable electricity. We will be building more nuclear power. The sooner people can wrap their heads around this the better. Continually pushing off new nuclear power into the future only means having to run the old nuclear power plants longer.

I keep reading claims of how solar will get cheaper in the future. That may be true, I believe it's nearly certain. Do you believe that nuclear can't also get cheaper in the future? I believe it can. One way to make it cheaper is to start training nuclear engineers now. To do that we need to build nuclear power plants, as there is no better training than real world experience. We've effectively skipped a generation of nuclear engineers, from a 40 year stagnation in the industry, and a lot of experience will die with those experienced engineers. It may be wise to get a new generation trained on nuclear power before the current generation of nuclear engineers retire, go senile, and/or die.

Yes, that is very much what I imagine. The high rate of extinctions is a temporary phenomenon. It won't go on for thousands of years.

Citation? This is a totally unsupported claim, and I see no reason to believe this wishful thinking.

Right now, renewables are more expensive than non-renewable energy

Wrong, so all the rest of your conclusions are wrong. Egypt's new solar power plant comes in at $.03/kw-hr. New wind installations are $0.04-0.06/kw-hr. Nuclear comes in at $0.02/kw-hr and could be cheaper if we could streamline the regulatory approval. Fossil fuel ranges from $0.05-$0.17, so in the worst case, renewables are price-competitive, and in many cases they are cheaper. https://www.instituteforenergy...

"We" simply shouldn't do anyhing. If you let the market do its thing, that's the fastest way of getting towards a low carbon economy across the globe. If you start imposing carbon taxes and other policies for restricting carbon emissions, you just end up making things worse.

Things that are massively harmful for society can be very profitable for an individual company. The market doesn't give a shit about the planet being livable 100 years from now. It's like you've never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Externalities, by definition, cannot be accounted for by the market without correction by some non-market force. Pollution, carbon emissions, and environment destruction are externalities. We need to account for them via taxation or some other mechanism, but taxation is the most explicit and direct, and most fully empowers the free market to get to work on the problem.

Orders of magnitude? Citation needed. Here's mine:
https://www.instituteforenergy...

On shore wind, nuclear, and coal are all about the same cost, within the error bars of each other.

Hardly an unbiased source, right? I mean, if we get to pick sources, I'll could go with Greenpeace to offset a Koch mouthpiece. In any case though, the 'levelized cost of nuclear' at this point is an unknown number, because of the massive failure of the most recent nuclear efforts (see, for example, Westinghouse's current situation, or what happened at Calvert Cliffs). The costs have ballooned way beyond predicted numbers. Can you give me the average cost of the last 5 nuclear power plants that came on line in the last decade? Oh, you can't? That's because they don't exist

That's not to say that nuclear is dead, because there are lots of designs for new reactor types. It makes sense to have failsafe designs, preferablly modular, mass-produced (relatively anyway). But, again, you have no idea how much they will actually cost. On the other hand, we have a large number of wind sources coming on line, and we can see the cost, and can see that the cost is coming down. see: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wind-energy-is-one-of-the-cheapest-sources-of-electricity-and-its-getting-cheaper/ . We know it costs less, because we are actually building them.

Except wind and solar are orders of magnitude cheaper and easier in every way than nuclear, but other than that yeah you're right.

Orders of magnitude? Citation needed. Here's mine:
https://www.instituteforenergy...

On shore wind, nuclear, and coal are all about the same cost, within the error bars of each other. Solar is expensive, and needs storage to follow load, making it cost even more. Wind also needs storage but if coupled with natural gas (the cheapest means we have to produce electricity right now), coal, and nuclear then it's a viable energy source. Assuming the goal is reducing CO2 then we'll rule out coal, leaving nuclear (a tiny fraction of CO2 compared to coal) and natural gas (about half the CO2 of coal), as backup for the wind. But, as the article points out, the problem with wind is the lack of storage. Here's the solution...

Fuel is storage.

With a mix of wind, nuclear, and natural gas we can get energy that is inexpensive, low CO2, and reliable. This means that states like California would have to start building new nuclear power plants and natural gas burning power plants to go along with the wind power. Sure, California is a sunny place so maybe they have locations where solar is as cheap as the rest so go with it if it makes sense.

The problem is storage and California has been destroying their storage capacity with the shutting down of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Stop doing that and the problem disappears.

Other than 2.5X the power than all renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) combined, and at a lower cost. Not to mention it's basically 100% uptime. But yeah, other than massive amounts of highly reliable, affordable power, nuclear has done nothing!

You are correct, I didn't point that out. Here's a few links to put the waste problems of solar and wind power into perspective.

https://instituteforenergyrese...
https://www.nationalreview.com...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07...
https://thoughtscapism.com/201...

Wind and solar have far greater waste problems than nuclear. Can we reduce the waste from wind and solar? Sure, just as we can learn to reduce the waste produced from nuclear energy. Can we improve the methods of recycling and disposing of waste produced from wind and solar? I imagine we can, just as we can with waste from nuclear power.

Solar power is not only an environmental disaster it is an economical disaster. Perhaps in the future solar power can improve beyond what nuclear offers now but that's assuming nuclear does not also improve. Solar is trying to hit a moving target and falling behind every year. I'm generally okay with wind, it's not all that reliable but it also is not that expensive, does not produce terrible amounts of toxic waste, and allows for use of the land below for farming and ranching. Wind does kill birds but birds are jerks, I say let them die.

Nuclear power is safer than wind and solar. Nuclear power is less expensive than wind and solar, with some exceptions in a few locations. Nuclear power produces less CO2 per energy produced, with perhaps hydro being better in a few locations. Nuclear power produces less waste than wind and solar. Nuclear power is the best source of energy we have right now and we'd be fools to not expand our fleet of nuclear power plants.

Just about anything works

https://www.smh.com.au/busines...

ustralia has power prices worse than a third world country, a global renewable energy guru says.
"For a country that has a very high standard of living, stable economic situation and tremendous opportunities, it makes no sense at all for the price of power to be more than a banana republic," the Australian head of global renewable firm SunEnergy1, and part-time racecar driver, Kenny Habul said.

Speaking at the Bond Business Leaders Forum on the Gold Coast, Mr Habul said Australia needs to dramatically change its energy landscape in order to escape the energy price crisis, adding that there is a disconnect between Australian standards of living and electricity costs.

Mr Habul said will meet with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull later this month to discuss how to halt spiralling power costs and restore the nation’s electricity prices to normality.

https://instituteforenergyrese...

As of July 1, 2017, electricity prices in the state of South Australia are the highest in the world, exceeding Denmark’s due to price increases of between 15.3 and 19.9 percent by its three major electric utilities.[i] In nearby New South Wales the problem is not much better, with more than 60,000 households at risk of having their power cut off because they cannot afford the bills.

Further, South Australia is faced with the possibility of brownouts and blackouts due to the intermittency of wind power.

Ok, let's try using round numbers so that the scale gets across to you.

Hybrid, electric and high-efficiency ICE vehicles are costing the highway fund tens of millions of dollars.
The highway fund has been underfunded by about $20-50 billion per year, for decades.

A $10 million reduction is a smaller problem than a $50 billion reduction.

Focusing on fixing the $10 million is not all that helpful, even when that reduction is going to grow in the future...to a number that is still smaller than the underfunding caused by the low tax rate.

When analyzed, the Stern proposal for limiting CO2 resulted in an estimated net loss of $14 Trillion if you assume all of his guesses at damage from climate change are correct. Gore's proposed carbon rules net'd out to a loss of $21 Trillion. That's how much the world economy would suffer under their prominent policy proposals if you take all of their assertions about damage from global warning as true (which is unlikely) and just compare their proposed measures to the level of economic growth over time when doing nothing about global warming at all. See Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus’ Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax.

We can rob from future generations by reducing economic growth now and having them miss out on the compounding affect of that growth for decades, or we can allow our future generations, who will be much wealthier than us from the normal growth between now and then and know better what the actual effects turn out to be, deal with anything needed. Think about it as spending our capital on something now, rather than using compound interest to our advantage, but with growth instead of interest.

Imagine if people in 1968 had decided to sacrifice everything in order to fund researching and putting into place a GPS system. Much of the basic technology was there within decades. They could have done it over time, at the cost of some giant percentage of the economy. Now, with today's wealth and technology, it's no big deal, lots of countries can fund a GPS system out of their basic space or military budgets. So too with mitigating the long term effects of climate change, if any.

Are you referring to the market manipulation conducted by the energy traders empowered in the Bush years?

Although it was popular all through Obama's term to blame things on Bush, are we not just a little past that now?

Because California is still seeing blackouts.

Interesting data on existing nuclear, solar and wind. Existing nuclear is actually quite cheap. And one thing almost always overlooked for the wind/solar generation is the required gas/coal backup. The US is dark for a large portion of each rotation, which does not help solar. I guess you could do pumped storage - but we'd need to increase the number of flooded valleys in the US by a factor of 40. Right now, nuclear - when solar/wind are required to provide base-load capability - is quite price competitive.

fission is not only a pointlessly dangerous scam, it's an entirely unnecessary one.

Citation needed. Here's mine that says you're full of shit.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

Nuclear fission is the safest energy source we have available today. It's also cheaper than solar, hydro, and offshore wind.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Nuclear also has a lower carbon footprint than solar.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...

If there is an energy scam out there then it's solar. Onshore wind and hydro aren't too bad but they are limited in utility by geography, nuclear energy is not. About the rest of your claims, I think you have your aluminum foil helmet on too tight.

From TFA:

Itâ(TM)s a tired myth that there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, Partin said.

If we want environmental protection without killing the economy then we need to take a list of what's "green" and what's cheap and see where they overlap, then use those.

What's low on CO2 output? Look here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...
(Page 7 has a nice chart BTW)

What's cheap? Look here:
https://www.instituteforenergy...
(Charts and graphs near the bottom of the page.)

Looks to me like the winners are wind, hydro, and nuclear. Of course future developments will shift these numbers around so let's not stop the analysis there but now, today, those are our best three choices.

This is not hard people.

Oh, I almost forgot. I'm sure people will bring up issues of safety so let's have a look:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

Look, still wind, hydro, and nuclear at the top. To those that think solar has any part to play in this I say look again at the costs, it's easily double or triple what we pay now for natural gas. Natural gas is so cheap now that it will be impossible to do away with it but even then it's got half the CO2 output per MWh compared to coal. If we have to choose between coal, natural gas, or our energy costs doubling then I choose natural gas. Wind, hydro, and nuclear are already cheaper than coal so that choice is obvious.

So, there's our solution, wind, hydro, nuclear, and some more natural gas until we can make the others cheaper. Anything else means more CO2 and/or much higher costs.

Saying "safer than wind" or "safer than solar" is "trolling".

Perhaps. By the way the answer is "nuclear fission".
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

If taken as a global average, where Chernobyl and Fukushima are included then hydroelectric wins on the "deathprint" metric. Since I assume we've learned out lessons from both, and are not letting engineers from Soviet Russia do the building, then nuclear comes out on top.

Here's an article from GreenPeace that does a different analysis claiming to be more "honest" but still shows nuclear as safe or safer than wind. http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

The costs metric shows nuclear, natural gas, and geothermal as cheapest. We might want to rule out natural gas on "deathprint" and "carbon footprint". Geothermal is great unless you don't have a place to drill for geothermal. That leaves nuclear.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Another cost analysis shows nuclear cheaper than only coal and solar thermal. Which doesn't help nuclear here but people want reliable power, and so long as it's cheaper than coal I suspect they'd choose that.
http://www.renewable-energysou...

Finding a source on energy reliability with a quick Google search was proving to be more difficult than I thought. The best I could find was that same link above on costs where it listed capacity factors.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

This use of capacity factor to measure reliability is likely pretty fair for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, coal, many forms of natural gas, and biomass, since these are the kinds of energy a utility is going to want to keep up as much as possible for reasons of costs, legal requirements, and such. However this metric really takes a dump on hydro and natural gas turbines since those are kept in reserve to meet peak demands, they are in fact very reliable and that's why they are kept in reserve. With that said, the top of the list includes nuclear and geothermal with capacity factors at 90% or higher. If we account for the peak power technologies of hydro and natural gas turbines we can include those as well.

Let's end with an analysis on carbon footprint, since most people already suspect that fossil fuels lose out big, but let's just take a look at an aggregated "meta-study".
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...

Nuclear, wind, and hydro are effectively tied. PV has more than triple the carbon footprint, but still far better than natural gas. Natural gas being half that of coal might just make it a not so bad choice given it's price, not bad "deathprint", local availability, and reliability.

Best I can tell we have at the top of the list nuclear and maybe natural gas if one considers halving carbon footprint from coal as "good enough". Wind, hydro, and geothermal might beat them out if one has them available nearby. Solar, PV and thermal, are not that great and should be left to off grid situations. Putting solar on the grid only adds to the cost, reduces reliability, and isn't that great on carbon footprint or "deathprint" compared to wind or hydro.

Saying "safer than wind" or "safer than solar" is "trolling".

Perhaps. By the way the answer is "nuclear fission".
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

If taken as a global average, where Chernobyl and Fukushima are included then hydroelectric wins on the "deathprint" metric. Since I assume we've learned out lessons from both, and are not letting engineers from Soviet Russia do the building, then nuclear comes out on top.

Here's an article from GreenPeace that does a different analysis claiming to be more "honest" but still shows nuclear as safe or safer than wind. http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

The costs metric shows nuclear, natural gas, and geothermal as cheapest. We might want to rule out natural gas on "deathprint" and "carbon footprint". Geothermal is great unless you don't have a place to drill for geothermal. That leaves nuclear.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Another cost analysis shows nuclear cheaper than only coal and solar thermal. Which doesn't help nuclear here but people want reliable power, and so long as it's cheaper than coal I suspect they'd choose that.
http://www.renewable-energysou...

Finding a source on energy reliability with a quick Google search was proving to be more difficult than I thought. The best I could find was that same link above on costs where it listed capacity factors.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

This use of capacity factor to measure reliability is likely pretty fair for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, coal, many forms of natural gas, and biomass, since these are the kinds of energy a utility is going to want to keep up as much as possible for reasons of costs, legal requirements, and such. However this metric really takes a dump on hydro and natural gas turbines since those are kept in reserve to meet peak demands, they are in fact very reliable and that's why they are kept in reserve. With that said, the top of the list includes nuclear and geothermal with capacity factors at 90% or higher. If we account for the peak power technologies of hydro and natural gas turbines we can include those as well.

Let's end with an analysis on carbon footprint, since most people already suspect that fossil fuels lose out big, but let's just take a look at an aggregated "meta-study".
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...

Nuclear, wind, and hydro are effectively tied. PV has more than triple the carbon footprint, but still far better than natural gas. Natural gas being half that of coal might just make it a not so bad choice given it's price, not bad "deathprint", local availability, and reliability.

Best I can tell we have at the top of the list nuclear and maybe natural gas if one considers halving carbon footprint from coal as "good enough". Wind, hydro, and geothermal might beat them out if one has them available nearby. Solar, PV and thermal, are not that great and should be left to off grid situations. Putting solar on the grid only adds to the cost, reduces reliability, and isn't that great on carbon footprint or "deathprint" compared to wind or hydro.

Who said wind is cheaper? Quote please?

Wind and solar are cheaper than coal in Australia.
Wind is cheaper than coal in India.
Wind directly competes with coal on price.

... and now for an opposing view:
News Flash: Wind is not cheaper than coal.

No one is replacing old nuclear power plants with coal.

Germany has done just that.
https://carboncounter.wordpres...

France too.
http://instituteforenergyresea...

Sadly, so is the USA.
https://instituteforenergyrese...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and...

Or maybe the USA is replacing nuclear with natural gas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Japan is almost famous for replacing nuclear with coal
https://www.equaltimes.org/jap...

In the UK natural gas is replacing coal and nuclear.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...

I just realized I covered 5 of the "Group of Seven" so let's finish this out and see what Canada and Italy are doing.

Turns out Italy shut down their nuclear a long time ago and relies largely on natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Looks like Canada is neither closing or building new nuclear, demand growth has been met with natural gas and hydro.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art...

Also in the above article is mention of Russia, China, and South Korea. More about that here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

So, let's review. France, Germany, Japan, and USA have all built significant numbers of coal plants in the past few years to meet growing demand and to make up for retired nuclear. Canada, UK, USA, and Italy rely heavily on natural gas and are building more capacity, while this might not be replacing nuclear it is another fossil fuel being used instead of wind and solar. China, Russia, and South Korea are actually making significant investments in nuclear to replace fossil fuels, which is still consistent with my claim that one must choose nuclear, fossil fuels, or lights going out.

Why do you write such nonsense? Fukushima Daishi had ordinary emergency power generators, like every plant. They did not rely on external power. However, perhaps that escaped you, the emergency power generators got flooded. And for some dumb reason no one came to the idea to helicopter a few military units in.

That's just so much nonsense in one paragraph it's hard to even come up with a reply. Do you really think that no one thought to helicopter in some generators?

In your country? All other countries that introduced wind and solar show that they are very reliabel and cost effective.

Oh, you mean like how last year the German government paid wind energy producers to sit idle to prevent damage to the electrical grid?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

That doesn't sound very reliable or cost effective. Seriously, do some research before you post. You are looking like a fool.

No one is replacing old nuclear power plants with coal.

Germany has done just that.
https://carboncounter.wordpres...

France too.
http://instituteforenergyresea...

Sadly, so is the USA.
https://instituteforenergyrese...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and...

Or maybe the USA is replacing nuclear with natural gas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Japan is almost famous for replacing nuclear with coal
https://www.equaltimes.org/jap...

In the UK natural gas is replacing coal and nuclear.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...

I just realized I covered 5 of the "Group of Seven" so let's finish this out and see what Canada and Italy are doing.

Turns out Italy shut down their nuclear a long time ago and relies largely on natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Looks like Canada is neither closing or building new nuclear, demand growth has been met with natural gas and hydro.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art...

Also in the above article is mention of Russia, China, and South Korea. More about that here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

So, let's review. France, Germany, Japan, and USA have all built significant numbers of coal plants in the past few years to meet growing demand and to make up for retired nuclear. Canada, UK, USA, and Italy rely heavily on natural gas and are building more capacity, while this might not be replacing nuclear it is another fossil fuel being used instead of wind and solar. China, Russia, and South Korea are actually making significant investments in nuclear to replace fossil fuels, which is still consistent with my claim that one must choose nuclear, fossil fuels, or lights going out.

Why do you write such nonsense? Fukushima Daishi had ordinary emergency power generators, like every plant. They did not rely on external power. However, perhaps that escaped you, the emergency power generators got flooded. And for some dumb reason no one came to the idea to helicopter a few military units in.

That's just so much nonsense in one paragraph it's hard to even come up with a reply. Do you really think that no one thought to helicopter in some generators?

In your country? All other countries that introduced wind and solar show that they are very reliabel and cost effective.

Oh, you mean like how last year the German government paid wind energy producers to sit idle to prevent damage to the electrical grid?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

That doesn't sound very reliable or cost effective. Seriously, do some research before you post. You are looking like a fool.

I believe you are mistaken.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Nuclear is still cheaper than solar. The cost of solar power increases once it reaches a certain threshold too.

https://www.instituteforenergy...

I'll believe solar is much cheaper than nuclear when it reaches 20% of electricity production like nuclear power has. As the paper I linked above points out, that simply cannot happen. When solar power reaches about 6% of total grid power it starts to get real expensive.

I believe you are mistaken.
https://www.instituteforenergy...

Nuclear is still cheaper than solar. The cost of solar power increases once it reaches a certain threshold too.

https://www.instituteforenergy...

I'll believe solar is much cheaper than nuclear when it reaches 20% of electricity production like nuclear power has. As the paper I linked above points out, that simply cannot happen. When solar power reaches about 6% of total grid power it starts to get real expensive.

You guys realize that wind and solar farms literally kill thousands of birds every year, right?

http://www.latimes.com/local/c...

6,000 birds a year at the Mojave Desert solar farm. You know... in the desert... where there are much less birds because.... it's a desert.

I'm all for solar and wind. But let's stop pretending they don't have any drawbacks at all. Like the shear amount of rare earth minerals that have to be farmed by workers making $1.00/wk and dying from lung cancer.

This is the perfect quote:

>The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs

http://instituteforenergyresea...

Environmentalism doesn't need to be tribalism. The best solutions can still have flaws and be the best option available.

an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.

So, similar to the EPA's fuel additive mandate for a compound that is unavailable to anyone, claiming a mandate "fosters innovation" is actually newspeak for "They're going to have to invent something that doesn't exist right now." The feasibility and cost of which is not even considered.

Milton Frieman said no such thing.
http://instituteforenergyresea...

Bob Inglis recently chaired a forum at the University of Chicago titled, âoeWhat Would Milton Friedman Do About Climate Change?â Two Chicago economists argued that Friedman would have applied the textbook analysis of âoenegative externalitiesâ to the issue of climate change, and therefore would have supported a carbon tax. The only problem is, they gave no actual quotes of Friedman supporting a carbon tax, even though he died in 2006. Furthermore, there is at least one quotation from Friedman in which he denounces the fear-mongering of the global warming movement. Contrary to the claims of a few academics and retired government officials, a U.S. carbon tax is not a âoeconservative free market solutionâ to the issue of climate change.

And, according to a 2013 report from scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and FWS, stray and outdoor pet cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals, mostly native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles, annually.

emphasis mine

Even if you go with the more recent figures of almost a million turbine bird deaths, it's still more than a thousand times more.

Turbines are far safer today than they were just a decade ago. They spin slower and use gearing to increase generated power, rather than just having faster blade rotation.

I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.

Yes, it's absolutely surging. Oh, wait...

Guess it depends on where you look. Although to be fair you may be right about the bollocks, the scenario in the article/study is probably unrealistic. The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between.

I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.

That's the whole point of mdsolar posting this unsubstantiated crap and spreading the FUD. He is not just a random poster â" he has a pro-solar agenda (either ideological or simply for-profit) and nuclear energy is the main competitor.

Actually mdsolar is the de-facto might-as-well--be persona of billionaire T. Boone Pickens and several others who are driving the expansion of natural gas generation, to the utter destruction of all other reliable base load energy sources. Every solar and wind initiative is being built out with gas plants for 'support and peaking'. When the unreliables crap breaks and shuts down, when the subsidies dry up, when investors pull out, those gas plants will go on-line 24/7.

Case in point, Vermont just closed a nuclear plant that was generating ~70% of all electricity produced in the state... ~35% of the power used in the state... so they could bring in more electricity made from natural gas to run their electric heaters. They have nobly increased carbon emissions to help prove that CO2 is not the motivating factor behind these changes. They even import nuclear electricity from NH to show there are no hard feelings, or moral hang-ups. Vermont also leads the nation in all kinds of nanny meters, dark fiber and weird parasitic infrastructure that doesn't make an erg of energy, so they can calculate down to the micropenny how much it will all suck in the end.

The shutting of Vermont Yankee was a brazen act of social and corporate vandalism. It was a national treasure, a nuclear plant sited next to a hydroelectric power source that had the capacity (and direct connecting feeders) to black-start it. In any scenario of downed grids and interrupted fossil energy, VY could have been a beacon of hope and civilization. Now that region of Vermont will become a feudal electric barony gathered around the ~35MW output of the Vernon Dam.

In faux tribute to natural gas --- which imposes its own fragile infrastructure with as-yet unknown consequences, irreplaceable things are being destroyed.

Obligatory xkcd.

If you look at the EIA data, you'll see the coal generation percentages by year (if you manually compute them from the data).

2010: 45%
2011: 42%
2012: 37%
2013: 39%
2014: 38%
2015: 32%

That 6% drop from 2014 to 2015 was due mostly to many units closing due to the MATS EPA requirements (the Supreme Court ended up issuing a stay on that regulation, but only after generators had spent the money to upgrade the units they decided to keep open, and after many of the units were retired). There are some significant MATS-related retirements in 2016, but I would expect the retirements to drop off dramatically after that since the remaining units will have made those significant capital investments to meet the MATS requirements.

If the Clean Power Plan survives and natural gas prices stay low that will likely lead to significant retirements by the early 2020's.

Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING.

DoD procurement spending, which is what I assume you're referring to as subsidized by the government and our tax dollars, was just over $102 billion in 2015. Federal subsidies for electricity-related renewable energy increased 54% to $13.2 billion from 2010 to 2013, and has no doubt increased significantly since then. Doesn't seem too out of whack to me.

Posting anon because I work in the area.

Wind is not 'fighting it out' to be cheaper, if you look at the levelized cost of electricity for wind, it's noted that it's not dispatchable, has a low capacity factor, and also that the LCOE is a lot lower for natural gas combined cycle plants ($67 M USD/MW) than wind ($86 M USD/MW); hydro ($90 M USD/MW) is about the same as wind but while not dispatchable, it is more consistent when they have available river flow .

However, wind subsidies are making it cheaper for some utilities in some states.

Bullshit.

http://instituteforenergyresea...

> Wrong on all accounts.

I don't think so. I've seen the 38 cent number in enough places that I'm fairly confident that it correct. e.g. "However, Germany is still paying nearly the highest electricity rates found in Europe at 38 cents per kilowatt-hour ($0.38/kWh). By comparison, Germanyâ(TM)s rates are 63% higher than the United Kingdom." http://www.globalenergymatters...

My impression is that in Europe subsidies tor wind, solar, producers are paid from taxes on electricity users rather than from general revenue. That would certainly cause rates to be elevated compared to the US. Especially if, as seems to be the case with German solar subsidies , the subsidies are poorly structured resulting in sometimes paying for power that can't be resold because no one wants/needs it.. But I've never looked into the mechanics.

As for German CO2 emissions: "Data from BPâ(TM)s Statistical Review of World Energy also make clear that German CO2 emissions have risen dramatically since the nuclear phase-out. Emissions have shot up from 802.3 million metric tons in 2011 to 842.8 million metric tons in 2013, a 5.1 percent increase.[16]." http://instituteforenergyresea... (Parenthetically, I don't see a 5.1% increase as being "dramatic". But it IS a step in the "wrong" direction)

In fairness, that is probably largely due to the German decision to phase out nuclear power. While I have doubts that was a prudent decision, it's certainly not an irrational decision and the Germans have every right to decide that the risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits

I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.

http://instituteforenergyresea...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

The US power industry puts out 5% of the worlds carbon and this plan will cut it by 1.5% over how many years? China on average is bringing on a new power plant every 10 days. Please explain how this insignificant but costly plan is going to affect climate change?

If you're not able to grasp that Germany is simply one customer on a continent wide energy grid then you can't understand your impact on that grid.

Increasing renewables in Germany is great. But you have no idea how much coal power you're sucking down unless you appreciate where your power imports come from?

what is more this notion that the renewables are not a fucking nightmare to manage in the grid is nonsense:
http://instituteforenergyresea...

Good luck getting people behind nuclear when France and Germany, leaders in nuclear, are pulling out over public opinion. Facts and evidence never convinced a significant fraction of the populace of anything they didn't want to hear already.

As for your rosy outlook the EIA has a 100% completely different story saying we are going to stay the course and keep using fossil fuels : http://instituteforenergyresea...

Do you have a source for this we aren't using any coal in the next four years argument when something like 70% of our nation depends on it for power?

Why would you skew it like this in favor of solar? Because solar generation matches the peak demand so well. The peak demand is late afternoon in hot sunny states when everyone runs their A/C at full blast.

http://instituteforenergyresea...

Oops on 1. It was roughly 1980 when America started to emit more CO2 than Europe. Prior to that, Europe emitted more.

I stand by #2, based on the above. You can see that starting in 2008, America's emissions started dropping, and has continued since that time. More importantly, it will continue for the next 4 years, if not longer. And here is EIA saying that much more will close. And IER thinks that 72 GW of 321 GW of coal plants are going to shut down before 2020. Note that Coal plants account for about 3/4 of electricities CO2 emissions in America. Shutting down that 72 GW, which are the worst, will take out roughly 1/4 of that CO2 of Electricities CO2 emissions.

This data from Europe, shows that America's data starts in 1992 at 5.0. hits highest point was 2007 (5.9 billion tonnes) drops to 5.3 in 2013. Likewise, Eu28 data start in 1992 at 4.3 and then sits at it until 2007, where it also drops to 3.7.
Sadly, this article does not do justice to the amount of emissions that Europe kicks out, but the map in it shows how much is really coming out of Europe AND CHINA.

And as to 4 above, that stands on its own. Again, OCO2 shows how much China emits, which is far far more than is generally admitted since Chinese leaders are lying.

and you can look up 5 and 6, or even think about it. China's emissions from 1850 on, exceed America's total. And considering that China and Europe have been burning coal for multiple millennium as well as have been the most populated areas of the world for the last milenium, it makes sense that they account for the majority.

You did read my post, right? You didn't just skim it? 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% other(hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, etc...) doesn't leave any coal being burned for electricity. I can live with it being burned to create steel and such.

Yes, but that isn't going to happen...

Nuclear has so much popular opinion against it, it just isn't going to get any traction. China and Russia are building some, but not enough.

Please keep in mind, I'm not saying it is a bad idea, I'd love it... but the reality of popular opinion, political support, and where the money is, says that just isn't going to happen...

http://instituteforenergyresea...

China plans to build 50 coal gasification plants in less populated northwestern parts of the country, using the gas produced to generate electricity in the more populated areas, where smog is prevalent. Two coal gasification pilot plants have been built, three more are under construction, and 16 have been approved for construction, while the rest are in various planning stages.

Coal gasification produces more carbon dioxide than a traditional coal plant. According to a study by Duke University, synthetic natural gas emits seven times more greenhouse gases than natural gas, and almost twice as much carbon dioxide as a coal plant.

There are other concerns besides CO2, China is dealing with massive pollution, one of the ways is they are building these far from population centers. But they make TONS of CO2.

The overall point is that we have to address CO2 from a planet point of view, not a nations point of view. And THAT is even LESS likely to happen.

Literally every nuclear plant in construction throughout the entire world is way overbudget, even the ones in China.

You're right... but China aims to change that. China is cool with the delays in AP1000 construction... why? Because Westinghouse is refining the pump design.

China is much more than a happy customer experiencing some delays in delivery and construction. They have a plan in place to build the CAP1400, their own proprietary version of the Westinghouse AP1000.

If you're a flag-waving American who believes that we're still in the race to help develop and industrialize the world, this August 2014 slide show from China's SNPTC (State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation) is worth a look. "China has basically established the 3rd generation nuclear power industrial system, built up the complete equipment supplied chain, completed the standard design of localized AP1000, and prepared for mass construction of the localized AP1000."

And that is merely to ensure its entry into the market as a supplier of AP1000-compatible reactors in the short term. Their CAP1400 project promises to build on the AP1000 concept while scaling up the output by half (to 1530MWe). They are also suggesting an actual four-year construction cycle.

So if Westinghouse (majority owner: Toshiba) wishes to delay construction today in order to improve the design of coolant pumps --- I'm sure China is amenable. They will note the improvements and incorporate them.

While the United States feeds Africa for a day and attempts to impose unworkable energy solutions, Japan and China will build its coal plants today and become its infrastructure partners. Then with the same steadfast determination with which the USA built out railroads, the Chinese will lay high speed rail, energize itself and New Africa with grids and mature PWR nuclear energy tomorrow. And on the third day, Thorium reactors using liquid fuel. Ultimately a quadrillion dollars of infrastructure... financed and built without the US dollar, perhaps.

So if China supplies nuclear reactors to the world --- and ultimately also the United States for a hefty price, when natural gas declines and we shake ourselves awake from this renewables nightmare, what a pity. We could have done it first and we could have done it better.
___
"Oh dear! We're late!" Down the nuclear rabbit hole we go.

Rooftop solar and battery storage cannot even begin to compete with efficient central generation and distribution.

I would think utilities think 10, 20 maybe 30 years ahead. Because they have to invest in building things. Large things.

In Germany they had a public opinion that renewable energy would be a good thing, so politics created a fund which put money behind it, lots of money.

The result:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/...

Investments by electrical companies have become really hard to do, because they are making less and less money on their investments:
"Wholesale electricity prices in Germany have dropped 60 percent since 2008 as renewable energy, which is heavily subsidized and has priority access to the grid, gets dispatched first due to its much lower short-term marginal production costs than traditional plants, displacing natural gas, coal and nuclear power."
http://instituteforenergyresea...

Their next goal ? Funding energy storage technologies:
http://www.energystorageforum....

So what did the largest utility company do ?:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Actually, it is very true and even required by law. (Renewable Energy Sources Act – EEG)

http://instituteforenergyresea...

"Because German energy laws stipulate that “green” power must always have priority on the grid, control centers cannot take wind farms off the grid when too much electricity is being generated. System operators also try to avoid shutting down their coal, gas and nuclear facilities because they rely on these power plants to produce a consistent level of baseload power at all times. "

And here; http://thinkprogress.org/clima...

"Renewable electricity has priority on the German grid and therefore offsets conventional "

And many other places, its easy to verify if you even try. The fact is, you cannot find a single source that back up your contention, and the reason you can't is because you just made it up. If not, show me a single source. Just one. I can guarantee you do not have it.

Here's what's happening in the real world.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Germany's power production has gotten to be so unreliable that they are paying companies to shut down during
drops and add usage during surges. They are being paid up to 400 times the whole sale price.
Variable pricing is similarly done in the USA as well - offer variable prices during peak periods, and even paying industrial users if they shut down during extreme peak times, but it's nothing like what's happening in Germany. In the USA, it's done to hold down costs. In Germany it's being done to maintain stability of the grid, which is basing the grid's stability on faith, hope, and trust that those users will comply everytime it's needed.

So, the industrial users have found a way out: build their own generation
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
"Every sixth company in Europe's largest economy now generates its own electricity, roughly 50% more than one year ago, according to Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry."

And damage to industrial equipment:
http://instituteforenergyresea...

In the US, all those "oil company tax breaks" are available to ALL manufacturing companies - including Boeing, Ford, Texas Instruments, etc. And they all take them. How are they "subsidies for oil companies"? If anything they are subsidies for manufacturers - which includes solar and wind. They are not exclusive to oil.

On your list, how many of those subsidies are restricted to oil companies only? I know for a fact that at least in China, solar and wind (and magnets and silicon - the bases for windmills and solar cells) get not just 0% interest loans, but direct ownership of solar panel manufacturers. Which itself carries massive benefits within China.

So again, which of those subsidies you outline are available only for oil? Especially in the US - which is the relevant country here, given we're talking about the Koch brothers? I'd suggest that NONE of the subsidies in the US actually exist as oil-industry-only subsidies. And that you'll find them heavily used by other industries as well. But you will find 30% Federal subsidies for solar purchases. And we see that solar is subsidized by the US Federal Government at the rate of nearly $1,212 per $1 for coal, per kW hour generated. Who's getting what subsidies?

http://www.instituteforenergyr...

make it 3.5x. Either way one source is much cheaper, much more controllable, predictable and compatible with the existing infrastructure, the other requires expensive upgrades to facilitate two way flow safely, is much more expensive, volatile, unpredictable, having max potential output outside the peak demand and requiring the baseline backup just in case. Nobody in his right mind would buy the residential solar energy in these circumstances.

http://www.instituteforenergyr...

From an ethical standpoint emission per capita is the only measure that matters. The climate does not care how many cars you built while spewing emissions, it only cares about absolute numbers. And when discussing global "fairness" the only thing that matters is per capita. It would be like saying your allowed to litter more then your neighbor because you make more money and buy more stuff. On what ethical foundation to rest your claim that per capita is worthless and per GDP is preferred?

Also, the main reason that emissions are dropping in the USA is because of the shear number of coal plants converting to natural gas. Not intending to diminish this achievement, its a great step in regards to the climate. But once that conversion is complete then what?
http://www.instituteforenergyr...

I would also like to point out that you are making proud statements about something that Obama deserves credit for. At the time the Republicans lambasted Obama about it saying he was de-industrializing the USA etc etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The market hasn't failed - clean energy just isn't cheap enough yet. Economies don't switch energy sources to more expensive sources unless the government steps in. Petroleum finally took over from whale oil when it got cheaper/whale oil got more expensive - before that, who wanted to use dirty old petroleum that had to be expensively processed before becoming useful when you get just harpoon a whale and melt down its fat for immediately usable energy.

Natural gas is still projected to be less than half the cost of the most cost-effective solar plants in 2018. Even if you add the costs of a carbon capture system, the most cost effective solar is estimated to be 55% more expensive - five years from now.

There's a powerful smell of bullshit coming off that link.

For example - "Additionally, electric car batteries must be replaced after about four years". REALLY??!!?

Most of the RAV4 EVs and original Priuses are still on their original batteries, some after more than 200,000 miles. And every carmaker selling EVs is guaranteeing battery life of approx 8 yrs. They can't all be so stupid to guarantee free replacements for twice the expected life of the product.

And, the batteries are not exhausted after those 4 or 8 yrs but reduced to ~70% - that still a heckuva lot of life and can be recycled or refurbished into other products such as UPSes or some other stationary storage with weight and performance characteristics that'll stomp lead-acid.

By the way, have a look at the bios of the good people at the IER - not a single scientist or engineer among them

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/staff/

you are forgetting the one thing that ruins the whole carbon offsetting business: battery manufacturing, replacement and recovery of materials. the carbon load for that is huge and totally destroys the advantage of electric vehicles.

add to that the massive subsidies electric cars currently enjoy, and they turn into an expensive way to not reduce pollution

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/07/22/second-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/