Lessons from Fukushima may keep two thirds of Japan's nuclear plants closed. http://www.reuters.com/article... It could most nuclear power is a bad risk and should be written off.
Good point. A lot of documentary costs too on that one. Another aspect is that there is more to throw at something like this now than in the past. China has been building its Navy and has more capabilities than it used to.
You can make some more informed guesses about the plan by looking at the succession of ranging from the Inmarsat satellite here: http://www.duncansteel.com/arc...
RCP2.6 can't be accomplished with nuclear power: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... The question, which you have misunderstood, was about subsidies. Coal is heavily subsidized in terms health costs of sulfur, mercury and particulate pollution. Natural gas is not. Is there a carbon subsidy? In the sense that we are suffering dangerous climate change now, there is. We are making extra payouts for crop insurance and flood insurance for example. But, when it comes to disposal, there is no need since cutting emissions also cuts the concentration below the dangerous threshold. So, there is no disposal subsidy.
Correct. But if the model for decommissioning nuclear power plants assumes they won't run away, the model has to change and decommissioning costs need to be settled before all the plants close as unprofitable.
Actually, we've only just started with dangerous climate change, and simply cutting emissions takes us back down to a safe climate without any disposal effort, so your supposition that there is an existing subsidy is incorrect. For future emissions above the 270 Gt of carbon included in the IPCC's RCP2.6 one might suppose a hidden subsidy, but not until then. We still have a choice not to make too much carbon dioxide waste. That choice is past with nuclear waste, we've already made too much not to have a need to dispose of it. If fact we are backed up and should probably stop producing nuclear waste until we've got the problem solved.
I don't think the clean up cost includes the need to cover property loss though it probably reduces that somewhat. The property loss is the larger cost.
Main Yankee cost $500 million and did not have so much contaminated soil as Vermont Yankee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... Entergy's cost analysis may have some basis.
I think learning curve models are the most realistic in this situation because there are still so many new materials to try. It is worth noting too that the EIA model is already well off the real world data which has seen much stronger cost reductions. So, if you like the EIA curve, you have to reset it to today's prices, which probably covers your objection.
Nuclear power plants are shutting down for economic reasons. Analysis (linked above) shows that it is the economics of natural gas and renewables that is doing this. So far, wind has played a big role, forcing zero pricing at night. A number of Midwestern nuclear plants may close this year. http://articles.chicagotribune... Obviously, if low cost gas can backstop supply of even cheaper wind, the concept of baseline power is useless. And it only made sense if nuclear could be the lowest cost supplier, which it can't. No cost savings from being inflexible and brittle save nuclear if everything else is cheaper.
Actually not. The RPC2.6 scenario used by the IPCC has an additional 270 GT of carbon emissions without much environmental damage. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere falls somewhat naturally, no need to pay for disposal. Above a threshold we have not yet crossed, a disposal effort would be needed, but we are not there yet and won't get there if we start cutting emissions globally. If we don't, China will have to bear the cost of disposal. And, that is easily arranged through the environmental clause in the GATT.
Price Anderson say one thing, debt obligation says another. Which way it breaks is not that important to the fact that it would break. With Indian Point, a big chunk of economic activity would be gone too so an economic depression might further wreck things. For an Vermont Yankee accident, since less is at risk, Price Anderson might come through for you.
Energy payback times are about 5% of the system lifetimes for solar. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/... That comes to an energy returned on energy invested of about 20, not counting the effect of recycling which can bring that up over 80 over a century or so. Nothing, aside from early shallow oil deposits, now long since depleted, is as good as solar PV on this score.
You might think that oil gets the biggest subsidy, with all the military hardware we keep in the Mideast, but that stuff is multi-use and optional use (aside from attacks on Israel) while the Price Anderson subsidy for nuclear power could bring down the Federal Government if a large accident occurred at Indian Point. The cost to cover the homeowners insurance nuclear accident exclusions could make it impossible for the US to service its public debt. And clean up costs are estimated to be over $1 trillion. http://archive.lohud.com/artic... No other subsidy puts our entire way of life on the line like that.
It turns out that natural gas and renewable energy are making a lot of nuclear plants uneconomic. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... This situation is bound to accelerate as renewable energy gets even cheaper as projected. (see appendix B) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10o... So, it is time to fully fund decommissioning before that happens over the next seven to twelve years.
Technocracy was a political movement. The idea was that people educated in technical fields could do a better job running things than people who did politics for a living. Schlesinger falls into their ranks mostly by being omnicompetent and dismissive of politicians when they were flaunting ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
cause FOTRAN is hard --Barbie
Not worth upgrading then. Sounds like many power plants are on the edge of economic obsolescence now. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...
Lessons from Fukushima may keep two thirds of Japan's nuclear plants closed. http://www.reuters.com/article... It could most nuclear power is a bad risk and should be written off.
Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant closed because of this situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Good point. A lot of documentary costs too on that one. Another aspect is that there is more to throw at something like this now than in the past. China has been building its Navy and has more capabilities than it used to.
You can make some more informed guesses about the plan by looking at the succession of ranging from the Inmarsat satellite here: http://www.duncansteel.com/arc...
RCP2.6 can't be accomplished with nuclear power: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C... The question, which you have misunderstood, was about subsidies. Coal is heavily subsidized in terms health costs of sulfur, mercury and particulate pollution. Natural gas is not. Is there a carbon subsidy? In the sense that we are suffering dangerous climate change now, there is. We are making extra payouts for crop insurance and flood insurance for example. But, when it comes to disposal, there is no need since cutting emissions also cuts the concentration below the dangerous threshold. So, there is no disposal subsidy.
They'll be doing better than on the Niña, the Pinta and the Santa Maria.
Correct. But if the model for decommissioning nuclear power plants assumes they won't run away, the model has to change and decommissioning costs need to be settled before all the plants close as unprofitable.
Actually, we've only just started with dangerous climate change, and simply cutting emissions takes us back down to a safe climate without any disposal effort, so your supposition that there is an existing subsidy is incorrect. For future emissions above the 270 Gt of carbon included in the IPCC's RCP2.6 one might suppose a hidden subsidy, but not until then. We still have a choice not to make too much carbon dioxide waste. That choice is past with nuclear waste, we've already made too much not to have a need to dispose of it. If fact we are backed up and should probably stop producing nuclear waste until we've got the problem solved.
I don't think the clean up cost includes the need to cover property loss though it probably reduces that somewhat. The property loss is the larger cost.
what energy is.
Main Yankee cost $500 million and did not have so much contaminated soil as Vermont Yankee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... Entergy's cost analysis may have some basis.
I think learning curve models are the most realistic in this situation because there are still so many new materials to try. It is worth noting too that the EIA model is already well off the real world data which has seen much stronger cost reductions. So, if you like the EIA curve, you have to reset it to today's prices, which probably covers your objection.
Nuclear power plants are shutting down for economic reasons. Analysis (linked above) shows that it is the economics of natural gas and renewables that is doing this. So far, wind has played a big role, forcing zero pricing at night. A number of Midwestern nuclear plants may close this year. http://articles.chicagotribune... Obviously, if low cost gas can backstop supply of even cheaper wind, the concept of baseline power is useless. And it only made sense if nuclear could be the lowest cost supplier, which it can't. No cost savings from being inflexible and brittle save nuclear if everything else is cheaper.
RCP not RPC. oops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Actually not. The RPC2.6 scenario used by the IPCC has an additional 270 GT of carbon emissions without much environmental damage. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere falls somewhat naturally, no need to pay for disposal. Above a threshold we have not yet crossed, a disposal effort would be needed, but we are not there yet and won't get there if we start cutting emissions globally. If we don't, China will have to bear the cost of disposal. And, that is easily arranged through the environmental clause in the GATT.
Price Anderson say one thing, debt obligation says another. Which way it breaks is not that important to the fact that it would break. With Indian Point, a big chunk of economic activity would be gone too so an economic depression might further wreck things. For an Vermont Yankee accident, since less is at risk, Price Anderson might come through for you.
The waste still needs to be disposed of. It looks like it is going to cost more, not less, so the industry has been undercharged.
Energy payback times are about 5% of the system lifetimes for solar. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/... That comes to an energy returned on energy invested of about 20, not counting the effect of recycling which can bring that up over 80 over a century or so. Nothing, aside from early shallow oil deposits, now long since depleted, is as good as solar PV on this score.
Vermont Yankee could not outbid Seabrook and HydroQuebec, in fact. Natural gas is playing a role though. http://vtdigger.org/2013/08/28...
You might think that oil gets the biggest subsidy, with all the military hardware we keep in the Mideast, but that stuff is multi-use and optional use (aside from attacks on Israel) while the Price Anderson subsidy for nuclear power could bring down the Federal Government if a large accident occurred at Indian Point. The cost to cover the homeowners insurance nuclear accident exclusions could make it impossible for the US to service its public debt. And clean up costs are estimated to be over $1 trillion. http://archive.lohud.com/artic... No other subsidy puts our entire way of life on the line like that.
It turns out that natural gas and renewable energy are making a lot of nuclear plants uneconomic. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... This situation is bound to accelerate as renewable energy gets even cheaper as projected. (see appendix B) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10o... So, it is time to fully fund decommissioning before that happens over the next seven to twelve years.
This is permission to close down, part of a deal on economic development funds. http://www.masslive.com/news/i...
Technocracy was a political movement. The idea was that people educated in technical fields could do a better job running things than people who did politics for a living. Schlesinger falls into their ranks mostly by being omnicompetent and dismissive of politicians when they were flaunting ignorance.