Power Company Kills Nuclear Plant, Plans $6 Billion In Solar, Battery Investment (arstechnica.com)

Socguy writes: After being unable to complete the Levy County Nuclear Plant a few years ago, Duke energy abandoned it, leaving rate payers on the hook. Duke is now in the process of settling legal action as a result. As part of the settlement Duke will construct or acquire 700MW of solar capacity over four years in the western Florida area, construct 50MW of battery storage, undertake grid modernizations and install 530 electric car charging stations. "The Levy nuclear plant was proposed in 2008 and ran into hurdles early on," reports Ars Technica. "With cheap natural gas in 2013, Duke Energy Florida became nervous that it might not recuperate costs spent on the nuclear plant, especially with regulatory delays. The company cancelled its engineering and construction agreements in 2013 but said that it was holding open the possibility of returning to Levy someday. Over nine years, about $800 million had been spent on preparatory work for the plant. With Tuesday's announcement, those costs are sunk costs now. But overall, the changes will save residential customers future nuclear-related rate increases. Those customers will see a cost reduction of $2.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) 'through the removal of unrecovered Levy Nuclear Project costs,' the utility said. The 700MW of solar won't exactly cover the nameplate capacity of the Levy plant, which was supposed to deliver 2.2 gigawatts to the region. But the Tampa Bay Times wrote that Duke 'is effectively giving up its long-held belief that nuclear power is a key component to its Florida future and, instead, making a dramatic shift toward more solar power.'"

Comments

Solar Power in Florida?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most impractical idea I've heard since I last read a tweet from Donald Trump.

They don't call it the Sunshine State, not even on the license plates. And they wouldn't need so many oranges if they weren't vitamin deficient from too little sun. And let's face it, they should just use the same generator powered by the soul of a Forsaken child as is used to keep Disneyworld operational.

regulatory delays

[turkeydance]

that is all.

Re: regulatory delays

[Anonymous Coward]

Uthats a regulatory delay. The solution has been well understood and planned for decades, but shot down by judges and politicians.

Re: regulatory delays

[queazocotal]

The batteries are really high grade lithium ore. They are very, very recyclable.

Re:regulatory delays

[AmiMoJo]

From TFS: "With cheap natural gas in 2013, Duke Energy Florida became nervous that it might not recuperate costs spent on the nuclear plant"

Cheap gas, the expectation that renewables and batteries will keep getting cheaper... It doesn't make economic sense to build, operate and decomission a nuclear plant now.

Setback for clean energy

[Tailhook]

75% of Duke's generation mix is coal or natural gas. So, rather than offset any of that base load with a 2.2 GW nuclear facility, they'll supplement demand growth and cover peaks with solar and keep burning the coal and gas. It's cheaper and they get to wave the green flag etc.

Re:Setback for clean energy

[El Cubano]

So, rather than offset any of that base load with a 2.2 GW nuclear facility, they'll supplement demand growth and cover peaks with solar and keep burning the coal and gas. It's cheaper and they get to wave the green flag etc.

The saying for this is "perfect is the enemy of good enough."

Is nuclear perfect? No. But then, neither is solar, wind, or any other technology? Is nuclear better than coal/natural gas? You bet. So then, why do people cheer when a nuclear project gets killed? Because they ignore the very thing that you pointed out. They look at it in absolute terms instead of "fossil fuel < nuclear < wind/solar/etc."

Sort of like getting a cancer diagnosis and being told that while it might take some time to completely eradicate it because the treatment is new and not yet widely available, they can do something to slow its growth for now. You can be all principled and turn down the interim treatment while you wait for the perfect treatment. In the meantime you die waiting for the perfect treatment instead of opting to do something now that will buy time.

Re:Setback for clean energy

[Ichijo]

But how much baseload is truly necessary? In other words, how much electrical demand is perfectly inelastic?

Re:Setback for clean energy

[dunkelfalke]

That is why France (where 75% of the electrical capacity is generated by nuclear power) is a model of corporate welfare

Yep, it actually is. Their electric utility company (EDF) is state-owned and state-subsidised.

and is a poster child for cost ineffective electrical power generation

Their nuclear power plants are not completely paid for yet and right now no money is provisioned for decomission.
The 75% electrical capacity is also quite misleading, because French nuclear power plants also only have a 75% availability - which is pretty low by worldwide standards - so their part in the fuel mix is lower.
France also has barely any reserves, so if their nuclear power plants have to be shut down due to heat, they have to buy a lot of power from their neighbours and when it is very cold, they also need to import a lot of power.
So yes, inefficient and not cost-effective without massive subsidies.

has more nuclear waste than they know what to do with

France has no idea what to do with long term waste storage since they only have a temporary storage facility (Centre de stockage de l'Aube) that is good for 60 years. There are no plans beyond that.

Oh wait, it is none of those things.

It is all of those things. But it also makes France quite independent from foreign energy sources, which was the whole point of the Messmer plan.

Re:Seems a good site

[CrimsonAvenger]

Until a hurricane rolls over it and sends the solar panels out to sea in many small chunks, maybe....

In this thread /. experts will...

[locater16]

In this thread /. "nuclear experts" will decry just how costly all this solar stuff is and how great and awesome and cheap nuclear power is.

All that on a story about how a multi billion dollar energy company couldn't get a nuclear power plant off the ground even after $800 million dollars. I'm sure all Duke needed to do was consult such expert /. in order to save their project.

Re:In this thread /. experts will...

[Solandri]

I wouldn't, except the renewables proponents keep making fundamental engineering errors which indicate they're clueless about power generation and are unqualified to be making decisions concerning it.

• 700 MW of nameplate solar capacity multiplied by Levy County's solar capacity factor of 0.161 yields an average annual production of just 112.7 MW.
• By comparison, the scrapped nuclear plant's 2.2 GW multiplied by nuclear's capacity factor of 0.9 yields an average annual production of 1980 MW.

So this 700 MW of solar power represents just 5.7% the capacity of the scrapped nuclear plant. Guess where the other 94.3% of energy production is going to come from (hint: its initials are FF)?

To replace the nuclear plant entirely with solar, they'd have to build (1980 MW / 0.161) = 12,300 MW of panels. That's more than 8x larger than the largest existing solar plant in the world, more than 20x larger than the largest existing solar plant in the U.S. At the optimistic cost of $1/Watt, those solar panels (never mind the supporting infrastructure) would cost $12.3 billion. The nuclear plant was only going to cost $7.65 billion. They killed it because of regulatory delays.

Not really

[WindBourne]

Fukishama was a result of 2 things; a management that cut corners by doing the least possible, AND a major slowdown in building new reactors that are much safer.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Fukishama was a result of 2 things; a management that cut corners by doing the least possible, AND a major slowdown in building new reactors that are much safer.

• Chernobyl was the result of Russians not knowing how to do technology.
• Three mile island was the result of being in the past
• Windscale was the result of new technology.
• Fukashima was a result of the Japanese (who we'd previously been saying were great) not doing safety right

The excuses keep coming. Where there are humans involved there will be short cuts. Where there are short cuts there will be accidents. Your travelling wave reactor may be perfectly safe in theory, however when someone cuts out the safety features I it will go wrong in real life.

Re:Not really

[Chas]

Sorry. But bullshit.

There ARE ways to design reactors that are safe by default. Power cuts out, the reactor shuts down and dumps fuel into a dump tank. And it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to cut out the safety feature.
Also, since the reactor design isn't being cooled by high pressure boiling water, no steam explosions.

Chernobyl was the result of unauthorized modifications to the an aged reactor's operations that weren't communicated to the next shift.

TMI is an obsolete reactor that had several flaws in the cooling system.

Windscale was a military reactor and the operators misinterpreted what was going on in the core.

And Fukushima wasn't not "not doing safety right". It was a case of engineering cost-shaving. They basically saved a few thousand dollars in concrete and rebar and flushed a multi-billion dollar reactor facility.

In all of these, there were human fuckups. Sure.

But we HAVE learned from all of them.

Chernobyl, TMI and Windscale simply CANNOT HAPPEN today.

And Fukushima style cost-cutting for nuclear power won't ever happen again.

As of April, there are roughly 450 operational nuclear plants in the world. And there are scores more decommissioned plants.
All operating without incident. All of the decommissioned ones from first fire to closure without an accident.

But NOOOOO!

You have a whopping FOUR isolated incidents! So nuclear power is evil/bad/scary/dangerous/unholy/Republican!

Gimme a break.

Re:Not really

[Rei]

Right. Because a sea wall totally costs a couple thousand bucks.

Citation needed on the "engineers wanted a higher seawall" claim, too. And more than just one or two random people - show that there was any sort of serious belief among the engineering team responsible for the plant that the seawall wasn't high enough.

Re:Not really

[Chas]

"Run away effect".

*sigh*

You've been watching too much Jane Fonda again.

What you're talking about is actually "failure of cooling systems".

This is a problem only for boiling water reactors. This is why BWRs are such huge, hyper-redundant, Rube-Goldbergian facilities. Because the actual reactors themselves are relatively small. The bulk of the physical plant is to accommodate the cooling systems.

If it were REALLY as much of a problem as you seem to think, we'd have it more often. But we have exactly 4 single-reactor failures of of hundreds and hundreds of reactor facilities.

Chernobyl was the Russians fucking around with an old, badly maintained reactor.
TMI was a design flaw in the cooling system.
Windscale was a military reactor that wasn't really designed for power production and operators who were mistaken about what was actually going on in the core.
Fukushima was engineering cost cutting compromising safety systems.

We KNOW "don't fuck with the reactor".
TMI simply can't happen anymore.
Windscale simply can't happen anymore.
Fukushima won't ever happen again. Because the next executive who tries to save a couple thousand in concrete and rebar for something like this would be reported and immediately ousted (then probably lynched).

Re:Not really

[Chas]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fukushima...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A number of nuclear reactor safety system lessons emerged from the incident. The most obvious was that in tsunami-prone areas, a power station's sea wall must be adequately tall and robust.[6] At the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, closer to the epicenter of 11 March earthquake and tsunami,[289] the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the tsunami, preventing serious damage and radioactivity releases.

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

The report noted that Tepco had not made any safety improvements to the Fukushima Daiichi plant since 2002, and had dismissed the possibility of it being hit by a massive tsunami, even though it could not produce supporting data.

It had, for example, insisted that Fukushima Daiichi's 5.7m seawall was high enough to withstand a tsunami generated by a large quake in the area, despite a warning in 2008 by its own engineers that much bigger waves were possible.

Re:Not really

[amorsen]

If we learned so much about handling stuff that needs constant cooling, why did that chemical factory explode in Houston?

I constantly read two things from nuclear proponents:

1) The nuclear industry is vastly ahead of other industries in safety thinking
2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements

Now, personally the nuclear power accidents don't bother me so much. If you add up the cost of having a Fukushima once a decade and spread it out over the total electricity produced, it will only add a few cents per kWh. Nuclear power could be required to pay into a huge global fund to cover that kind of thing. There are a bunch of practical problems with that, but in theory it's viable -- nuclear accidents have killed very few people, so we are mostly dealing with economic costs and distress.

But please don't pretend that there will never be accidents again. Of course there will. Especially if we e.g. decide that global warming is so much of a problem that it's worth trying to fix it by reducing the cost of nuclear regulation.

Re:Not really

[drinkypoo]

Fukushima won't ever happen again.

When the next Fukushima happens because reactors are practically all sited where they can be flooded, and because there's plenty of the same kind of reactor out there, will you finally STFU about nuclear power?

Re:Not really

[Rei]

Not exactly; the Guardian is messing up the sourcing a bit. First we have "a warning in 2008 by its own engineers". When you follow the link, it's simply "an internal report" - the source cited to Kyodo. Kyodo however says the report wasn't from Tepco - it was from a Tepco subsidiary (and thus Tepco's engineers weren't involved in drafting it - they would have, however, been involved in evaluating it).

It's also worth noting that the report talked about stopping waves 10,2m high coming in from the south side by reinforcing the south side sea wall. What actually happened was waves 14-15 meters high came in from the east side. So even if they had followed up on the report's suggestion, it would have done nothing to prevent the disaster.

Lastly: your notion that building a sea wall to stop 15 meter waves costs "a couple thousand bucks" is remains absurd.

Re:Not really

[Ol Olsoc]

Fukishama was a result of 2 things; a management that cut corners by doing the least possible, AND a major slowdown in building new reactors that are much safer.

There were many factors involved in the Fukushima problem. The first was location.

Its kind of funny though, Are you saying that the Designers of Fukushima knew their reactor design was unsafe? You don't have to answer, because that's a trap.

We can postulate all day about how this won't ever happen again because modern reactors are safe. But people tend to remember that they were told how safe those old reactors were. So when we tell them how safe the new ones are, you'll have to forgive them if they are a little skeptical.

Re:Not really

[drinkypoo]

It is because of ppl like you that we burn so much coal.

Trying to shame me with a false dichotomy isn't going to make your bullshit any more accurate.

Cost per KW

[ArhcAngel]

When this plant was proposed in 2006 nuclear was the most cost effective energy out there. Fracking drove the cost of natural gas into the basement and has remained there ever since. So nuclear is no longer the best bag for your buck in the energy industry and it comes with the NIMBY stigma associated with radiation. Duke probably ran the numbers and decided it was cheaper to take the hit and pay a fine rather than complete the project and be straddled with it for years to come.

Re:Cost per KW

[drinkypoo]

When this plant was proposed in 2006 nuclear was the most cost effective energy out there.

Only if you ignore decommissioning and waste management, which you don't get to do unless you're one of the assholes actually building the plant.

Re:Cost per KW

[Anonymous Coward]

When this plant was proposed in 2006 nuclear was the most cost effective energy out there.

Only if you ignore decommissioning and waste management, which you don't get to do unless you're one of the assholes actually building the plant.

Or, you know, if Luddite chicken-littles would stop blocking the building of breeder-type reactors that reuse their own fuel until what's left is much easier & safer to handle and dispose of. There doesn't have to be highly-radioactive waste to dispose of to begin with.

Congratulations and thanks to your kind of pseudo-environmental ideological/political pop-science idiocy, we get all the worst of the negative consequences of both nuclear and wind/solar without the full benefits of either.

Re:Cost per KW

[hey!]

First, the main concern with early fast breeder reactor designs was proliferation. Engineering can reduce the convenience of proliferation, but it won't ever eliminate it because generating Pu-239 is inherent to the process. That's not a luddite concern; it's real.

Second, fast breeders at least don't appear to be as economical as originally hoped. The assumption when the tech was proposed was that uranium supply wouldn't keep up with demand, but in fact uranium turns out to be reasonably plentiful. Even under a scenario of greatly increased nuclear adoption it would be many decades before we'd need to turn to breeders. On the cost side, the breeder reactors that have been built have proven to be much less reliable and more expensive to operate than hoped. Of course engineering advances could make breeders cheaper to build and run, but you could say that of conventional nuclear plants too.

Finally, breeders still have radioactive waste problems; different, and likely more tractable ones, but from an economic standpoint that's meaningless because we allow companies to build conventional plants as if the future waste problem will solve itself. The need to solve the problems from a plant you break ground on today is so far in the future it has no financial reality. So I suspect to get breeder technology off the ground, you'd ironically have to crack down on nuclear power in general.

It takes a lot more for a technology to be economically feasible than for it to be physically possible. A lot depends on the cost of the alternatives. As long as fossil fuel companies are allowed to externalize their costs on the scale that they do, and conventional nuclear power is allowed to ignore the future costs their plants will incur, advances in novel nuclear technologies are bound to occur at a snail's pace.

You can imagine a future society running on thorium fuel cycle nuclear plants, it isn't hard to do, and that future can look reasonably good. But imagining something being done is a lot different than knowing how to get it done. You've got to convince people to spend money on stuff that costs more in the short- to mid-term.

Re:6 billion?

[RhettLivingston]

??? The plant in question was estimated to cost around $20 billion not counting finance and other unspecified costs (probably operational maintenance, fuel and disposal which can't be cheap) and was planned to produce 2200 MW, just a bit more than 3x 700 MW. So in what world does $6 billion equal $20 billion? If it's this one then please show me where I can go to trade up.

Re:6 billion?

[dabadab]

and was planned to produce 2200 MW, just a bit more than 3x 700 MW

Do not make the error of comparing nameplate capacities ignoring capacity factors (i.e. how much of the nominal power is actually produced). Capacity factor for nuclear tend to be around 90%, for solar it's location-dependent but in California it may go as high as 25%.
If you take that into consideration then the difference between 2200 MV nuclear and 700 MW solar is almost ten-fold.

Re: How did they kill it?

[bestweasel]

With a spreadsheet in the boardroom.

Re:Seems a good site

[RhettLivingston]

You would think. But...

We would likely have a solar adoption rate higher than all but a few other states if it wasn't for whacked laws put in place to defend the utilities. A homeowner here can't sell energy back to the utility. Only those who can produce 24 hours a day on-demand can do so. Because of this, our solar penetration is lower than many northeastern states.

Until we either get a change in the law or the cost of battery storage drops enough to make solar + battery much less than utility provided electric, Florida will lag the developed world in solar (and some of the third world).

Re:Inigo says...

[whoever57]

While the use of now is technically correct, it is misleading.

The phrasing implies that the costs have only recently become sunk(as a result of the decision to abandon the plant), whereas they have been sunk for a long time.

Re:6 billion?

[rahvin112]

Unless of course the solar has an energy storage system then combined capacity rates are near 60-70% and present a power prices that's 1/3rd nuclear's cost.

I like nuclear as much as you but the simple fact is it's been priced out of the market and that's not likely to change without massive tax payer subsidies. Solar costs have fallen 99.99% since 1970. You can now purchase solar panels at a price that's orders of magnitudes smaller than other sources and the only reason it's not taken over completely is the storage issue. Once the storage problem is solved Wind and Solar will be the only two power sources as wind will be cheaper than dirt cheap gas without subsidy by 2020 at current price trends. Solar is following the same track but is a little bit more expensive upfront but has lower maintenance costs long term.

Re:Seems a good site

[Narcocide]

I like how you try to make it sound saner to have stuck with the original plan to build another nuclear power plant in the middle of hurricane territory instead.

Re:Solar environmentally friendly, hah

[rahvin112]

You can't imagine how much wildlife has been displaced by the solar panels on my roof. Christ I haven't seen a single deer walking around on my roof!! I tell you it's a travesty of wasted wildlife access.

Re:Seems a good site

[jader3rd]

A homeowner here can't sell energy back to the utility.

Given that the utility doesn't want their power grid being messed up by random feedback from consumer panels, is it really a bad thing for them to not be paying for something that they don't want?

Re: Seems a good site

[whoever57]

It's no way to finance a grid when the lights have to stay on at night.

Yeah, it's not like the peak demand is close the same time that solar panels produce peak output. Oh, wait, it is.

Most of the USA experiences peak demand mid-afternoon, when A/C units are cranking away.

Regulatory delays

[MrKaos]

Here we see the effect of dismantling the Public Utility Companies Holding Act (PUCHA deregulation) in action. This 'New Deal' act to prevent a re-occurrence of the 1929 depression by Utility companies scamming taxpayers.

Duke received subsidies and tax incentives under provisions to build a nuclear reactor (that's the $2.50 per MWh they charged) and will now be able to activate cost recovery under "SEC. 638. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS" of the 2005 US energy policy act to the tune of half a billion dollars for these two 'proposed' nuclear reactors. Not a bad return on sunk costs of $65 million. Specifically SEC. 638, (d)(2)(A,B).

To those that cite NIMBYs, NIMBYs didn't make Westinghouse Nuclear go bankrupt and Duke is blaming the NRC for delays issuing the Combined License for the construction and operation of Levy, this is SEC. 638, (c)(1)(A). It would be interesting to know what Duke claims those delays were and US tax and ratepayers should be concerned that this isn't actually covered by SEC. 638, (c)(2)(C), i.e a normal business risk because Westinghouse can't build them a pair of AP1000s anymore and even if they could they can't pass the NRC regulations that make them safe in a hurricane.

Of interest is a 2011 Tampa Bay Times article which aired complaints that Duke have been scamming their customers $2.50 per Mwh since they proposed Levy probably under SEC. 638, (d)(4)(B). This clumsy episode shows exactly how the scam works. It's difficult to believe there was an intention to build a nuclear power plant and that the entire nuclear renaissance was a way for oil and coal companies to use the nuclear industry to plunder the taxpayer.

Re:Seems a good site

[MrKaos]

Until a hurricane rolls over it and sends the solar panels out to sea in many small chunks, maybe....

The irony that this is the reason that Duke cites Levy being cancelled. Westinghouse couldn't make an AP1000 that can pass NRC hurricane regulations, here is a transcript of the radio program.

Re: Seems a good site

[prefec2]

Well they could relocate in 50 years. A thing you cannot do with a nuclear plant.

Re: 6 billion?

[gravewax]

Only if it's a PV based solar farm. Thermal solar plants continue to produce power when the sun goes down.

No they do not. Molten salt is just a big battery. They can only produce what has been put into them (minus a little which is lost in the process). This doesn't change the maths behind the solar generation capacity of a plant in any way, it does however provide storage if you can generate enough so that you don't suffer as badly from the intermittent nature of Solar.

Re: Only true for residential/commercial electrici

[hankwang]

It's the other way around: nuclear/coal power plants need base-load customers, not the other way around, because those power plants are cheap per kWh delivered, but cannot adapt to demand.

Power sources should really be categorized in one of three classes: 1. Flexible on-demand (natural gas, hydro, battery storage); 2. Base load (nuclear, coal); 3. Uncontrolled generation power (wind, solar).

If you add #3 to the net, you should add #1 to balance. Or do cross-continental balancing of #3 to make it behave like #2, but it requires expensive investments in long-distance transmission capacity.

Re:Seems a good site

[Firethorn]

It works out fine until over a third of homes have panels. This is because power usage is also higher during the day.

Re:Seems a good site

[Chas]

Or you could do what's been done for decades.

Design the facility appropriately for the expected natural disaster du jour.
Implement a system to shut the reactor down before the storm comes ashore.
Then simply shield the fuel and go home.

Thus, by the time it hits, even if it damages the facility SEVERLY, it won't be any more dangerous hitting any other storm-hardened structure.

Re:6 billion?

[Rei]

Oh, and the average PV capacity factor in the US is 27,2%. A 700MW PV plant at average capacity factor is equivalent to 206MW of nuclear. So yes, there is a 10x difference in total generation; however, it more closely follows the demand curve, meaning that you can wholesale the power for significantly more per MWh, and the price you get for your power is the figure that really matters, not the total generation. Nuclear plants spend half their time generating dirt-cheap nighttime power.

Also it's worth noting that Duke's pricing on this solar plant is abnormally expensive; new plants in the desert southwest are coming in as low as $1,50/W (half as much). Florida's insolation is worse, but I'm not sure that fully explains the difference.

Re: Seems a good site

[dunkelfalke]

Have you actually tried to read what you have posted?
"A prototype was scheduled for manufacture in 2015. However its development seems to have ended."

That's the problem with you atomic fanbois - you don't know much about the topic you wank on.
The Soviets have built a couple of these (TES-3 mobile nuclear power plant), but even they have recognised that the idea is not as great as it appears to be.

Re:Seems a good site

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And by "messed up", you mean "being provided energy near the places of consumption, avoiding load on the transmission infrastructure"? I doubt that utilities don't want that.

REPLACED BY NATURAL GAS

[Mike Greaves]

Solar? Battery "storage"? Can we do the math on this one?

The cancelled reactors would have produced an average of 47.5 GWh per day @ 90% cap factor.

If the 700 MW of added solar uses modest DC overbuild, it will achieve something like a 25% cap factor, as a seasonal average.
That's 4.2 GWh per day, replacing just 9% of the foregone nuclear gen.

Most grid battery "storage" systems run for less than a couple of hours @ rated power (50 MW in this case) per day; many only have 10 minutes of rated runtime, just enough to allow paralleled quick-dispatch gas turbines (burning natural gas) time to spin-up.
So that's less than 0.1 GWh per day. The reactors would do nearly 500x times that.

Duke is planning to replace up to 90% of the nuclear with NATURAL GAS, mostly burned in high-efficiency combined-cycle turbines plus some in quick-dispatch simple-cycle turbines. The rest of the story is window-dressing.

I hope the "environmentalists" don't mind the GHG impact of this decision.

Re:6 billion?

[Rei]

That is not a "paper"; it's not peer-reviewed, and is simply something created by a conservative think tank (Institute for Energy Research) and put on their website. The previous job of the guy who founded and runs it was as a policy analyst for Enron.