by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
The dirty rules behind clean energy events: How UNEP quietly hurts nuclear and protects fossil fuels [link] …
The dirty part of green energy [link]
The price of LEDs is falling so fast it’s profitable to farm in a New Jersey nightclub [link]
Farming pollution worsens while fuel emissions slow [link]
The big flaw in how Congress is treating biomass emissions: [link] …
The U.S. is powering up its first new nuclear reactor in decades [link]
5 More U.S. Nukes to Close, Will #DiabloCanyon Be Next? [link] …
#Singapore and the #Climate Dilemma: There’s No Way to Go it Alone [link]
UK’s Wind Power Nightmare Hits High Farce: Wind Industry Now Says ‘Britain Not Windy Enough’ [link]
The United States is Littered With More than 14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines [link]
Alex Epstein: First The Government Went After ExxonMobil — Now They’re Going After Me [link]
Inside the Energy Crisis Rocking #Venezuela: [link]
“Europe’s Ethanol Regs Are INCREASING Global Warming” [link] …
India’s U-turn on the Paris Climate Change Agreement [link]
EPA’s PM2.5 co-benefits PR trick exposed [link] …
The ratification of the Paris Agreement may take longer than many people think
[link] …
When #fossilfuels subsidy cuts undermine #women: [link] …
Cap and Trade Calamity in California [link]
Coal isn’t good for humanity, but renewables aren’t the only answer to energy poverty [link] …
Current #INDCs don’t deliver a turnaround but only a slowdown of global emissions increase [link] …
Heritage Org’s comprehensive argument that US should withdraw from the UNFCCC] [link]
Can we learn to live with flooding? [link]
Who wants wind turbines? [link]
Death in Tasmania: Australia Cloud Seeding Green Hydropower Disaster [link]
What should Jordan’s irrigation agency do to keep supplying water? [link]
Ontario is fighting climate change the wrong way [link]
Sweden could build as many as 10 nuclear reactors in the coming years [link] …
After 10,000 inquiries Georgia Power has signed 5 rooftop customers [link]
Do demand charges make sense for residential customers [link]
Pingback: Week in review – energy and policy edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement
the UNEP is a failed idea.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991
That may be the final conclusion to the Climategate emails that surfaced in late November 2009.
thx for this link
The UN’s lock-step control of sciences has isolated humanity from reality:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_Earth_Climate.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CONCLUSIONS.pdf
Looks like the UNEP is more properly thought of as the United Nations Eurocommie Program with the ‘program’ being to undermine free enterprise capitalism in America. They gave a Nobel to their last pick for president.
Yes, Wagathon. Our own US National Academy of Sciences betrayed the trust of the American public, directing federal research funds to support a false AGW scare in exchange for control of review of federal research agency budgets.
The US National Academy of Sciences is in fact a private, self-promoting group of descendents of a once-respected group of scholars that President Lincoln asked to advise our government on technical and scientific matters.
Chaamjamal Thank you for your comment & Link. I agree, and am coming to believe that the entire UN, (and especially IPCC and UNEP) is a failed Institution. In this current political environment, challenging institutions is more acceptable. How difficult would it be for The United States of America to withdraw from the UN (legally, economically & politically)?
Politically, impossible. Too many liberals.
Obviously, golden Eagles are not in Left’s 47% voting block. Trees don’t vote either or they’d be big supporters of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Expect a flood of anti-nuke comments.
There aren’t any sane or rational anti-nukers that are well-informed.
So don’t expect sane, rational, well-informed anti-nuke comments.
The saddest thing about the article gleefully predicting the death of nuclear in CA is the hypocrisy of the greens there. They trumpet their victories in closing down generating facilities they don’t favor in CA while quietly buying power from dirty fossil plants in Mexico. Does anyone seriously believe that intermittent renewable power backed up by foreign fossil is more reliable than US-generated base load power?
From the EcoWatch link: “the hearing could help make the Golden State totally nuke free, ending the catastrophic radioactive and global warming impacts caused by these failing plants.” They are extremely well-informed.
The indoor farming article is so disingenuous as to be almost funny.
“Let them eat arugula!”
10,000 inquiries with only 5 rooftop installation in Georgia shows how shallow expressed support for renewables can be. People support in theory at high levels, in practice – not so much.
The renewable energy advocates’ projections of the proportion of the world’s energy that can be supplied by renewables are fanciful. Their projections are ridiculously optimistic and have continued to be just as ridiculous for 40 years. Their beliefs are less ground in reality than even the CAGW alarmists’ projections.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClAGLcyWYAAXbZr.jpg
The following chart shows one reason why renewables cannot supply a large proportion of global electricity, let alone of total global primary energy.
https://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/morganesfig1.jpg?w=444
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
Their beliefs are less ground in reality than even the CAGW alarmists’ projections.
I’m not sure this can be defended. The CAGW alarmists are pretty crazy.
The IPCC actually has an RCP that shows a post 2100 CO2 level of 2000 and a 940 CO2 level by 2100. That’s just nuts.
I just did the math and only 27.5% of the post 1998 incremental increase is staying in the atmosphere. The pre-1998 emissions were being about 57% retained. If you subtract the 57% effective 1998 emissions from current emissions the remaining “new” emissions aren’t doing much
So basically there is no way to drive the CO2 level up much. 460 PPM looks like the high point.
2017 may be the start of some ugly years for global warmers.
The info’s out there in spades. Intermittency, inefficiency,
not ter mention land-scape wastage, also in spades!
Energy and dollars in don’t equal energy and productivity
out. Those Greens or other politically agendered hafta’
know it but choose ter look away. They’re buffered!
But Beth, once your capacity is installed, wind and sun are FREE! Free Forever! The Greens understand this. They know it.
Ken W,
Dead wrong! How ignorant can the gullible renewables believers be. Don
‘t you realise y6ou have to replace than every 15-25 years … and on a LCA basis that requires some 10 times more material than nuclear per unit of electricity supplied. As Beth said, physical constraints prevent renewables from supplying a substantial proportion of global energy. That means they can do little to avoid global GHG emissions. Do you understand, or don’t you want to understand?
Hey, Ken, did yer fergit the exclamation mark denoting irony?
Gee Beth, i thought two was enough, i hate to waste em y’know. But JC’s links are soooo anti-wind today, i thought somebody should speak up for the other side. “Fanciful” gets votes Peter. You’re just not feeling the Bern, i guess.
Well, Ken, sometimes less is more and sometimes it isn’t . )
Planning Engineer — Instead of the conclusion you reached, the story raised numerous questions to me. Why does Georgia Power only provide a “buy only” option? Why don’t big Players like Solar City (big on leasing) operate in GA? Why does South Carolina have much higher penetration rates than GA? What’s the difference in net-metering in SC versus feed in tariff in GA?
Certainly an angle worth pursuing. Is Georgia power offering less than they could/should or worse was it a program designed to fail? Or at the other extreme, does a good offer fall far short of actually motivating people to act?
If others offer sustainable workable programs that people step up and commit too, your concerns may be well founded, I’d like to know more about South Carolina? Maybe that makes your case. In doesn’t take much to beat such low numbers, so 10, 100 or maybe 1000 is is not proof of concept. I suspect less people participate in SC than surveys of intent would show. Of course you also have to control for subsidies,
If Georgia Power is charging more than justified and imposing burdens of the homeowners, that should come out and they should be subject to censure, but if it’s proper cost allocation – the problem is reality dos not conform to dreams,
Me -I’ve seen and heard of many programs designed to match what people said they wanted but in reality they did not. I haven’t seen programs tied to real needs people would act on, but they were implanted to fail, maybe you have a differ t experience to share?
Stephen – Between state and federal you get a 55% subsidy in South Carolina. On top of that net-metering is a further subsidy.
First rule of marketing is to make it easy for a customer to buy, but one has to want the customer:
“In that program, CPS Energy customers can purchase individual panels in an off-site solar site, as few as one panel or enough to completely offset their energy needs. Roofless Solar customers will receive credit for the panels’ power production directly on their monthly CPS Energy bills. That program also is available to CPS customers who are renting their homes.
Solar panel costs clearly have gone down to the point that incentive programs make business sense. Widespread, distributed energy generation is on the upswing with the blessings of utility companies. That’s a big, positive change from the ancient centralized power plant model.”
http://www.expressnews.com/business/business_columnists/david_hendricks/article/CPS-Energy-s-solar-rent-a-roof-program-has-big-6490747.php#
Why would a utility offer a service which required them to buy back energy at above market cost and which placed an increasing burden on those customers who don’t make use of it – ie net metering?
Net metering is a political construct designed to subsidize solar.
Stephen Segrest,
Can you explain and justify why the public should be subsidising wind and solar by one and two orders of magnitude higher than nuclear, – especially since renewables can achieve little in terms of supplying a large proportion of global energy, and therefore can make only a negligible to global GHG reductions, whereas nuclear can make huge contribution, as demonstrated by France (average 76% of electricity generated by nuclear over the past 30 years, 1985-2013)?
Would you be so kind as to respond to that question with a rational, objective, impartial response?
US Federal Government subsidies per MWh
Solar = $280
Wind = $35
Hydro = $1.47
Nuclear = $2.10
(Note: The Federal subsidies included here are only part of the total subsidies paid by Federal Government, State Governments, local governments, tax payers, rate payers and consumers).
EIA, 2015, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013 http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
US Federal Government subsidies per MWh
http://i.imgur.com/m72CxQv.png
Mr. Lang — I did respond to you (and Others) on the above subsidy graph that you’ve used numerous times: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/11/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-27/#comment-789939
Like Michael Shellenberger, both of us support Renewables and Nuclear — especially ways to keep older nuclear power plants operating. One thing that’s exasperating in the CPP is giving new nuclear “credit” but old nuclear nothing.
A constructive discussion here at CE would be understanding WHY existing nuclear in the U.S. can not compete against natural gas in open market situations of economic dispatch and capacity auctions.
Can CE Denizens cast some light on this? What exactly are the major issues? If we understood the problems we could then proposes solutions (eg, is it the cost of retrofits?, then why not an ITC and accelerated depreciation on nuclear retrofits).
Segrest,
They are not open markets. They are regulated markets. The laws regulations, incentives, mandates and subsidies are all imposed by laws and regulations. The markets are highly distorted (as a result of irrational beliefs pushed by so called environmentalists ). The OCC of nuclear is some 10 times higher than it would have been if the learning rates that prevailed from 1954 to 1970 had continued to now. That is the reason nuclear is too expensive.
We can’t fix the past, but we can fix the future. But people like you need to get on board advocating for rational policies, not your continual flow of anti-nuke disinformation.
You are being dishonest trying to pretend you and Michael Shellenberger share similar views. You do not. Here’s a chart he showed recently:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClAGLcyWYAAXbZr.jpg
I have never seen you post charts like this or acknowledge two points this chart makes:
1. RE Advocates continually exaggerate and over claim what weather dependent renewables can achieve.
2. Renewables are going nowhere fast. They cannot make much of a contribution to world energy needs.
The obvious lesson you can draw from this is we should stop distorting markets to subsidise, mandate and incentivise renewables. If RE can compete, great. But stop distorting the markets. This is what Michael Shellenberger’s main point he makes frequently. I agree with him. But you keep advocating for renewables and against nuclear, despite the evidence such as the chart comparing the subsidies for the different technologies, which shows subsides for solar a 100x nuclear and for wind are 20 x nuclear.
I’d add, as I’ve said to you before, it will take decades to unwind the impediments that have been imposed on nuclear over the past 50 years. Therefore, during the period, the subsidies to offset the impediments can be justified on a rational basis. But there is no valid justification for subsidies for renewables (other than research funds for R&D for energy technology, but without selection bias or preference for renewables).
You say you responded to me. You did not. You posted a new comment without responding to my comment. You do it frequently, and I can only assume you do it intentionally so you can make false assertions, false allegations and disingenuous comments about me without me seeing them. You do this frequently and it is another example illustrating your intellectual dishonesty. You also repeatedly make the same dishonest, misleading, disingenuous comments, even after I’ve refuted them on numerous occasions. Then you wonder why I call you dishonest and say you do not have the professional integrity expected of an engineer (statements which you repeatedly demonstrate are correct).
Presently, Australia is making life as hard as possible for the massive coal initiative of India’s Adani, far from the ocean in Central Queensland. (Wheel out those tired old reefs again! If you have to travel too far to get a pic of sick corals just use a stock photo of a Caribbean reef.)
Australia knows it relies utterly on coal and knows it will continue to do so. If we had an eye cocked on geopolitics we might conclude that this kind of reliance on a domestic and abundant resource is a good thing.
But we have both eyes cocked on the fashionable neurosis called Environmentalism, which is an anti-conservationist urge and which dictates that our critical coal facilities must fall into decrepitude and actually waste coal, while our coal-based wealth is squandered on green fetishism.
I know I’ve said it all before, but I never like to miss a chance to kick Big Green. It’s so kickable.
From Bloomberg –
“Watch These Synthetic Leaves Suck CO2 Out of the Sky”
With a few million dollars of funding, and a few years research, the scientists probably hope to get a few billion dollars subsidy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a grand scale.
Johnny Appleseed probably did just as well, and people got free apples (food) into the bargain.
We need more CO2, not less. More food, not less. I like more trees, not less. They provide shade, homes for little critters, acorns, almonds, oranges and all sorts of stuff. Even corks for bottles of for Champagne, which is itself made from grapes that grow on miniature tree-like things. And trees often look quite nice.
Trees. Nature’s answer to the synthetic CO2 suckers. And the suckers that fund them. Fat-headed febrile faceless fumblers. Futile fantasy, at best.
Cheers.
Flat earth flynn. For the fail.
Steven Mosher,
Maybe you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? Or are you already doing it?
That might explain the strange groups of words you’re writing. Are they inscrutable Witless Warmist Waffle, or symptomatic of a retreat into the bowels of a dystopian Warmist fantasy?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Is cloud seeding science or sorcery? From my simple understanding you could seed wet air to make clouds, but clouds themselves are already “seeded”. No?
loud seeding concentrates moisture in clouds to the point it will rain. has been done in Alberta for years as a method of reducing hail damage by causing the moisture to form as rain rather than hailstones. this program is supported by the insurance companies to reduce their exposure to hail damage claims from farmers.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1487932/hail-suppression-team-protects-alberta-communities-from-major-damage/
ottawazoe, “… concentrates moisture in clouds …” Yes, but how does that work? Seeding works in a supersaturated solution, but clouds are not supersaturated as far as i can imagine. I’ve read the story and comments at WUWT but they didn’t make me smarter.
insurance companies figure this is a good ROI compared to paying out on hail damage claims, so I think the science is pretty solid. I’m not the guy to explain it but more here:
http://www.weathermodification.com/cloud-seeding.php
and some more explanations here:
http://www.insuranceisevolving.com/files/pdf/cloud-seeding-brochure-final.pdf
Not if Michael Shellenberger can get these points across
POWERING EARTH 2050: Is California’s 100% Renewable Strategy Globally Viable?
The article on why India puts development ahead of goofy climate stuff has some very good analysis. The story of true national poverty that we seldom hear.
http://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjayaraj/2016/06/16/indias-uturn-on-paris-climate-change-agreement-and-why-it-is-right-n2178949
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has a Twitter battle with Naomi Klein over Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewable plan for Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/brad-wall-naomi-klein-leap-manifesto-1.3636762
Klein and her minions think they won. Wall ends it with sarcasm:
Blair King has a devastating rebuttal:
https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/debunking-the-leap-manifestos-100-wind-water-and-sunlight-health-cost-statistics-for-canada/
I liked this comment by Doug mackenzie:
This should have made the list.
“White House initiative targets 1.3 GW of energy storage.”
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/white-house-initiative-targets-13-gw-of-energy-storage/421117/
Interesting factoid:
EIA reported total electricity sales fell 1.1% in 2015, marking the fifth year in a row sales have dropped.
What is the GWh?
For weather dependent renewables to be dispatchable they’d need energy storage equivalent to say 25% annual electricity consumption. And these would have to be replaced when they are no longer reliable and economic. And this does not address the issue that renewables are not sustainable.
Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES).
Pilot project approved by the Bureau of Land Management, ARES project has set the target to build a facility in Nevada, with a capacity of 50 megawatts, and ability to produce 12.5 megawatt hours of electricity by 2019.
Of course, there are some limitations that need to be taken into account, such as the space that is required. To put this in numbers, a rail energy storage system with 50 MW capacity would need an 8-kilometer long track. In addition, the train composition should consist of 32 containers/vehicles, and each should weigh 300 tons. The guys at ARES are humble and they do admit that their system is not as fast as the high-tech expensive batteries. However, the capital costs are much lower, and the cars and rocks to not deteriorate in time.
If you don’t have access to water for pumped storage this could be a alternative.
jacksmith4tx ,
Are you serious? Do you do any reality checks before accepting this sort of nonsense. Try working out the capital cost per kW ($/kW) for a solar system with ARES storage that can provide reliable dispatchable power.
Here, I’ve done it for you: (see my comment son this thread: http://euanmearns.com/is-ares-the-solution-to-the-energy-storage-problem/)
“To get 1 GW constant power we’d need:
Say 20 GW solar PV @ $2/W = $40 billion
20 GW transmission (average length say 200 km) @ $1/GW.km = $4 billion
Say 250 GWh storage capacity (for sustained period of low power) @$4.4 billion/GWh = $1,100 billion
Total cost = $1,144 billion = $1,144/W
c.f. Nuclear = ~$6/W
Total system cost for solar PV + transmission to storage + ARES is about 200 times more than for nuclear (to supply a constant 1 GW power)”
“I very roughly estimated the cost of storage capacity for solar PV generating capacity plus transmission to storage plus 250 GWh of ARES energy storage at $1,144 billion = 4.5/Wh = $4,500/kWh.”
Ignore the last sentence.
Peter Lang,
You seem to always find fault in every renewable energy system. I just posted a link to a government sponsored symposium to discuss ideas as they relate to energy storage and smart grids. Are you afraid of new ideas?
This is my reality today. ONCORE is my electricity provider. My neighborhood has had 4 blackouts so far this year ranging from 15 min. to over 5 hours since Jan.. This has been going on for years. Tell me how to fix this.
Jack – the renewable energy fans are not short of ideas. They are merely short of results.
Seems to me having enough water for that would be no problem.
32 units × 300 tons/unit ~= 10,000 tons = 10,000 m^3.
An upper and lower reservoir, each the same rough size as a football field, and as high as the bottom bleachers, would be all you’d need (3×30×100 meters). And if they’ve got a railroad grade, they’ve got the elevation for the head on the turbine.
At that size, you could cover both reservoirs with rubberized fiber glass canvas, eliminating evaporation, algae, etc.
But note that it’s only good for 15 minutes at full capacity. Might be good for smoothing the switch between CCGT and solar, not any good for daily balancing.
AK,
If you go to the link Peter Lang provided there was a good discussion about the pros and cons. I think this would be a niche application where all the factors lined up perfectly. Little or no local water, all weather steep grade for the rails, surplus electrical energy and low to medium response times. Seems like another variation on the kinetic storage line of thinking. Probably not as dangerous as a 20,000 RPM 4 ton flywheel though.
@jacksmith4tx..
Yeah, I’ve been there before. I don’t buy his “doesn’t need water” advantage, because, as I said, you could do the same thing with reservoirs, just by covering them.
But the issue with pumped hydro is that almost all the negative evaluations are basically straw men. They assume that the water containment will be done with technology that was mature in the 1950’s.
Looking at the satellite picture in that link, I see huge areas that could be set up with small reservoirs made from rubberized (FG) canvas and FG cables. Maybe 3-5 meters high and 100 meters across, each. Little or no foundation work, no worries about leakage, evaporation, or algae.
Most of the piping could be horizontal, thus low-pressure and cheap. In comparison to railroads, you might as well leave the piping on the surface, so not much digging, if any.
Of course, you’d still need a kilometer or so of high-pressure piping. But unlike the railroad scheme, modern advanced pumped storage could be made always-spinning (whether energy is flowing or not), so could provide frequency/phase support 24×7.
http://s24.postimg.org/r8nr0uccl/temp.png
jack,
RE your outage problem.
Is your service overhead or underground?
If overhead, the two most likely causes for an outage is storm damage – i.e. trees, branches, etc falling into lines and in some instances bringing the pole(s) down as well – and car hit poles. A third possible reason is environmentally compromised poles, but those are usually replaced before they fail to the point service is lost. The solution is usually to underground the lines. You can request the service to your house be underground, at your cost. A neighborhood, homeowners association or jurisdiction can make a request for a larger area. Again at the customer’s cost. It then becomes a cost benefit analysis. Is the disruption from the occasional power outage worth the cost of undergrounding.
If you already have underground service, then I’d hazard a guess and say it is due to flooding.
BTW – it is ONCOR, no E.
JackSmith4tx,
And you seem to be incapable of objective, rational analysis. Why don’t you learn to do reality checks before demonstrating your gullibility by falling for what the renewable energy advocates say.
Why didn’t you study the estimate I posted, and if you found a serious flaw in it, explain the error you found and tell us what the result would be once you’ve recalculated it the way you think it should be calculated. Of course you need to justify all the input values you use.
if you can’t do the reality checks before you post, you have nothing to offer and continue to demonstrate you are simply gullible and believe anything those who share your ideological beliefs tell you.
When UNESCO recognized the Palestinian State, US ceased all funding support per US law. Now that UNFCCC has recognized Palestine, Obama is ignoring that law and its well established precedent. Yet another example of executive over reach. Immigration amnesty under guise of prosecutorial discretion, now rejected at federal appeals level In a lawsuit brought by 26 states. CPP under guise of novel statutory construction ( which Tribe’s brief makes clear is unconstitutional) in a lawsuit brought by 28 states. Now this blatant disregard of a clear US law.
Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. Got foreign policy wrong in Iraq, led to ISIS. Drew a red line in the sand on Syria chemical warfare, and did nothing when it got crossed. ACA increasing health care insurance premiums by 25%, anything but affordable. Extralegal policy initiatives.
Recognition of the United Nations’ role in misusing national Academies of Sciences and government-funded science as a tool of UN-propaganda is an important first step in discrediting “97% consensus science.”
Here is another wild one from Bloomberg. Renewables will soon take over! Not likely.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/we-ve-almost-reached-peak-fossil-fuels-for-electricity?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=64ad07d8cf-Weekly_Newsletter_Week_of_6_126_17_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-64ad07d8cf-327531733&mc_cid=64ad07d8cf&mc_eid=03c7393f3d
Alex Epstein is extraordinarily clear and concise in this piece:
First The Government Went After ExxonMobil — Now They’re Going After Me
“Only those with fallacious conclusions are desperate for government to descend on their opponents. The opponents of the heliocentric theory did need to suppress Galileo. And the opponents of fossil fuels, who have staked careers and status on what are now clearly exaggerated assessments of CO2’s warming impact and clearly underestimated assessments of fossil fuels’ life-and-death importance to billions, cannot win on a competitive market of ideas. This is why they are so desperate to claim that “the debate is over,” to indoctrinate young students into climate catastrophism before they can think critically, to deny government research funding to scientists who disagree with them, and to falsely claim a 97% consensus.”
You are right. The AGW debate ended long ago but losers retained the political power.
Our challenge now is to find a safe way to end the stand-off without further damaging society.
‘Wage, wage war against
the lying and the fright.’
h/t kim.
There are no inductive inferences.
Karl Popper.
RE advocates claim that the cost of decomissioning RE plants is included in their estimates and in the cost of electricity they sell. In that case, why is the US littered with 14,000 abandoned wind turbines?
http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/
as for Jordan, the red dead canal should be a no-brainer if there weren’t so many other problems in the region.
http://www.desalination.biz/news/news_story.asp?id=8441
Will this have an immediate effect on crime rates?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bodies-pile-filipino-police-show-boss-theyre-tough-061833699.html
We don’t all need to be rocket scientists, even here.
Behold, witness the Anvil Curve in motion…
What does Global Warming have in common with the flu?
Marketing!
Government creates the need so it can sell you the solution (e.g., AGW Propaganda: Marketing ‘Clean Energy’ by Marketing Bad Weather).
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037
Only 16% of people diagnosed with the ‘flu’ are found to be influenza positive.
Did fossil fuel companies selfishly hide:
1. The 1818 engine capable of attaining 100 miles per gallon ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3644556/Could-cars-soon-100-miles-gallon-Inventor-builds-efficient-engine-using-200-year-old-technology.html
2. Practical application of Einstein’s far more efficient discovery in 1905, E = mc^2 ?
http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/download/272/256
Forget about the “skeptics” moniker: real scientists who eschew global warming alarmism — the REFUSERS — now have an example from medicine that they can look to for comfort:
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/influenza-marketing-vaccine-by-marketing-disease-british-medical-journal/#.V2g46Mv2aUk
Nice critique of the absurdity of using the so-called Social Cost of Carbon to justify light bulb regulation by DOE:
http://www.cato.org/publications/public-comments/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-general.
Radiation and Reason
http://www.theenergycollective.com/roberthargraves/2379178/radiation-and-reason
The following short summary was prepared for The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology for their current Inquiry into “Science in Emergencies”.
Itemized summary
Life is naturally well protected against all but the very highest radiation exposures and evolutionary biology has ensured this so that life may survive.
The low casualty record in all radiological and nuclear accidents confirms the effectiveness of this protection, as do laboratory experiments and the benefits of radiation as used in clinical medicine for over a century.
The commonly held view that radiation is exceptionally dangerous has been sustained by: a) residual memory of Cold War threats; b) unfamiliarity with the broad role of biology; c) a taste for the more exciting stories of accidents offered by the media; d) the guidance offered by a network of international safety committees that prefers caution to scientific evidence.
This guidance has resulted in national regulations that specify that any exposure to radiation should be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), for no scientific reason.
While the radiation released in a radiological or nuclear accident has a small health effect, if any, the emergency procedures taken with international guidance themselves cause suffering, loss of life and severe socio-economic damage, sometimes on a global scale.
Current policy that aims to appease public concern rather than educate people about radiation has caused plans for new nuclear plants to be strangled by unjustifiable regulatory hurdles and escalating costs, resulting in uncompetitive energy prices and increased carbon emissions.
Two conclusions:
Bottom up, on radiation and nuclear energy we need a fresh programme of science-wide public education in schools and in the community as a whole via the media, omitting the ghoulish images used in the past. Local UK-based initiatives should contribute to worldwide re-education, for example through the BBC.
Top down, on radiation safety we need a complete sea change in international guidance. This should be based on scientific understanding and evidence, not the unjustified precaution inherent in the ALARA/LNT philosophy.[3]Initiatives for such a change should be pursued and supported by the UK more formally.[4]
Continue … http://www.theenergycollective.com/roberthargraves/2379178/radiation-and-reason
“The United States is Littered With More than 14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines”
Could someone please smack the side of the player, I think the record is skipping.
Just a reminder of 1 of 15 gazillion stories that could be posted at CE each week on fossil fuels: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/aer-abandoned-wells-1.3640695
More nuclear plant closings:
http://www.omaha.com/money/as-natural-gas-prices-plummeted-oppd-leaders-clung-to-expensive/article_27586910-7a05-5302-b578-3ace292e9e5b.html
http://www.omaha.com/money/oppd-board-votes-to-shut-down-fort-calhoun-nuclear-plant/article_3fe6ce02-3352-11e6-a426-a7596287dd59.html
I will ask CE Denizens again — Why can’t existing nuclear compete with natural gas generation in open market situations of economic dispatch and/or capacity auctions?
Are the core problems fixable or non-fixable (i.e. the heat rate efficiency of new natural gas units)
Segrest,
The core problems are the irrational impediments imposed on nuclear power, which is demonstrably the safest way to generate electricity!
And those impediments are as a result of the anti-nuke protest movement, and the gullible fools who support it (like you).
Get that through your thick skull!
Mr. Lang — For existing nuclear in the U.S. competing in open market situations of economic dispatch and/or capacity auctions, what are the irrational impediments?
Segrest,
You asked:
I answered that question. if you don’t like the answer, you might want to consider why that might be. If you were capable of challenging your beliefs, you’d find the answer.
By the way, my answer to your question also answers your follow up question. Here’s an example of the root cause of the problem:
Daubert and Moran (1985), Origin, Goals, and Tactics of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Protest Movement https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf
Here’s an example of the distortions in the market:
http://i.imgur.com/m72CxQv.png
And for what purpose, other than to keep the irrational Greens happy?
“wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.”
Solar and wind power simply don’t work — not here, not anywhere
KEITH DELACY
THE AUSTRALIAN
JUNE 22, 2016
“One policy which seems to have escaped scrutiny during this election campaign is Labor’s commitment to increase the Renewable Energy Target to 50 per cent by 2030. I am surprised because it is a proposal that has enormous ramifications for economic growth and living standards, and disproportionate impacts on traditional Labor constituencies.
The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.
According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1 per cent and solar 2 per cent of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.
If we talk about total energy, as opposed to just electricity, wind and solar represent 1 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption. This despite billions of dollars of investment, subsidies, creative tariffs, mandates, and so on.
Solar and wind simply don’t work, not here, not anywhere.
The energy supply is not dense enough. The capital cost of consolidating it makes it cost prohibitive. But they are not only much more expensive because of this terminal disadvantage, they are low value intermittent power sources — every kilowatt has to be backed up by conventional power, dreaded fossil fuels. So we have two capital spends for the same output — one for the renewable and one for the conventional back-up. Are you surprised it is so much more expensive, and inefficient, and always will be? So wind and solar, from a large scale electricity point of view, are duds. Now I know that will send the urgers into paroxysms of outrage. But have you ever seen an industry that so believed its own propaganda. Note, when they eulogise the future of renewables they point to targets, or to costly investments, never to the real contribution to supply.
Let’s look overseas where many countries have been destroying their budgets and their economies on this illusion for longer and more comprehensively than we in Australia. The Germans are ruing the day they decided to save the world by converting to solar and wind. Germany has spent $US100bn on solar technology and it represents less than 1 per cent of their electricity supply.
Energy policy has been a disaster. Subsidies are colossal, the energy market is now chaotic, industry is decamping to other jurisdictions, and more than a million homes have had their power cut off.
It is reported electricity prices in Germany, Spain and the UK increased by 78 per cent, 111 per cent and 133 per cent between 2005 and 2014 as they forced additional renewable capacity into their electricity markets. Sunny Spain used to be the poster boy for renewables in Europe — photovoltaic cells and wind turbines stretching on forever. Now they are broke, winding back subsidies, even the feed-in tariffs which were guaranteed for 20 years. But wait, what about the green energy jobs that everybody gushes about? Spain has an unemployment rate of 21 per cent with a youth rate of 45.5 per cent.
Britain is little better. Subsidies are being wound back, and a Department of Energy report points out that in 2013, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated at 2.35 million representing around 10.4 per cent of all households.
It is no better in the US either. States with renewable energy mandates are backtracking faster than Sally Pearson can clear hurdles. Ohio has halved its mandate level (it was 25 per cent by 2025) because of high costs. West Virginia has repealed its mandate because of high costs, and New Mexico has frozen its mandates. Kansas was repealing its mandate which reportedly would save ratepayers $171m, representing $4367 for each household, and so the dismal story goes on. The US Department of Energy has found electricity prices have risen in states with mandates twice as fast as those with no mandate. As of 2013 California was the only state to adopt a feed-in tariff for solar power. It was immediately dubbed a failure by the renewable energy community because it offered only 31 cents per kWh, only five times the rate for conventional base load power.
Ah, but Asian countries are jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe. China built one new coalfired power plant every week in 2014, and India’s coal-powered investment in that same year equalled the total electricity capacity of NSW and Queensland. To summarise — with all of the trillions spent worldwide on wind and solar, wind currently represents 1.2 per cent of global consumption of energy, and solar 0.2 per cent.
The good news, it is possible to reduce fossil fuel use in electricity generation — through hydro-electricity and nuclear fuel. Plenty of countries have done it — Canada 60 per cent hydro and 15 per cent nuclear; Sweden 45 per cent hydro and 48 per cent nuclear; Switzerland 54 per cent hydro and 41 per cent nuclear; France 11 per cent hydro and 79 per cent nuclear.
But Australia has zero tolerance of these two workable alternatives to fossil fuels. At least we are consistently inconsistent.
So where does that leave us? On the basis of evidence everywhere we could easily double the price of electricity and get nowhere near the 50 per cent target. What would that mean?
First, it means rapidly disappearing blue collar jobs in high energy industries like manufacturing, car and ship building, smelting and refining, steel making and food processing. There may be still some construction jobs, but they will largely be assembly only, as all of the components will come from those countries more interested in growing the economy and eliminating poverty than stoking the warm inner glow. Make no bones about it, a clean green economy has no place for high-vis shirts.
Second, rapidly rising electricity prices and the subsequent increase in the cost of living, disproportionately affects those at the bottom of the income scale.
Policies like this are OK for the Greens. They can keep their virtue intact because they never have to deliver. As Gough Whitlam once said, only the impotent are pure.
Mainstream parties don’t have that luxury. They need to look at the true costs, and benefits, of all policy proposals.”
Keith DeLacy is a former Labor treasurer of Queensland.
This is a “decent” article explaining the challenges of old nuclear competing with newer natural gas units in-service: http://www.startribune.com/xcel-energy-faces-more-big-investments-to-keep-its-nuclear-units-running/372610701/
The problems are high and increasing O&M costs on existing nuclear. One approach to address this problem is a new investment tax credit on nuclear retrofits (e.g., steam generator). Why not a 30% ITC like solar has gotten? Would this resolve the O&M economic dispatch problem (in traditional and in de-regulated markets)?
The other main problem is with de-regulated markets (versus a traditional TDG electric utility) capacity auctions. Here, why not push giving nuclear some type of a fuel diversification credit versus natural gas? This type of fuel risk portfolio credit is important especially with the amount of coal units being retired.
Surely Rud, Planning Engineer, and people familiar with existing nuclear operations have some constructive ideas to keep existing nuclear competitive and operating. Or, is CE all about conflict and name calling?
Segrest,
You keep dodging what’s relevant. You ask questions but don’t respond and continually change the subject – “hey, look over there”. All signs of your intellectual dishonesty.
Segrest,
Did you read this an understand the significance of it:
Here’s an example of the root cause of the problem:
Daubert and Moran (1985), Origin, Goals, and Tactics of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Protest Movement https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf
Do you recognise where the world count be now with cheaper energy if not for the anti-nuke protest movement and the gullible fools the swallow the nonsense (like you).
1. Nuclear progress was disrupted in the late 1960s and ongoing since
2. If progress had not been disrupted the world could be a much better place now; e.g.:
a. Cheaper energy
b. Reliable electricity for many more people
c. Higher GDP
d. Higher living standards
e. More people lifted out of poverty
f. More clean water and better sanitation (Gohlke et al. (2011))
g. Better health
h. 4.5-8.9 million deaths avoided (not including the deaths that fcould have been avoided by more people having access to clean water and better sanitation.
i. 74-170 Gt CO2-e emissions avoided
j. And more
That’s the consequences of the irrational anti nuke movement and gullible fools like you.
Mr. Lang — You are just so incorrect on so many things:
(1) You don’t understand engineering economics (especially the integrated grid) very well as Andy Boston was trying to tell you.
(2) You clearly don’t understand U.S. Tax Law — current and past history on Nuclear & Renewables: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/11/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-27/#comment-789939
(3) Your diatribes on U.S. energy market situations of economic dispatch and capacity auctions relating to existing nuclear are just bizarre.
Segrest,
No Segrest. You are projecting. And being dishonest. For example, you repeatedly misreprsent the discussion with Andy Boston, despite me having corrected you on your misrepresentation repeatedly https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/19/is-nuclear-the-cheapest-way-to-decarbonize-electricity/#comment-768130 . You keep ignoring that and keep repeating your misrepresentations, which is another example of your continual intellectual dishonesty.
US Tax law is not world tax law, is your interest, not mine. However, what you clearly don’t recognise is that laws and regulations are responses to public opinion, which are responses to, among other things, the anti-nuke scare mongering and the belief in renewables by gullible people like you. The chart which compares the subsidies for various technologies, you choose not to deal with, provides and example of the massive distortions that are being caused by these very regulations.
https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/m72CxQv.png
Wind has an 12-15 year lifespan with production dropping 30% by year 10.
Nuclear has no such problem.
Yes there is an ITC for new nuclear… But they are enforcing a new aircraft impact rule so it is a net surtax not a benefit.
When we get to passive safe reactors, which should be put under a new AEC and removed from NRC purview, we can ban bureaucrats from twitting with the design every time they get an itch and make the plants cheaper to operate.
China is going to demonstrate that you can get nuclear for the nameplate capacity cost of wind.
That makes the choice a no-brainer (IE if you have to think about it, you have limited intelligence).
PA — what in the world are you talking about with an aircraft impact rule diminishing the tax benefit to Georgia Power/Southern Co. on their tax return for Vogtle 3&4 ?????
And for the upteenth time — I’m not anti nuclear. I strongly support Michael Shellenburger’s effort on existing Nuclear (where Mr. Lang seems to not know what this is even about).
If someone kisses you, then bites you in the ass, the net harm/benefit is determined by how good the kiss is and how hard they bite you.
Mr. Lang — It’s sad that you don’t even try and understand what an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is. It’s usually taken at commercial in-service. Old Nuclear ITCs were taken in the 70’s and 80’s. Old Nuclear had tax credits valued more than current Wind PTCs.
New Nuclear — when Vogtle comes on line it would have (using your methodology) a value of ~$147 MWh.
And you can write all you want, but your bullying actions with Andy Boston where he had to just walk away from your never ending diatribes speaks for itself.
He would be a very valuable on-going resource at CE. But after your treatment, I doubt if he ever returns.
Segrest,
“It’s sad that you don’t even try and understand what” is relevant. You continually avoid responding to what is relevant. You dodge and weave and use the “hey, look over there” digression tactic.
I suggest you go back an engage on the points that are actually relevant for addressing what is important, such as this:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/18/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-28/#comment-791397
And the massive distortions to the markets, such as the chart showing the US Federal subsidies per TWh,
And the fact that renewables can make little contribution to supplying our energy needs, but nuclear can supply a substantial proportion, effectively indefinitely.
And that total system cost of a high proportion of renewables would be prohibitively expensive, but this is not so for nuclear (as demonstrated by France which has supplied 76% of its electricity for the past 30 years).
And a grid with a high proportion of nuclear has demonstratably low emissions (44g/kWh France) but not so for a high proportion of weather dependent renewables (Germany 45 g/kWh).
You don’t have a leg to stand on. But you avoid addressing what is relevant and diver t to irrelevancies.
A credit taken at the start of service would be valued per MW not per MWH.
The aircraft impact standard has had a $2-3 billion impact to this point (and climbing). What is the total value of the ITC in dollars for Vogtle?
PA — I used the methodology that Mr. Lang used in his chart for new nuclear (to have apples to apples). Since my number is a projection, I assumed a capacity factor of 80% for the 1st year generation. Georgia Power (in the linked documents) says the value of 2 subsidies (federal tax credit, DOE loan guarantee) is over $1 billion.
Your somehow linking the nuclear tax credit and the aircraft rule is just plain silly — but you will always come up with something.
Segrest,
What are you talking about? I haven’t a clue what methodology you claim I used. I suspect you don’t know either? You haven’t a clue. But it doesn’t stop you repeatedly misrepresenting, making up strawman and lying.
Engineer? Some engineer?
Mr. Lang uses the above chart (a lot) in emphasizing his magnitude “outrage” argument in subsidies per MWh.
Here at CE, people talk all the time about cherry-picking data in a time series. This is exactly what Mr. Lang (and Others) have done.
I’ll use a following example to show how Mr. Lang is incorrect:
(1) It’s a pretty good assumption that when Vogtle 4 (new nuclear unit) goes in service that the federal solar ITC will have expired (as Congress has written into law a phaseout).
(2) So in the year this happens, I make a chart like Mr. Lang’s showing the ~$150 per MWh subsidy for new nuclear and ~zero for solar. I go on CE shouting how unfair this is.
(3) Somebody who knows their chops, would point out that I’ve cherry picked data and a timeframe — not showing all the previous years that solar got an ITC.
(4) This is what Mr. Lang has done — not recognizing the $billions in ITCs for existing old nuclear taken in the 70’s and 80’s when they were originally placed in service; not recognizing that Congress has provided significant subsidies for new nuclear when they will be place in service.
Segrest,
So youre trying to tell us that the EIA has it wrong on the US Federal subsidies, are you?
If so, perhaps you should tell them about it. And it worth writing a paper and a blog post for CE to explain how EIA could be so wrong.
Your silly comment here shows only that you are a complete folot, so tied up in pushing your ideology you are willing to be repeatedly dishonest, misleading and a disgrace to professional engineering profession (not that I believe for one minute you are actually a Professional Engineer.
Mr. Lang — I never questioned the EIA data. It is the context of how you (and Others) use it that is simply incorrect.
The graph you constantly post (above) did not come from the EIA. The first few times you posted it, it used the term megawhatts which is a cartoon character (very appropriate).
The EIA data shows subsidies and generation by type for 1 year. You (or someone you approve of) created this graph using the one year of EIA data (which I referred to as your methodology).
Your chart simply doesn’t tell a complete story of the past or of the future. Your context is just wrong.
Like Andy Boston, I’m now walking away from this discussion. I know its time when your arguments rely mostly on name calling.
Segrest,
It occurred to me to consider what might be the causes of the main differences between yours and my positions. Here are some that occurred to me (but perhaps I am misunderstanding or (inadvertently) misrepresenting your position:
1. you support Green ideology and Left leaning policies (these are the opposite of economically rational). I support economically rational polices.
2. Your main concern is with what solutions for the electricity grid are best given the existing regulatory environment and current prices (e.g for gas) in the USA. My focus is on the world, not USA – although I believe USA is best placed to lead the world out of the mess that USA (mainly) led the world into on nuclear policies and development.
3. You do not seem to start with a definition of the objectives you want to achieve. I have defined the main objectives for electricity systems on past threads. If you don’t define the objectives. and get agreement on them, it makes it very difficult to carry on a rational discussion.
I define the main, high level policy objectives for electricity systems for all countries as follows:
1 Energy supply requirements
The most important requirements for energy supply are:
1. Energy security – refers to the long term; it is especially relevant for extended periods of economic and trade disputes or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970’s oil crises [1], world wars, Russia cuts off gas supplies to Europe.
2. Reliability of supply – over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks – e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2])
3. Low cost energy – energy is a fundamental input to everything humans have; if we increase the cost of energy we retard the rate of improvement of human well-being.
Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements. Lower priority requirements are:
4. Health and safety
5. Environmentally benign
1.1 Why health and safety and environmental impacts are lower priority requirements than energy security, reliability and cost
This ranking of the criteria is what consumers demonstrate in their choices. They’d prefer to have dirty energy than no energy. It’s that simple. Furthermore, electricity is orders of magnitude safer and healthier than burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut. The choice is clear. The order of the criteria is demonstrated all over the world and has been for thousands of years – any energy is better than no energy.
RE: The dirty part of renewable energy
Dr. Curry
Please tell Richard Finger his computation is wrong. He said 25 wind turbines (1.5 MW each) equals one natural gas well (1 MMcf). His conversion factor 299 kwh = 1 Mcf is wrong. The correct conversion is 99 kwh = 1 Mcf (see link for reference)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=8
His mistake is not taking into account the efficiency of gas power plant vs. wind turbine. The gas turbine engine is less efficient than wind turbine. Therefore 8 wind turbine = 1 natural gas well
299 kWn.1Mcf is the 100% conversion rate. 99kWh assumes 33% efficiency. A combined cycle gas turbine is roughly 60% efficient and a standard cycle gas turbine is roughly 33% efficient. Since a wind turbine produces about 30% of nameplate and a CCGT produces about 90% of nameplate, you have to be careful watt is being compared to watt. :)
Check the power plant heat rate assumption of the EIA reference and compare it with heat rate of combined cycle. It is 36% higher so if we set the efficiency of combined cycle at 60%, 99 kwh assumes 44% efficiency (60/44 = 1.36)
Let’s adjust to it 60% efficiency and 90% capacity factor for CCGT. We get 10 wind turbines = 1 natural gas well
Wind turbine is more efficient than CCGT because it’s just wind turbine and electric generator. CCGT has gas turbine, electric generator, compressor, steam turbine, condenser, water pump, boiler and cooling tower. A lot of heat loss and friction with all those moving parts. Of course the disadvantage of wind turbine is low capacity factor.
Dr. I don’t really care to double check their work. The energy content of 1000cf or (1 Mcf) (natgas)= 1,027,000 Btu or ~300kWh so 299kWh is close enough for government work. How those watts are compared with wind power depends on how you wish to embellish your preferred position.
“Wind turbine is more efficient than CCGT because it’s just wind turbine and electric generator.”
Thanks not a valid statement. If you pick a time frame to average efficiency you can end up with totally different results. A fan of wind will assume they will last 30 years with near zero maintenance. A manufacturer of CCGT will be a lot more conservative on estimated life because they warrant their product for that life span. You can get a warranted life span for a wind turbine of up to 20 years, but read the fine print. Why would one industry assume a longer than warranted life span while the other underestimates the life span? So while a wind turbine is initially more efficient because there are less moving parts and conversions, it is the investment efficiency over time that really matters.
I don’t have a preferred position. Just looking at facts. Your “investment efficiency” is just another word for saying gas is cheaper than wind. That’s true. I’m just talking of energy efficiency not cost. Riding a bicycle is energy efficient but more costly for long distances as it is slow and you eat a lot of food to burn calories.
By the way, 60% thermal efficiency of CCGT is almost impossible. Exhaust gas of gas turbine is at 590 C. To get extra 15% energy, it must cool to zero C and condense all the water vapor. Since the single cycle gas turbine is already 33% efficient, adding the second cycle only adds 15%. Combined cycle efficiency = 33 + 15 = 48%. Something fishy with that 60% claim by gas turbine manufacturers
dr. “Combined cycle efficiency = 33 + 15 = 48%. Something fishy with that 60% claim by gas turbine manufacturers.”
Mid fifties is more common. Turbines have maxed out close to 40% which is the main feat. Pretty impressive engineering.
Zero sum game. Increase the efficiency of the turbine and the exhaust gas gets cooler and the second cycle gets less energy. I smell fish
Nice write up about the Minnesota Social Cost of Carbon trial by folks at the Niskanen Center.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/social-cost-carbon-trial/
Diablo Canyon Closure: Another Step Backward for Nuclear and the Environment
By Geoffrey Styles, Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC. – June 22
I don’t normally do breaking news, but the recent announcement by PG&E and a coalition of environmental groups on retiring the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California within 8-9 years merits immediate comment. Given the enormous social and political challenges PG&E faced in undertaking the re-licensing of the facility when its current operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2025, this action is understandable, though regrettable. I lived in California when Diablo Canyon was planned and built. It was sufficiently controversial in the 1970s, and the environment has only become more contentious. Extending the operating licenses of nuclear power plants to 60 years has become typical elsewhere, but the utility’s board must have concluded that it was a non-starter in today’s California. Read on… https://niskanencenter.org/blog/social-cost-carbon-trial/
Wrong link, sorry. Correct link is:
Another Step Backward for Nuclear and the Environment
http://www.theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/2381407/another-step-backward-for-nuclear-and-the-environment
Segrest repeatedly makes comments suggesting others should use the tool he infers he can use. However, he’s never posted any results hes developed to address the issues he’s making comments about. he continually tries to imply he knows something about something and the other CE Denizens are ignorant for not getting the point he’s trying to make (he’s commonly wrong or what he’s talking about down in the weeds and irrelevant).
I’d suggest to Segrest he run his tool to address the following questions and then write a blog post for CE (Judith invited him to do so but, as fas as I know, he never did).
I’d like to see Segrest address these questions for the USA:
Q1. What would be the Total System Cost per year and the Total System cost per TWh (equivalent to LCOE for the whole system), across USA (average of all grids or you explain how you derive the number), for two scenarios:
1. 75% of electricity supplied by nuclear
2. 75% of electricity supplied by non-hydro renewables
Q2. What would be the CO2-e emissions intensity of electricity for these two scenarios?
Requirements and assumptions:
1. Annual Electricity demand is twice the total US demand in say 2015 and the shape of the demand profile is the same as in say 2015 (i.e. simply double the demand at every minute (or 15 minutes or whatever) through the year.
2. Choose a year when this 75% of nuclear or 75 % of non hydro renewables is to be achieved by (e.g. 2040 or 2050)
3. Sensitivity on learning rates for OCC of nuclear and renewables, including the current rates being demonstrated for renewables and the 34% for nuclear which has been demonstrated by South Korea over the past 43 years.
4. Reliability of electricity system is the same as now
5. Energy security – US has at least 5 years of fuel in the country at all times (e.g. 5 years of gas available in the ground and 5 years of uranium held ready for turning into fuel)
6. Safety of electricity generation is at least 10 time greater than now (measured in deaths/TWh)
So, Segrest, can you run your tool to answer these questions. Then write a post explaining the assumptions, method, results, discussion, conclusions and policy implications.
Mr. Lang — Ask Planning Engineer if his electric utility uses integrated grid planning software like GE MAPS to make its generation decisions to present to their PSC.
As we say here in the South — “Bless your heart”.
How does that relate to the comment? I didn’t say anything about the tools the utilities use for planning.
You are simply dodging and weaving again. “Hey, look over there”. One of the signs of intellectual dishonesty you display in almost every comment.
You keep trying to imply you understand and can operate the tool and that you understand what is relevant for policy analysis. Well, show us. Demonstrate your capabilities by analysing the scenario I suggested. Or is it beyond your capabilities?
Captian Dallas: My Ag scientists from SEI and ORNL are better than your scientists (I don’t know how to make the smiley face icon to insert it here):
https://www.sei-international.org/index.php/news-and-media/3445-is-there-a-role-for-bioenergy-in-the-global-fight-against-hunger?utm_content=buffer79736&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Yep, they are pure geniuses. The problem you have Stephen is you are impacting people making from $1 a day to millions a day. The economies will let you know who is right and unfortunately the economics and political sciences are a couple of those physics envy groups.
Now if you want to fix prices so fuel and fuels aren’t linked, okay, but speculation and global situations can drive things through the roof in a heart beat. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a populist movement going on around the globe. “Necessarily more expensive” and $8 a bushel corn leading to a doubling of wheat prices are likely to stir up more stuff.
This is way your link has this little blurb, ““The result is an unstable investment environment that creates a boom-and-bust cycle,” Johnson added. “If biofuels are to play a useful role in the overall sustainability transition, economic (as opposed to political and social) governance should receive more emphasis, including business models, long-term contracts and other mechanisms to guide markets to the more effective and efficient biofuel options. Only by de-politicizing biofuels can we find their appropriate role.”
When I see that de-politicizing, I might change my mind.
Segrest, @ https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/18/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-28/#comment-791582
You invariably walk away having made a whole lot of dishonest statements assertions and strawman comments – and irrelevant comments. To address your latest comment:
You did not show the comparison of federal government subsidies per generation types, which is the point I was making, is incorrect. Your various rants, such as this one: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/18/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-28/#comment-791473, are irrelevant nonsense. A typical Greenie game of diversion to irrelevancies.
So what? If you think it’s wrong, post another chart showing what you think is right and present your arguments to support your contention. Presumably you don’t do that because you’d prefer to keep on posting disinformation.
If you’d been following, or checked, before flying into print with your dishonest assertions and misrepresentations, you’d know that I’d pointed out the spelling error in a number of posts and asked for it to be corrected. Eventually it was and I used the corrected version. However, this time I accidentally used the link to the wrong version. But you’d prefer to continually make a big deal out of a spelling mistake in a chart. It shows what a disreputable piece of work you are. And how trivial you are. The important point is that the data in the chart is correctly plotted from EIA. I checked it before posting it the first time. You clearly didn’t.
It’s not my methodology, nor my chart. It is a chart of EIA data. You misrepresented without checking. You are a disgrace to engineering profession. Nothing you say can be trusted.
No chart and no history “tells a complete story of the past or the future”, you half-wit!
No it isn’t wrong. The chart supports the point I made that solar and wind get 10ox and 20x more subsides per MWh than nuclear in the USA. It’s just your assertion that the chart is wrong or the point it makes is not in context (whatever that means) – I suspect you are just trying to doge and weave to avoid acknowledging the relevant facts reported by EIA that do not support you Greenie ideological beliefs.
You invariably walk away after making a pile of disgraceful, dishonest assertions like in your sequence of comments on this thread. You don’t deal with the relevant points in the comments; you just ignore them and make more irrelevant, trivial, comments, more wild and dishonest assertions, and strawman arguments. What a disreputable character you continually demonstrate you are!
By the way, I’ve addressed your misrepresentation of my discussion with Andy Boston around 10 times, including referring you back to the thread and the final four comments here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/19/is-nuclear-the-cheapest-way-to-decarbonize-electricity/#comment-768130 . You never acknowledge that I have already responded to your comments, but you keep posting your same misrepresentations. This is one of many examples of habitually dishonesty – it strongly suggests you are not a Professional Engineer because you do not have the ethics required of a Professional Engineer.
Just to set the record straight (again), Andy Boston was the ERP research project team leader and the lead author of the report: http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf. The report shows (but does not state in words in the text) that all or mostly new nuclear and no new weather dependent renewables would the least cost way for the GB electricity system to achieve the recommended 50 g/kWh target. I pointed that out and Andy Boston would not endorse that (for whatever reasons – most can understand why he could not endorse it). He wanted to promote and discuss the report and the conclusions the report makes, which were agreed by a large number of stakeholders comprising a steering group, including anti-nuke environmental groups such as WWF.
I’ll also remind other readers that Segrest repeatedly asked Andy Boston dumb questions without even having bothered to read the report. He’d have known the answers if he’d read the report. And Segrest in his typically petulant and arrogant way, said to Andy Boston:
This is an example of the insecurity wee Segrest displays – trying to big-note himself. And hoping for someone to give him a pat on the back.
Segrest’s response to my suggestion here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/18/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-28/#comment-791574 is clearly a dodge. It strongly suggests he is not capable of using the tool he continually refers to, or doesn’t understand how to use it to answer the policy relevant questions I suggested he try to address.
It further suggests he is way out of his depth when it comes to energy policy analysis.
RE: Farm pollution worsens
“The U.N.’s figures assume methane is 21 times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide, based on its powerful heat-trapping but short-lived properties.”
This UN assumption is contradictory. 21 times worse assumes the effect is spread over 100 years. Methane’s residence time is only 12 years but the global warming potential (GWP) is 87 times worse. They should use the higher number and “short-lived properties” is a joke. Cows don’t wait for 12 years before they fart again. They fart all the time so methane in the atmosphere is increasing every year.
“pollution released by farming was directly responsible for the global warming equivalent of 5.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the figures,”
The figures are vastly underestimated. Farmers in New Zealand meticulously measure the fart and shit of their cows. Multiply their results to 1.4 billion cows globally and 87 times GWP you get 32 billion tons CO2 equivalent. That’s just for cows. Rice paddies emit more methane. Burning coal and oil is just bull shit (pun intended)
So what? Who cares? The damage function is virtually unknown. We don’t know if GHG emissions are doing more harm or more good. If you think we do know, please state the net damage per degree of global cooling and the net damage per degree of global warming. And provide the basis for that estimate.
The world leaders at the Paris convention should care. Are they not trying to stop global warming? I blame the cows and rice for global warming since 1800. Atmospheric methane increased 3 times faster than CO2. The cows ended the Little Ice Age and maybe prevented the glacial period. But leave the cows alone because we like to eat steak.
Thanks for the reply. You didn’t make it clear whether or not you believe GHG emissions are a problem. I am not persuaded they are doing more harm than good. I am strongly convinced any abatement policies that require ‘command and control’ type policies would be very damaging and therefore cannot succeed.
I don’t. We are in the normal warming period that occurs about every 900 years during the Holocene. See Bond Cycles. I accept our GHG emissions have had some impact since about 1950, but I do not they have been massively beneficial so far and I expect that to continue throughout this century. Especially when we realise that without them the planet would be cooling now and a n abrupt colooing is due any time. Therefore, our GHG emissions are reducing the risk and, delaying the time when the next abrupt cooling occurs and reducing its magnitude.
Global warming by fossil fuels is not sustainable. Like it or not, they will be depleted in 300 years and 50 years later CO2 will be back to pre-industrial level despite protests from the trees. Cows are sustainable. They don’t deplete and they keep multiplying like a swarm of locusts. There are now more cows than humans by weight. They can stop the glacial period for 100,000 years. World leaders can have their Paris conventions every year but this world is going to the cows.
Dr Strangelove,
is this intended to be a response to my point about the damage function – i.e we don’t know if GHG emissions are doing, or will do, more harm or more good? It’s the damage function, not the amount of GHG emissions nor the temperature change that is relevant.
Canada, New York, Illinois and other northern states buried under a mile-thick ice sheet is a good thing. Or maybe not
Dr. Strangelove,
Can you please make your point clearly. I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say. I am getting the impression you have a very limited understanding of the subject. If I am wrong, can you please answer my question about the damage function with a clear, concise answer.
“the average capacity factor of the world’s nuclear power reactors (excluding those in Japan, which have largely remained idle) was 81.7% in 2015. It has been over 80% since the start of this century. Operating lives of 60 years are becoming the norm, with no significant age-related decline in performance.” http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=323b32e833&e=a3b55276e6
I write this for others rather than Mr. Lang —
Anyone can ask Rud or Planning Engineer the question: Do Utilities use macro engineering economics models (integrated grid models like GE MAPS) for their generation planning decisions? Of course they do, as well as Planning professionals like the DOE (and their labs like NREL), EPRI, EEI, MIT . . . have done on hundreds of published and peer reviewed studies.
There is no “magic model” one size-fits-all. A model is a TGD utility (i.e., regulated) or area (i.e., de-regulated markets with an ISO) “specific model” that in concept simulates what that specific electric utility control room would do 24x7x365.
Because every utility or area situation is “unique”, this is why I constantly say one can not make ubiquitous statements about Renewable Energy. Just can’t do it.
So many factors involved — it would take a full blog just to name them (e.g., load shapes, System generation flexibility, etc.). These highly complex issues can not be addressed by simply looking at things like a LCOE (e.g. levelized revenue requirements).
Again for the gazillionth time, the issue is “penetration level” following engineering economics. It may be that on a highly inflexible system that Renewable penetration is less than 1%. On highly flexible systems (with things like access to large hydro, new NGCC units, etc.) the penetration may be very significant following engineering economics.
Mostly accurate here. Penetration level is a key! Hydro provides a lot of flexibility. Macro models should proceed any major investments. But befor running macro models, simpler models and calculations have a role to play. May times alternatives can and must be screened out prior to more details studies.
No one can defend ubiquitous statements, but simpler models can support general expectations.
Come on Rud, weigh in.
Segrest says:
Segrest, dishonestly, is trying to imply that I didn’t know or said that utilities do not use such models and tools. I never said or implied any such thing. Segrest in the past is suggested I should use the tool he implies he uses to do the sort of policy relevant analyses I am interested in. I have no interest in paying for or learning the tool he says he uses. I doubt his tool can do what is needed for such policy analysis. I suggested, if he knows hos tool as well as he implies he does, and it can do what is needed, then why doesn’t he run the tool himself do the analyses, write up a policy relevant paper and offer it to Judith. I suggested a policy relevant topic.
Segrest, dodged the question, didn’t attempt to answer it, and tries to divert, dishonestly, to implying I’d said something I didn’t.
Iv;’e concluded:
1. Segrest has little understanding of energy policy analysis
2. Doesn’t understand his tool not understand what it can and cannot do regarding policy analysis
3. Segrest is perpetually dishonest
4. Segrest does not have the ethical standards of a Professional Engineer, and I suspect is not one.
Planning Engineer Thank you! But its also important for Rud to clearly state his position also.
Is the following an example of what you mean by simpler models/screening approach? If not, could you provide a better/replacement example?
An electric utility has static base and intermediate load. The load growth is only in peaking requirements. One screening approach would say be to compare LCOE for a NGCT versus solar options — options which would have expected capacity factors close to each other. Fuel price sensitivities, capital costs, could be something to look at.
An utility would never just simply compare the expected LCOE of nuclear power plant (with an expected high capacity factor) with the above peaking options.
The easiest way to see just how far the adoption of renewables might go here in the United States would be to set aside the entire state of California as an experimental Wind & Solar Resource Exploitation Zone.
Guarantee a 12% annual rate of return on any dollar invested in new wind power, solar power, and grid scale energy storage technology installed inside the state’s borders.
Impose strong sanctions against the further use of electricity generated by fossil fuel and nuclear facilities, regardless of where those facilities are located.
Grease the regulatory skids for review and approval of new wind and solar facilities so that groups opposed to their siting and construction are prevented from obstructing fast track development.
If wind and solar are everything their most ardent advocates say they are, then after a decade or so, California should have the cheapest, the most plentiful, and the most reliable supply of electricity in America.
How about it, California. Put up or shut up. Put your money where your mouth is and show them how it’s done.
Well, if it’s done with only state money, it might be OK. Except the Congress will bail them out with OPM when it goes south.
Clearly, California is no longer following sound engineering economics. But they are doing some engineering sound things to go along with their ideology driven System Planning. The last time I checked (in 2014), California was leading the U.S. in new, flexible, combined cycle natural gas units.
Operationally, the more flexible NGCC generation there is, the higher the Renewable penetration rate can be.
Trying to Save Old Nuclear Units
When Mr. Lang post the following graphic, to most people here at CE it incites anger:
https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/m72CxQv.png
Now there would be two things that could be done: (1) eliminate all the subsidies for solar and wind (and per Ron Paul Libertarian ideology, eliminate all energy subsidies — everything); (2) make sure there is a level playing field for nuclear.
Option 1 just isn’t going to happen. The Renewable Tax Credits were just extended in December by Congress via Republican & Democrat “horse-trading” dropping the U.S. ban on exporting domestic oil.
Option 2 — There are two areas (A) new nuclear; (B) old nuclear. On new nuclear, there is nothing for Congress to do as a Production Tax Credit already exists for new facilities. As I’ve shown previously, the subsidy benefits on new nuclear are ~$150 per MWh (using public information from Georgia Power to their PSC).
Shellenberger and my Ideas for Old Nuclear. Even though old nuclear received $billions in Investment Tax Credits (and other subsidies) in the past (70’s and 80’s), times have changed
Michael and I support things like a new Nuclear ITC on retro-fits so that existing nuclear units can be competitive on an economic dispatch — especially competing against existing natural gas generation. Why not a 30% like the Solar ITC?
Another idea would be to give nuclear generation a special status in an open-market capacity auction. The special status would be in reducing generation portfolio fuel risk. With more and more coal units being retired, the generation portfolio is becoming heavily weighted with natural gas generation.
Another idea is modifying the EPA Clean Power Plan — allowing “credit” for old nuclear like in the CPP where new nuclear is given credit.
Just 3 ideas trying to be constructive rather than combative as some people at CE are.
Hawaii — not quite sure what’s going on here: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-puc-staff-outlines-bill-credits-for-community-renewable-energy-progr/421232/
Mogan Stanley on Solar Plus Storage in Australia: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/morgan-stanley-australian-utilities-underestimate-disruptive-power-of-sola/421237/
Segrest continues with his pathetic little games of 1) not replying to comments but starting new threads and 2) trying to big note himself by trying to claim influential people agree with him or share his opinions (or however he tries to frame it); examples of those he likes to claim agree with him are Judith Curry, Planning Engineer, Michael Shellenberger, Andy Boston. Segrest is like an insecure child hang on to the coat tails of the popular kids in school.
That demonstrates Segrest’s ignorance of policy and time scale. Bad policies get repealed eventually. Brexit is an example of what happens when the majority of the voters eventually realise they are being misled. When people realise what a dreadful mistake the governments have made by incentivising renewables and impeding nuclear, policies will inevitably change (I don’t know when it will happen, but it is inevitable). As energy costs in developed countries continue to increase compared with those in the developing countries, the rate of improvement in standard of living in the developed countries will be slower than in the developing countries. Voters will vote to have the issue fixed. They are already beginning to understand in Germany, UK, Spain, Portugal, and USA (except California). Segrest’s problem is he cannot see the big picture and can’t understand the time scales involved.
Complete nonsense. Ignorance. Irrelevant. USA is just one country of 195 countries. All countries have their own individual policies. To reduce global GHG emissions and improve human wellbeing globally, policies are needed to make energy cheaper and cleaner world wide. USA can lead the way and assist the world (as well as itself), but not by mucking around with interventionist policies for the USA only.
Segrest bolds this. It’s part of trying to make out his opinions align with Shellenbergers. They do not!!. Segrest repeatedly misrepresents what others say.
More of Segrest trying to big note himself.
Segrest is habitual dishonest.
No. Dumb ideas that can never succeed. All are suggestions for command and control, interventionist policies. They cannot succeed (in delivering what is required – see requirements in previous comment).
Segrest, if you want to make constructive suggestions, you should suggest and advocate for identifying the impediments that are blocking a level playing field for all technologies. Then recommend policies to remove the impediments that are blocking progress. If you want to discuss this constructively, ask!
Oh, and stop your repetitive dishonesty and leave out your perpetual snide remarks. If you continue, expect the appropriate responses to continue.
Mr. Lang — I’ve had 2 email correspondences with Michael Shellenberger just this past week. You’ve had zero correspondences with him in your entire life.
In response to one of your previous rants, I asked Michael to provide an interview where is clearly stated his support for Renewables (he has all his professional life). I posted this on CE.
Your are mean spirited, bullying, and most uninformed person (in engineering planning) I’ve ever come across.
Segrest says,
Who cares. You are just trying to big note yourself. You have no idea who I have correspondence with, and I don’tr go flaunting it. As I said, your behaving like and insecure child trying to hang onto the coat tails of influential people.
You are intellectually dishonest, because you do not address the issue raised and instead divert to irrelevancies: e.g. examples of what you say (in effect)
1. I have email exchanges with Michael Shellenberger and Andy Boston
2. Please Rud and Planning Engineer, say something nice to me
3. I am not going to answer Peter Lang;s comments because he continually reveals my dishonesty
4. I cant use the tool I claim I use and I don’t understand policy so I’ll divert with a strawman argument implying (dishonestly) that Peter Lang had said he didn’t know or said that utilities do not use such models and tools
Fom the previous comment:
I detest dishonesty, and you are continually dishonest. You continually misrepresent what others say and continually lie and continually use strawman arguments. You do not have the ethics normally expected of a Professional Engineer. I doubt you are a Professional Engineer. Your lack of personal, professional and intellectual integrity I find reprehensible.
And in what Electric Utility Generation Planning Department(s) has Mr. Lang worked for? Zero. Has he ever even run a sophisticated macro (integrated grid) model? Nope. Until I started discussing models like GE MAPS he didn’t even know about them. Question: Where did Mr. Lang formally study “engineering economics”? Answer: I don’t think he ever did.
Buyer beware in listening to Mr. Lang.
Segrest, another strawman. Another diversion. I said nothing about “Electric Utility Generation Planning Department(s)”. ThAt’s a diversion. My comments are about energy policy analysis and advice. Something you have no expertise in whatsoever, but don’t recognise it. The discussion on the Energy Policy thread of Climate Etc. is energy policy, not down in the weeds engineering. I realise you don’t understand the difference. But that’s no excuse for being continually intellectually, personally and professionally dishonest. Diversion from discussing the issues raised is Sign #4 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
Segrest,
I detest dishonesty, and you are continually dishonest. You continually misrepresent what others say and continually lie and continually use strawman arguments. You do not have the ethics normally expected of a Professional Engineer. I doubt you are a Professional Engineer. Your lack of personal, professional and intellectual integrity I find reprehensible.
Here’s the suggestion I made to Segrest, that he continually dodges responding to and instead goes to great lengths to post strawman and other diversionary tactics to avoid:
I’d suggest to Segrest he run the tool he implies he uses to address the following questions and then write a blog post for CE (Judith invited him to do so long ago but, as far as I know, he never did).
I’d like to see Segrest address these questions for the USA:
Q1. What would be the Total System Cost per year and the Total System cost per TWh (equivalent to LCOE for the whole system), across USA (average of all grids or you explain how you derive the number), for two scenarios:
1. 75% of electricity supplied by nuclear
2. 75% of electricity supplied by non-hydro renewables
Q2. What would be the CO2-e emissions intensity of electricity for these two scenarios?
Requirements and assumptions:
1. Annual electricity demand is twice the total US demand in say 2015 and the shape of the demand profile is the same as in say 2015 (i.e. simply double the demand at every minute (or 15 minutes or whatever) through the year.
2. Choose a year when this 75% of nuclear or 75 % of non hydro renewables is to be achieved by (e.g. 2040 or 2050)
3. Sensitivity of results to learning rates for OCC of nuclear and renewables, including the current rates being demonstrated for renewables and the 34% for nuclear which has been demonstrated by South Korea over the past 43 years.
4. Reliability requirements for the electricity system is the same as now
5. Energy security – US has at least 5 years of fuel in the country at all times (e.g. 5 years of gas available in the ground and 5 years of uranium held ready for processing into fuel)
6. Safety of electricity generation is at least 10 time greater than now (measured in deaths/TWh)
So, Segrest, can you run your tool to answer these questions. Then write a post explaining the assumptions, method, results, discussion, conclusions and policy implications.
Mr. Lang — I asked Michael if he knew of you (in getting an interview link to post in response to one of your rants) — he said no. Yet, you can speak for him?
More and more as layers are being pealed away — people see that you are a sad empty suit.
So what, Segrest? Is that all you’ve got. “I’ve had an email from Michael and he says he doesn’t know you”. You are absolutely pathetic.
Another sign of your dishonest. Almost certainly you quoted something I’d said in response to you but never revealed the full relevant background – e’g your habitual dishonesty.
You don’t know Michael Shellenberger and he has never communicated with you.
I’ve discussed with Michael what you are saying about him at CE. Michael has said your interpretation is of course incorrect and gave me an interview which reflects his views on Renewables which I posted to CE.
Another layer pealed back for people to see about you.
What is the layer peeled back? Please explain it. What did you say to Michael Shellenberger and what did he reply to you. What does he say I said that is incorrect? Please quote the exact text, not your interpretation of it.
For good reason I don’t trust anything you say. And nor should anyone else.
Here are the two things I’ve said regarding what Michael Shellenberger has said elsewhere:
You on the other hand, have probably lied to him and misrepresented what you stand for and misrepresented my responses to you.
You are a habitual liar. He doesn’t know that … yet.
Segrest,
I can’t believe what a disgraceful person you are. Please post what you said to Michael Shellenberger and what he replied to you.
I am sure you cherry picked bits of the conversation and past discussion to misrepresent the debate (as you invariably do, such as you did regarding Andrew Boston).
And this continues your diversion from addressing what’s policy relevant. Another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
So, what did you say to Michael Shellenberger, and what did he reply to you?
RE: 5 More US Nukes to Close
Harvey Wasserman is full of lies.
“the hearing could help make the Golden State totally nuke free, ending the catastrophic radioactive and global warming impacts caused by these failing plants”
How many Californians died of nuclear radiation? Zero. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2. Their global warming impact is reduced warming as they replace coal plants.
“Diablo dumps daily some 2.5 billion gallons of super-heated water into the ocean, killing vast quantities of marine life”
“Super-heated water” is just a few degrees warmer than sea water. The vast killings of marine life is a flight of fantasy.
“Diablo is surrounded by a dozen earthquake faults. It is half the distance from the San Andreas as was Fukushima from the shock that destroyed it.”
Fukushima was not destroyed by the shockwave of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake. The tsunami disabled the power supply of the cooling system that caused the meltdown of reactors. It’s a power interruption problem not collapse of civil structures. A strong earthquake will destroy the houses of the anti-nuke activists and Diablo will still be standing.
“Such a disaster would irradiate the Central Valley, which supplies much of the U.S. with its fruits, nuts and vegetables. It would send radioactive clouds into Los Angeles within about five hours, and across virtually the entire continental U.S.”
The “radioactive clouds” emit less ionizing radiation than the sun. Not a single person died of nuclear radiation in Fukushima but thousands of Americans die every year from skin cancer caused by UV radiation of the sun.
Well said. Thanks for point all that out.
Have you read:
Daubert and Moran, 1985. ‘Origins, Goals, and Tactics of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Protest Movement‘ https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf
You little beauty :)
read on …
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/un-boss-brexit-would-mean-rewriting-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/?nl_ref=15561958