Will Al Gore Help Shut the Nuke Power Loophole?
Today Al Gore is unveiling a massive campaign to fight climate chaos.
But the hugely funded atomic power industry has jumped on global warming with the Big Lie that its failed reactors can somehow help. It’s a sorry replay of the 1950s promise that atomic power would be “too cheap to meter.”
Just before the 2000 election, as senior advisor to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, I wrote then-Vice President Gore asking that he help delete from the Kyoto Accords any reference to nukes as a possible solution to global warming. On November 3, 2000 (the letter is posted at the NIRS web site) Gore wrote back:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the [Clinton] Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.
Nukes were soon deleted from the Kyoto Accords as a “solution” to global warming.
The reactor industry claims, probably correctly, that it releases fewer greenhouse gases/kwh than fossil fuels. But it also says nukes compare with renewables in avoiding CO2 emissions. Here Gore’s words ring especially true.
It’s well-known that mining, milling, ore transport, enrichment and deployment of radioactive fuel for atomic reactors comprise a major source of CO2 emissions. Radon gas emissions also have significant environmental and public health impacts.
When it’s “spent,” used reactor fuel must cool in energy-intensive cooling ponds, then sit in dubious “dry casks,” which are essentially large boxes with ventilating holes. If the rods are eventually moved to a central repository, tens of thousands of shipments on trucks and trains will be required.
Meanwhile, the mere construction of a nuclear plant consumes huge quantities of fossil fuels. Manufactured materials used to build reactors demand years of efficient operation just to break even in terms of net energy. The reactors also emit heated — often chemically treated — steam into the atmosphere, and hot water into lakes, streams and the oceans. Reactors in France, Alabama and elsewhere have been forced shut because global-warmed streams have become too hot to cool the reactors, and emissions would raise waters downstream beyond acceptable levels (in some cases, over 90 degrees Farenheit).
Meanwhile, nukes are enormously expensive. Some first-generation US reactors came in as much as 25 times over their original budget. Small wonder Wall Street “won’t be burned again.”
There has been much hype about a “standardized design,” but the US industry has not settled on one, and continues to fiddle with essential structural changes even as the licensing process draws near.
As for France, its atomic industry is a form of national socialism. The reactors are primarily state-funded and immune to the kinds of cost-accounting that would force a normal industry to actually pay for itself. France’s 60-odd reactors are loss-leaders for a nation hoping to export large numbers of them. But a “new generation” French-designed reactor under construction in Finland is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget.
Even if reactors could help solve the climate crisis, the mere act of licensing and building them requires a decade or more. The two reactors projected for Turkey Point, Florida, are dubiously targeted to open in 2018 and 2020. They are slated to cost a total of $24 billion. But that price tag is likely to soar, and that money invested now in efficiency and renewables could meanwhile be solving the climate crisis. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that every dollar invested in increased efficiency can save some 7 times as much energy as can be produced by a dollar invested in nuke power.
Throw in “ancillary” problems like apocalyptic catastrophe by terror and error, or atomic weapons proliferation, or human health and environmental impacts from “normal” emissions, and much more, and it’s easy to see why not a single major national environmental organization now advocates building new nukes to solve the climate crisis.
The reactor pushers admit that they can’t proceed without massive taxpayer handouts. Last fall, led by US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) the industry slipped a $50 billion loan guarantee package into the Energy Bill. Thanks to a national and grassroots campaign (see www.nukefree.org) and strong leadership from Congressional Democrats, those guarantees were defeated.
But $18.5 billion did sleaze into descriptive language for last year’s Appropriations Bill. The upcoming Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill will be laden with radioactive pork. And the industry is now working on state utility commissions to grant Construction Work in Progress, a boondoggle forcing ratepayers to fund new reactors as they are being built. They’ve already succeeded in Florida.
Without stopping all that, Gore’s much-welcomed initiative cannot succeed. Nuke power is the Achilles Heel that can doom all attempts to save this planet.
Thirty years ago, as thousands of demonstrators marched onto reactor construction sites at Seabrook (NH), Diablo Canyon (CA), and elsewhere, we shared the Solartopian vision of a green-powered earth, a planet entirely free of nuke and fossil fuels.
That vision has now become a tangible possibility, technologically and economically. If this new push to stop global warming supports grassroots citizen action, and helps stop taxpayer funding for new reactors, we just might succeed.
Harvey Wasserman is senior advisor to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and has been fighting the reactor industry since 1973. He is senior editor of Freepress.org, and author of SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH (www.solartopia.org).
I always knew deep down, that Billy__y4 was wrong about nuclear power. Now it’s out in the open. He’d be a wonderful teacher and wish he’d do that and get away from the “nuker” gangs.
I am really getting tired of Mr. Wasserman’s fanatical shrillness and demagogery-substituting for analysis (”apocalyptic catastorphe”) regarding nuclear power. He has absolutely no scientific or technical knwoledge or training that would make his arguments credible. Aside from the lead-time issue, his claims about nuclear power generation - especially the one about it not reducing greenhouse gas emissons - are nonsense.
Well, that’s your biased opinion ~USAn~, as you advocate nuclear power. Of course you would be tired of his comments.
I’ll say, I agree that all of his opinions and comments are not always correct, but sifting the good from the bad, he’s far more sensible on the nuclear power issue than you are. ___ That’s my biased opinion.
Neither Wasserman or anybody else needs “scientific or technical knowledge or training” to objectively evaluate the history of nuclear power. Common sense leads to one conclusion:
Nuclear power has not worked without massive taxpayer subsidies anywhere on the face of the earth. Although nuclear produces less greenhouse gas than a coal-fired power plant, it produces more greenhouse gas than many other alternatives, that if they received the same taxpayer subsidies as nuclear, would produce power without creating waste that will be hazardous for centuries and would not provide material that terrorists and other enemies could use to create weapons.
Perfectly said ~Andersdl~.
All you Obama backers need to check this reasoning against Obama’s energy policy statements. He supports nuclear, as well as corn ethanol and clean coal (Illinois’ two most abundant resources), all of which are false and dangerous technologies in the effort to halt climate change.
If you agree with Wasserman, you need to suport one of the candidates who is speaking truth to power on alternative energy issues … Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.
Except they don’t have a prayer you forgot to mention., no matter what true progressives think of them.
What’s Hillary’s position on nuclear and on clean energy?
“As for France, its atomic industry is a form of national socialism” — was the Nazi reference accidental?
1. where is a study which shows that alternative energy sources are adequate to support decent living standards?
2. what major technology has ever become useful without an extended period of use and related engineering?
3. does the author know anything about breeder reactors?
Mr. Wassermann has made his mind up on nuclear power, but that does not excuse his perpetual lack of objectivity.
Mr. Wassermann states that nuclear energy “probably” emits less greenhouse gas than fossil fuels. Even without the probably, that is gross understatement of a huge benefit of nuclear power.
He also downplays the possibility of a “standardized design” by saying there is no standardized design yet.
Furthermore, he ignores the fact that the expense of nuclear power is exacerbated by people of his ilk, and by that I mean fear-mongers.
Why doesn’t Harvey mention that nuclear energy not only is less carbon intensive, it results in much less air pollution?
Disingenuous as always.
According to Harvey’s NIRS, the nuke industry has been claiming the cost of construction of nuke plants to be from $1k to $2k/kW but in 2007 Moody’s finance company projected $6k/kW, then in 2008 FPL estimated the two new proposed plants at Turkey Pt. to cost $16k/kW.
According to cosmos.ucdavis.edu, most large scale wind farms cost about $1k/kW. Maintenance and recycling should be a lot lower than for nuke plants as well. And this doesn’t even count nuke fuel costs, nuke waste disposal/containment costs, or the safety/health risks.
Local scale renewable energy adds to this the benefit of economic/political autonomy for the general population, providing protection against the oppression by concentrated economic/political power that is paralyzing Americans today.
To Kem Patrick who asked in response to an earlier comment shown in quotes below:
Except they don’t have a prayer you forgot to mention., no matter what true progressives think of them.
What’s Hillary’s position on nuclear and on clean energy?
“All you Obama backers need to check this reasoning against Obama’s energy policy statements. He supports nuclear, as well as corn ethanol and clean coal (Illinois’ two most abundant resources), all of which are false and dangerous technologies in the effort to halt climate change.
If you agree with Wasserman, you need to support one of the candidates who is speaking truth to power on alternative energy issues … Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.”
My take: I read that Hillary’s position is in sync, per her voting record and speeches, with Al Gore’s position. I also read that Obama who is funded
by Excelon and such is a proponent of nuclear, etc. as stated above.
Hellary and O’Bama will both support “business as usual” globalization which will take the concentrations of economic/political power that have long dominated the American people further out into the netherworld of global capital.
Westinghouse and peers AT&T, General Electric, IBM, etc, have long dominated the electric, electronic, and computer industries in the USA and by extension dominated the American people, politically, economically and technologically.
Westinghouse has provided the great majority of US central power plant turbines/generators. It was Westinghouse more than any other corporation pushing coal-fired power plants with 75% of the coal’s energy casually dumped into the air and water, completely wasted, for decades.
And now, Westinghouse has been captured by Toshiba, so the central command/control over your electric energy production has been transferred to a greater pinnacle of world domination, 10,000 miles away in Tokyo. God Bless The United States of America! The answer, of course, is locally owned and operated energy production.
I just got done debating Hayden and his nuclear cronies over on “Progressives for Obama” thread, where they were making the case of how wonderful nuclear is and Obama the Second Coming for endorsing it. Nuclear like Bio Fuels are two contributing factors to our problems and a solution to nothing. Obama’s environmental plan was written on behalf of Lobbyists. Hopefully Hayden and his friends read the “real” progressive voices on this site, other than their pseudo tripe.
Where to start with this mess of an article?
Possibly the most laughable is: “Radon gas emissions also have significant environmental and public health impacts.”
Radon is a hazard to uranium miners. Fifty years ago it caused injury (it can cause lung cancer-particularly in smokers) because of ignorance. If underground mining starts up again in the US, the mines will be adequately ventilated and the miners will be protected. The risks are much better understood today than during the Manhatten project.
Radon is a hazard if an unventilated basement is located in or above uranium bearing soil. This is why radon testing is routinely done during house purchase in some parts of the country. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not nuclear power should be deployed.
Summary of Wasserman’s statement: BOGUS
Bill
By the way ole Kem was singing a different tune a few months ago in his or her effort on behalf of Edwards while trashing Obama. I guess he or she has seen the light and is now a born again! If Hillary wrests the nomination thanks to the super delegates ole Kem will be hoping on that horse. The true believers are all the same. Shrill and obnoxious.
The longer we wait to reduce CO2 emissions, the harder we are going to have to slam the brakes. Nuclear power is expensive, can be unhealthy or even dangerous, and may leave a legacy of waste.
But it isn’t as bad as Mr. Wasserman’s spins and exaggerations, it is available now, and new nuclear power technologies will improve safety, reduce cost and quite possibly some day eliminate the long term waste problem.
The US needs a program to reduce our CO2 balance to almost zero. It will take: Conservation through retrofitting homes, buldings, restaurants, factories with improved insulation, low energy appliances and equipment. Replacement of oil and gasoline with electricity. Home solar power. Wind farms, solar farms, tidal… Whatever fits best. The coal plants have to go, but possibly some could be replaced with higher efficiency (double?)coal fuel cell technology.
To do this, we are going to need a hard cap on fossil fuel use with a serious reduction plan, and lots and lots of low GHG electricity for trains, steel mills, pumping water, city lights, elevators, supermarkets, hospitals, dockyards, factories, home heating, charging the plug-in hybrids, cracking water to make hydrogen… on and on.
Nuclear power has a place here. Fifty 2400 MWe nuclear power stations would have an initial investment of hundreds of billions of dollars and some GHG emissions during construction, but with 60 year plus lives they would provide much of the power we need and bridge the gap between fossil fuels and the power sources of the future. Lets keep our pencils (and computers)sharp, control the hysteria, and do what is best to keep our world running while we eliminate GHG production.
You can call Obama names if you like, but he might be the guy to lead this. It certainly isn’t Dubya, Cheney or McCain!
I am pleased that Wasserman has at least finally acknowledged that nuclear power does have lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels, although grudgingly.
A nuclear power plant gives off no CO2 while operating. All of its emissions are associated with construction and demolition of the plant and mining and processing of the fuel. It is quite equivalent to renewables on a life cycle basis.
Typical life cycle emissions in grams CO2/kilowatt-hour:
Coal: 900
Nat gas: 400
PV solar: 45
Nuclear: 25
Wind: 15
Bill
Actually, I slightly favor Hillary over Obama ~Jeannekhan~. But, Obama said today, that he will have Al Gore on his cabinet if possible and will certainly have him as a Presidential advisor for clean energy alternatives.
Of course Obama says a lot of things now that’s he’s campaigning for the presidency, but his votes as a US Senator do not agree with what he often claims or says. And if any criticize him on that important disparity, someone like a Jesse Jackson raises the race issue. What a shame that is. Will that trend continue if he is our next president?
Hi ~KLORO~ there have been enough studies on clean energy to fill a library with books. Clean energy is viable, affordable and can and must be used and is capable of supplying all of the energy required, if enough plants are constructed using any or all of the desirables, geo-thermal, wind, solar, wave, tidal and the present hydro-electric combined.
If we don’t do it fairly soon and reduce the use of fossil fuels and burning oil, the “methane gas” in the Arctic, will permanently end all arguments and debates.
Here is a three minute read, one of several hundred on the subject. Some are written by paid governments or oil company “scientists”, most are written by scientists who have no political agenda. This one is non political and very timely and important.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
How does wind power generate Co2 Bill? How much Co2 would be generated by geo-thermal, tidal or wave power, if more than already generated naturally?
Then too, with clean energy, other than nuclear, we won’t have to worry about melt-downs and the other radiation hazards, or store deadly nuclear waste forever, or mine uranium. All in all, I like the idea of TRULY clean and SAFER electrical generation. __ Don’t you? Nuclear energy is less than a swell idea.
Kem,
Wind power, like nuclear, does not generate CO2 when in operation. It does require energy to make the turbine and the tower but the biggest life cycle emissions for wind power is for the manufacture of the concrete for the base.
Concrete is a very CO2 intensive product. It is made, in part, by roasting limestone which gives off CO2. Both wind and nuclear power use a lot of concrete in the fabrication of the generating facility. (Nuclear uses a lot more concrete but a typical nuclear plant is maybe 1500 Megawatts whereas a typical wind turbine is 3 Megawatts.) Maintenance personnel must also drive to and around the wind farm in a fossil fuel powered vehicle.
The studies that I have looked at do not cover alternative generation other than PV solar and wind. I would imagine that wave power would be very low.
Tidal would depend on the technology used. If used like the Rance River tidal generation in France, it would take a lot of concrete (the river is dammed and generation is done with a head like hydroelectric except with reversal for the tides). If it is run of the bay using tidal currents such has been suggested for the Bay of Fundy, it should be pretty low.
I don’t have a clue what the energy expenditure for a geo-thermal plant would be. Geo-thermal plants tend to be small which would indicate more concrete per Megawatt. It also would be very dependent of the specific installation.
I don’t mean to infer that any of the non combustion renewables have an objectionable level of CO2 emissions but it is important to note that it is not zero (and, from my perspective, that nuclear is comparable).
Regards,
Bill
“The reactor pushers admit that they can’t proceed without massive taxpayer handouts.”
The market has spoken.
It would be great if nuclear power became part of a true solution to energy and CO2 problems, but there are fundamental problems that haven’t been solved. The first is waste, the second human error, and the third is catastrophe.
In the You Tube Democratic debate several months ago, when asked about nuclear power, Edwards said it was too dangerous and too expensive, and we’d been down that road before. Obama said he thought it was ‘part of our energy future’, and Hillary smiled and said “I’m an agnostic on nuclear power… if our scientists can find a safe way to dispose of the wastes, it could be great”. Which struck me as another sleazy and dishonest way to take an apparently ‘centrist’ point of view between 2 extremes– when she knows that scientists are not likely to come up with a ’solution’ to the nuclear waste issue.
At least Obama cops to where he stands. I disagree with him on nuclear power and other things, but i think he has some integrity. I don’t believe anything Hillary says, ever.
gde,
Virtually all energy forms for generation in the US receive subsidies of some sort or another. (One of the ‘benefits’ of having the best government money can buy.)
There have been promotional subsidies enacted to encourage new nuclear power. The most powerful legislation to support new nuclear was not financial but a change in the licensing, however.
Under the new regulatory regime, a company can resolve all issues in court (except workmanship) prior to breaking ground. Under the old methods, anti-nuclear activists (like the author of this piece) could, if they had a friendly judge, tie a completed reactor up for years without permitting any power.
The market is indeed speaking boldly. About 35 reactors are in various stages of the ordering process. Long lead material has been ordered for several.
Bill
Harvey Wasserman gets his extra paychecks from government of Israel. Israelis have more than 200 nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. Harvey Wasserman does not write about that.
Israelis want to use up world’s fossil fuel (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc.) first.
When world’s natural resources will be gone in the next 150 years, then Harvey Wasserman will look into nuclear power generators. Not before that.
Yes, nuclear power generators have problems with human error and radioactive waste disposal. Scientists will have to find ways to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate them.
Scientists haven’t found a way for the past 60 some years and scientists don’t usually delve into human error, or possible sabatoge, or a number 8 earthquake, except they they often err themselves ___ being human. When humans err in a nuclear power plant, or when transporting or storing nuclear waste, it can be a very serious issue.
Thanks for the reply ~Bill~, I do think they can drive around the wind machines in an electrical powered cart however. As to Co2 emmitted from conrete is concerned, I do believe we should call that a rather moot issue for nuclear or wind power, as for example the concrete for Boulder dam was still setting up and cooling 60 years after it was first poured.
All these arguments, pro and con, pale into insignificance when one considers this issue in one of the above posts:
[we may] “quite possibly some day eliminate the long term waste problem.” No one on Earth has figured out HOW AND WHERE to store the existing radioactive waste for 50,000-100,000 years. Let’s not ADD any more of it.
And why build more nuclear plants to add to the 103 terrorist targets we’re already stuck with?
How many terrorist strikes took place on American nuclear power or weapons storage facilities in the past 60 years?
Since there’s a potential for sabotage, government must take actions to prevent them.
France has been producing electricity from nuclear power for many years now.
The past 60 years of inability to find the solution for waste disposal catastrophe does not imply not discovering anything in the next 60 years.
Necessity is the mother of all inventions.
Now, American government can loot other nations’ wealth to run its economy. Once the looting potential evaporates in the coming decades or so, government will go into nuclear power generators anyway.
Right now or for the argument’s sake next 150 years, it may not be necessary for Americans to think about alternate energy production.
But, at some point in the future, choice has to be made for nuclear power generators.
Here we have an illustration of a flaw in blog technology. Whenever a certain group scans the word, say, “nuclear”, and they discover that anyone can login and post, they descend on that blog. Then they pull out their now-stale sermon and preach, and argue, and either ignore or hate anyone who makes an intelligent counterargument, and generally pollute up the blog area.
That’s why I propose a blog where
1. all messages are rated by other participants,
2. summing these ratings, anonymous participants are rated on their long-time dependability by other participants.
3. participants are ranked disproportionally on their hurtful flames. Even ten good messages plus one outrageous flame makes that participant a real jerk.
4. rank newbies with low scores (and jerks who can’t seem to build up their low scores) can be read by long-timers with good scores, and messages that initially score well can then be read by low-scoring newbies, but newbies can’t post to other newbies.
5. The newbie and jerk vote is limited to, say, a maximum of 20% of the total vote. This means that a hacker can’t log in as 1000 newbies and vote 1000 votes against one message. All 1000 votes would be packed into that 20% bloc of voting strength.
Adele,
There are no technological constraints on getting rid of the long term (more than 10,000 year half life) waste. Essentially all of it can be fissioned in a fast reactor.
There are, however, economic and political constraints. Fast reactors are more expensive to build and operate than the water cooled reactors currently in use (and planned in the near future).
Utiliities are going to build the lowest cost style of reactor that meets their needs. You, as a rate payer, would not want anything else. Under the current market structure there is no incentive for a private utility to build a reactor capable of burning long term wastes.
With the current market structure, the federal government is paid a fee to takes posession of used nuclear fuel. (The long term waste that is the cause of so much anxiety is in the used fuel.) For a utility, this is a less expensive option than processing the fuel to collect the offending material and burn it in a fast reactor.
There is an issue of protecting society from the short lived intensely radioactive fission fragments from used fuel but this is a 500 year problem not a 50,000 year problem.
If we, as a society, want to build a fleet of fast reactors capable of burning the long term waste we can do so. It will require either a restructuring of the nuclear power generating industry to make that a preferred option or the federal government will have to do it. These are political and economic questions, not technical.
Bill
Hi ~UNKNOWN~ What I meant by, we haven’t been able to SAFELY take care of nuclear waste for the past 60 years, is because there have been numerous serious accidents at both nuclear plants and with nuclear waste, both here and in other countries. On top of that our government and 29 others use depleted uranium from nuclear plants in weapons. Safely storing it?
As to sabatoge, that is most unlikely but not impossible and such an attack by a terrorist group could result in a disaster of forever steralizing an araa of land the size of New York, or Texas, or Rhode Island. They have discovered an illegal alien working as a US border patrol agent. look how easy it was for 19 terrorists to do the damage they did on 9-11. They made it look easy ___ and it was.
Necessity is the mother of all inventions, I agree. we’d better start developing clean energy already invented and forget about nuclear energy and phase it out just as soon as possible and practicle, because it is a necessity.
It would not be that horribly difficult for a sabatour to gain entrance to a nuclear plant, or for a trusted worker to become insane and decide to kill himself and a few million others. Not likely, such never is until it happens. With ‘truley’ clean energy, that would not be a worry.
And 150 years in the future? we’d better be thinking seriously about twenty years into the future at the rate the Arctic tundra is thawing, maybe less than ten according to some highly qualified scientists. If that (400 gigatons) of methane gas blooms out into our atmosphere, we’re history. It’s happened twice before in Earth’s history and it’s about to happen again if we humans don’t start working to prevent it.
Any who believe we can ’safely’ store nuclear waste for 500 years, or even a 100 years, are delusional and not being realistic or honest about the subject.
Google nuclear accidents and get educated on the subject. It’s amazing and they list just the ones that were reported.
you know, I can’t help but think nuclear power is just such an obvious scam in so many ways. to start with it costs many, many times more per K/Wh as compared with very clean green alternates such as PVs or wind turbines ect & so on.
In plain unsophisticated economics, it’s just a bad investment. It takes decades to be brought online & then decades more to pay back, if ever, assuming we whistle past the endless leaks, outright catastrophes, & the so far only theoretical final resting places of its incredibly toxic spent fuel & stream of left over contaminated components. thus the massive subsidies & wavers of its uninsurability provided by our tax dollars & congresscritters (in other words admission of its absolutely known & recognized hazard to human/environmental safety). Each proposed reactor is like its own little iraq war. Monies lost, designs endlessly tinkered with, predicted outcomes always smearing a little this way or that, yet sunny futures always being surmised at an ever escalating cost to all of us who aren’t in on the cost plus, or 12 year gravey train to buld the damned thing. an all that that entails…
about those life cycle emissions though,
how’s it figured that wind is lower than PVs?
PVs basically last until they’re broken. A small decline in output after the first couple of years does seem a reasonable assumption, although I’ve not seen that myself for my first 10 years of use of our PVs (2 different types).
& yet there are solar panels in orbit that have worked for decades undergoing several hundred degrees of temperature change every few hours for all that time & still operate flawlessly.
windmills, hydro, wave motion all involve moving parts & thus would naturally need more maintenance & have a higher lifecycle cost.
It also occurs to me whomever put that list together did very little in the way of considering the ‘cost’ lifecycle or otherwise in quarantining all the parts of the ‘worn out’ nuke reactors. Breeders are even worse, more dangerous & expensive to operate & much more radioactive.
I remember reading a few years back about a nuclear reactor that was being decommissioned & struck by the fact that even the concrete blocks of the containment dome were so radioactive that even that outermost layer had to be sent to a high level waste treatment (read storage, not like its the flu, I geuss they’ll just keep shuffling or whatever they do until something uncoverupable finally happens).
I seriously wonder just whose idea of a life cycle that is & exactly what its based upon….
kinda makes one wonder
I am pleased to learn of Al Gore’s letter. He has not been very vocal in his opposition to nuke plants.
We would be foolish to count on main stream Dems to shut down these dangerous dinosaurs or to stop new ones.
The selling point for nukes has always been that they provide an opportunity for investors to squeeze money from consumers while externalizing real costs (requiring consumers/taxpayers to bear those burdens)
Back in the ’70’s the public was far more aware of the dangers inherent in this foolish technology. 5000 people were willing to be arrested in Seabrook NH and that stopped a second nuke there. That sort of action is exactly what is required now. Protesters then used the defense of necessity at their trials, with mixed results, but now we have the legal opinion of former Bush Mob lawyer, now law professor John Yoo to bolster that defense.
“Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outlined above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability.” (Prof. Yoo, from infamous torture memo)
If necessity is an adequate defense for torture and murder, it must surely be an adequate defense for non-violent civil disobedience!
5000 people showed up to protest a nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. Hundreds of new coal plants are going up in the US alone with, at best, a few vapid protests.
Thirty thousand people die from coal plant pollution every year. That figure is based on air quality and does not even take into account CO-2 which is the biggest threat.
The burning of coal also spews huge quantities of radioactive waste into the air with absolutely no containment, regulation, or notice.
Regarding nuclear power, the protesters say “This could happen.”
With coal—This IS happening. (Climate destabilization, death, soaring asthma rates, etc. etc.)
I would like to expand on what Al Gore wrote in his letter:
“I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy.”
My view is that you can run the nuclear plants that we have now and decommission them when the time comes to do so. You can replace those decommissioned nuclear plants with new designs that are safer, if we do not have a renewable source to take its place.
I do not like nuclear plants and the waste that they produce, but they do provide strong base load power production. I think that we can eventually replace that power production with renewable energy sources. But until we have those resources online, we will need nuclear.
I’m sure that those who support nuclear power will be able to diminish the importance of a large scale accident in their minds…not if, but when it happens here. Like the Russians who support nuclear power do now. Don’t climb higher than you are willing to fall.
~JSTEVENS~is absolutely correct. It’s the coal burning that is the real serious problem on a daily basis. It also it the problem we MUST attack because of hte Co2 emmissions.
So we have those that say build nuclear and solve that serious problem. And so many agree because nuclear is actually a clean energy compared to coal, much cleaner.
What I almost fail to understand, is why can’t we say the same thing about clean and SAFE energy and put the money we’d use for nuclear into developing SAFE energy. Wind, solar, geo-thremal etc.
Actually I do understand it, the reason of course is, (the powers who be) own uranium mines. They also “own” or control many politicians and the press. Money talks and they have tons of money,___ we don’t.
The science and technology is currently available to have clean, SAFE energy and faster than we could have more nuclear plants, IF we’d put our money and energy into it.
I fear another problem is, men like Obama and Gore actually consider nuclear “clean energy” because it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere with Co2 and they are willing to risk the dangers, as are so many decent and intelligent people who blog here at CD on the subject.
I have regularly posted comments questioning the wisdom of nuclear power generation, but a recent installment of the PBS series “e2″ has given me pause.
www.pbs.org/e2/episodes/teacher_206.html (Sorry there appears to be no transcript available.)
The program talked about the “pebble bed” technology where the nuclear fuel pellets are encased in waterproof graphite which facilitates disposal. The technology allows power plants to be modular, and manufactured in a plant. The plants are small and can be up and running in 2-3 years. Since they’re modular, new additions can be built right alongside the older facilities without any downtime. It sounds promising.
On the other hand, if what rtdrury says applies (”. . .in 2008 FPL estimated the two new proposed nuclear plants at Turkey Pt. to cost $16k/kW”), then it wouldn’t seem to make economic sense unless the new technology could production at, say, one-eighth the projected cost.
To halt and reverse the reality of global warming we must STOP using fossil fuels. Not reduce, but STOP. Period!
The replacements for fossil fuels are well known; solar, wind, tidal and nuclear. Captured energy from these processes is easily turned into the only two forms of “energy currency” we needs; electricity for communications, and hydrogen for transportation. No new technologies are required, only improvements in efficiency and safety. What is required is the willingness for all 6,500,000,000 of us to elect governments that will do as we demand.
For those who say that this change will make communications and transportation more expensive; so what?
The choice is an easy one. We continue to use cheap oil and gas, pollute our atmosphere, and our children and grandchildren will fry, or we and they pay more. It’s not rocket science.
You are correct ~Wood-Boot~.
Kem Patrick:
Like you, I would like the safest cleanest energy possible. But until we get there, I think it is necessary to accurately prioritize our choices.
It is easy for someone like Harvey, here,or sometimes Ralph Nader, to say that nuclear power is bad. He has instant support. It is easy to feed the fire of fear about nuclear power because of its complexity. Although I believe that Harvey is an environmentalist, I think he has his story and he’s sticking to it. It is the easiest route for him. To me, the lack of objectivity is glaring, because Harvey and those like him do not like to talk about our main energy source: coal. Nuclear power does not release all of the pollutants into the atmosphere. It only uses fossil fuels in ancillary ways and therefore releases much less CO-2.
I get so upset when people bring up Chernobyl as a reason to abandon nuclear power. The problems of Chernobyl would have been averted with a containment dome. All US reactors have containment domes.
How ironic, how tragic, that by squashing nuclear power, environmentalists are inadvertently promoting coal, while it is coal (and oil) that will ruin the planet first.
I have met some of those executives (of coal plants) and they are just smirking at all of this.
Kem,
I, for one, do not oppose several of the alternative generating technologies that you espouse.
The best application for PV solar is distributed, residential and commmercial generation where it would displace grid power. If there is provision to “spin the meter backwards”, installing some power in excess of the peak demand of the consumer may be appropriate. This is most cost effective in the sunny southwest.
Residential and commercial solar hot water is another application that is little spoken of and very cost effective.
Most other alternative technologies are more appropriate for the utilities. They tend to be more capital intensive that either fossil or nuclear generation, although various subsidies distort the market. They also (with the exception of geo-thermal) are intermittent sources. Some can be made to provide continuous power but this adds to an already expensive generator.
Coal is the main source of continuous steady power in the US. It provides about half of all of our electricity.
Getting this country off of coal is an extrordinarily expensive proposition regardless of the replacement generation technologies used. The cost effectiveness of the replacement power will be a major determinant of the rate and degree to which we are successful in doing so.
Nuclear energy, despite some of the posters claims otherwise, is less capital intensive than wind, solar, tidal or wave generation. Nuclear power, along with these renewable sources generates a negligible (not zero, but negligible) amount of CO2.
Regards,
Bill
We could do IGCC with coal and sequester the CO2, but Bush said no. He allowed the coal power plants to expand without upgrading. This is horrible. The coal fired power plant companies are making a ton of money and they could afford to upgrade with no problems. They would rather buy politicians and rake in the huge dirty profits with business as usual.
The next President as GOT to get to cleaner coal. It would show China that we are doing our part and tell the corporations that they must be responsible world citizens once again. We have lot of coal, but that does not mean that we should burn it like mad in an inefficient way and blow our futures out the smokestacks.
duh, how many wind farms & sun farms can one build w/ 30 billion (plus cost overruns 10 bilion, plus cost of mining, transport, maintenance, and spent fuel transport an storage 20 billion) = at least 60 billion and only the few get richer……..if it was such a good deal, let them do it w/ their own $$$$’…..why do they need tax payer dollar and guarantees???????
Far more than enough to supply our needs ~TEE J~.
Can anyone identify a SINGLE corporate candidate who’s against nuclear power? Here in Minnesota we’re getting Al Franken rammed down our throats as a Democratic challenger to Norm Coleman. But the media has totally ignored the more progressive Democratic candidate Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. I conducted some search queries on the Minneapolis Star Tribune web site and got like a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio of headlines for Franken (nuclear supporter) over Nelson-Pallmeyer.
Big-money talks. The media listens. There are no big-money politicians against nuclear. I wonder how the kickback mechanism works.
Okay Bill, I know you are against coal fired plants also, besides you’re a very nice man and give some very good good opinions and valuable information here, _____ usually.
So let us play a game here. ___Here are the five easy to understand game rules.
(1) We have $70 Billion dollars to spend to develop clean energy and stop using coal for power plants. Another $50 billion in reserve for any possible cost over-runs.
(2) We will have ten years as the goal to accomplish that, with a MASSIVE war time effort to do so and in the process, gain millions of good paying jobs.
(3) We have the current technology to go with either, (1) safe clean energy, solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal and wave generated electrical power, or (2) go with clean nuclear.
(4) Now either way, we can eleminate coal fired power plants and even have the necesary power to crack sea water and develop hydrogen fuel at an affordable cost.
(5) We have to choose ONLY ONE of the two alternatives. Which ONE would be the best?? Money and or, for the first ten years, cost per KWH is not the issue, as either way, cost per KWH will be comparrable. After SAFE and clean plants are operational, there is NO cost for fuel or any necessity to mine fuel to power them.
In the long run, which is safer and more friendly for the enviroment? ___ Vote for only ONE.
This is my game and MY rules.
But if any pick nuclear, they are a dirty, stinking, money hungry, rat-fink, sheep-herder ___ and they don’t love Jesus.
They hate their father too.
How many Chernobyl-scale nuclear disasters would it take to equal the damage to the biosphere we have already done (or set in motion) by our use of fossil fuels?
One thousand? One million? Ten million?
Someone once implied that it is distributed versus central power generation. With central you have control and revenue every day. With distributed, you have upfront cost financed and you power you own home and business.
It has taken a long time to get net metering laws into effect where you can offset your power bill by having solar and wind. If we can get lower cost solar panels, we may see more on rooftops and fewer power plants. People do not like power plants near them. They do not like high power transmission line near them. So we have macro and micro grids where people can generate their own clean power.
sjc_1: I think the only real reform will come when more individuals have their own system for as much of their energy needs as possible.
i disagree with the promise of IGCC. The technology is unproven and improbable. I think it is a mistake to promote the notion of “clean coal”. It is never clean.
Hi Kem,
I will rise to your bait but you will have to endure my droning afterward.
Clearly, if capital cost were no impediment, the renewables would win hands down, but only certain ones.
Geo-thermal, to the extent it is practical, would be the first choice.
I would largely avoid wind. Wind power requires about 50 acres per megawatt. We would have to change the national anthem to “waving silver blades of power” instead of “amber waves of grain” and the meter won’t work on the song. We would end up slicing and dicing all the swallows on their way to Capistrano and we would have to change the national bird from the bald eagle to the dead duck.
Solar would probably be the main way to go. It is predictable and only requires about one-tenth the land that wind does. Since captial cost is ignored, we would buffer the daily cyclical power to provide continuous baseload. Since the logical place to put solar is primarily in the sunny southwest we would also need a superconducting DC power grid to bring the power to our population centers in the east.
Now, to inject a bit of reality: How much coal can we replace with say a nice round trillion dollars. In 2006, coal in the US generated the equivalent of 228 Gigawatts of generator running at 100% capacity. (I know you don’t like math Kem so just skim the numbers to get to the percentages.) This number is calculated from www.eia.doe.gov data.
Turkey Point nuclear power station just published their estimate for their planned nuclear expansion as $5000/kilowatt but that includes some costs beyond the plant itself. Westinghouse has published their estimate of new power with their reactor as $1200/kilowatt which is probably unrealistic with the rapidly inflating cost of steel and concrete. I will use a cost of $4000/kilowatt. For our $1 trillion, we get 250 gigawatts of nameplate capacity at 90% availability or 225 gigawatts. We can replace 99% of our coal generation with nuclear power for 1 trillion bucks.
Wind costs about $1700/kilowatt installed. If we are going to use it to replace coal as baseload we also need to include some backup capacity because of winds variabilty. That get our cost up to about $2100/kilowatt of nameplate capacity. Wind generation (onshore) averages about 30% of capacity. For our $1 trillion we get 476 gigawatts of nameplate at 30% availability or 142 gigawatts. For our trillion we can replace 63% of our coal with wind but we will also generate CO2 because we will need to have some operation of the backup generation.
PV solar costs about $5500/kilowatt (Nellis Air Force Base costs). I believe thermal solar is more like $3000/kilowatt. To replace coal, the power needs to be available 24/7 so I’ll add 10% for thermal storage or $3300/kilowatt. Over a 24 hour cycle, solar operates at about 20% of nameplate capacity. So, for our $1 trillion, we can get 303 gigawatts of thermal solar with an availabilty of 20% or 61 gigawatts. We can replace 27% of our coal capacity with solar for 1 trillion dollars.
I believe that for our investment of $1 trillion, we are better off with nuclear. We can replace more coal.
Regards,
Bill
Why do you hate your father ?
Billy,
How about some calculations for Geo-thermal, or tidal? I’d like to see what you come up with there. While you got your pencil busy think about what the cost is of replacing oil with ethanol, ok?
The 800 pound gorilla in the room few people discuss is not power generation, but transmission. With improved transmission capability it would be possible to minimalize environmental impact, by having huge miles square wind & PV ‘farms’ far removed from life forms (human or animal), with no spoilage of aesthetic beauty (personally, I think windmills more sightly than nuke plants, but that’s just my bias speaking I guess). Solve the problem of energy loss over great transmission distance and the ‘clean green’ vs. ‘dirty black’ (or nuke) debate becomes a moot issue, right? What do you know about energy loss with fiber optic transmission, Billy? Any possible solution there you think?
Paul,
Geo-thermal is a hard cost to nail down because it is so site specific to the installation. I did find a New Zealand plant that is currently under construction for $3000/kw.
The biggest geo-thermal plant in the world is in California but it has infrastructure going back over a 100 years. Figuring out a contemporary cost would be difficult without proprietary data.
As I understand it, the biggest limitation on deploying geo-thermal is the risk in drilling. It is much harder to map the geology of an area for hot rocks than for say oil or gas. I think it might we worth investigating having the federal government do the survey and trial drilling; then, if sucessful, participate with a private (or public) utility to exploit the site. (I have a strong socialist bent so this sort of arrangement would not bother me.)
My personal persuasion would be, if a geo-thermal plant can be installed for say 120% of the capital cost of nuclear it would be a good national investment since their is no fueling or security issues to contend with.
Tidal power is just now being developed commercially (the first commercial tidal flow generator was installed this month in Northern Ireland). I could not find any cost data for tidal flow generation but I would imagine, once mature, it will be similar or less than on shore wind (about $1700/kilowatt). Tidal has the advantage over wind in being more predictable. It is intermittent but it has an advantage over solar in that it generates over 50% of the time. It will be very site specific where it can be installed with cost effectiveness. I think tidal flow generation has a great future.
Tidal generation also can use a dam and generate with a head in a similar manner to conventional hydroelectric. I personally don’t like the idea of damming estuaries because of the adverse environmental impact. The Rance River in France has the world’s biggest tidal generation of this type.
Improving transmission would be very helpful in optimizing the placement of generating capacity. Nuclear plants could be located close to ocean cooling. Fossil plants could be located near the mine and/or CO2 sequestering sites. Solar could be located in the desert southwest and so forth. Something like 15% of our generating capacity is now lost to transmission inefficiency.
I mentioned in response to Kem’s mind game that a superconducting DC grid would address a lot of these issues. With high temperature superconductors it is technoloically feasible to do something like this but it would not be cheap. Such a grid would probably be best as an underground utility rather than overhead to provide more stability to the conductor. I am not really conversant with the costs of transmission infrastructure.
A superconducting grid would be very helpful but would not solve global warming or the need to reduce our CO2 footprint.
You asked about ethanol as a replacement for oil. The dollar cost of this would not be my major issue. It would be the cost in human suffering. Something like 3 or 4% of our transportation fuel is now ethanol and already we are seeing the cost of corn meal out of the reach of Mexican peasants. Domestically, the cost of eggs has risen 50% in the last year. Milk is up about 30%. Sorry-no thanks. We need electrically powered transportation rather than vodka powered.
Bill
Billy,
Thanks for the research. The Isrealis recently came up with a wave power system that is pretty effective on a cost/benefit ratio. Might want to look at that.
San Francisco came up with a tidal project not involving dams. Basically it’s a tube, and creates suction that’s transferred through piping out of the water to run turbines. Funding is the problem, and this goes back to the argument I’ve repeatedly made that we need to shift our investment dollars from nuclear, ’supposedly, but not really’ clean coal, and ethanol (which is absurd for the reasons you mention & corrupt already…check out the scam known as ’splash & dash’).
Now I see the oil companies are bitching about losing their $18 billion in subsidies or tax breaks. Screw them! They can’t keep holding us by the balls forever. Let them spend their own dime on exploration or face the alternative…nationalization & consideration as a ‘public utility’. What rationalization is there for them to be considered anything else but? Power supplies are also a national security issue, so the trillions spent on defense of these sources should be benefitting ALL Americans, not just a few elite individuals or corporations, right? This applies to investments in nuclear as well, although I believe (as previously stated numerous times) we get a bigger bang for our buck (with less danger of catastrophic incident) by funding truly green renewables.
Right now we need a concerted effort to shut down & replace the coal industry, our greatest threat. Eventually the same with nuclear. Through increased efficiency & conservation measures oil will not be needed from foreign sources at all, freeing up hundreds of billions from the military budget. That money will take us finally into a truly ‘green’, self sufficient, & sustainable energy system in this country. We can’t afford to let robber barons & politicians get in the way. If they aren’t part of the solution they are the problem, and must go the way of the fossil fuel dinosaurs they are!
If an industrialised country like Germany can pledge to phase out nuclear energy and implement a plan for 100% renewables, all countries can.
In 2002 there were about 30 000 people employed in the nuke industry in Germany, currently there are about 32 000 coal miners, and 240 000 people employed in the renewable energy sector.
It appears coal and nukes are both on their way out, especially since the number of jobs going to renewables is increasing daily.
Andrew,
Germany is expecting power blackouts this summer because of their wrongheaded energy policies.
I expect the prime minister, Angela Merkel, to call for early elections so that she can form a government without the Social Democrats. She and her party, the Christian Democrats, favor nuclear power. See www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2008/gb2008042_718011.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories
Bill
Coal can be made cleaner. The all or nothing at all approach will not get problem solving constructive action to take place. We have to go with what can be done to help solve the problem. IGCC can be done now, it is the sequestration that is being developed. We need now and will continue to need base load power.
With pumped hydro, renewable energy can be stored for use 24/7. Renewable energy can be used on a larger scale that it is now. We have decision makers that want the situation to continue the way things have been in a changing world. People do not decide what power plants are built and they really have few practical choices on what kinds of power they use.
In California, the power regulations were changed to allow more independent producers. Enron and other companies were behind getting those laws passed for their own self interest. They knew few would fund renewable energy development and the phase in of the laws had no conditional provisions for that development before continued phasing in of deregulation. In short, we ended up with little renewable energy and the power industry dominated by a few companies that gamed the system, leading to huge price increases and blackouts.
It was not a lack of permitting power plants to be constructed in California that was the problem. There were plenty of plants permitted, but they were not built because they knew Enron and others would come in and dominate the market. The next time you hear the propaganda machine go into high gear, start thinking for yourselves and investigate further.
We’ve had power outages in the United Sttes Bill, lots of them. And reduced water avaliabilty in major rivers is a huge problem for some nuclear power plants and that becomes a more serious problem every year. Clean energy, less nuclear, is the answer, with a massive program to initiate it.
Britain was considering closing out its nuclear industry and has an ambitious windfarm project in the North Sea, but seeing the need for large scale reliable GHG free power the Brits are looking at nuclear power again.
The current German nuclear policy resulted from a coalition including the Green Party, and could change quickly with politics. In a few years they can buy their electricity from the French.
I tried to find and investigate data on adverse health effects around the Limerick power station near me in PA. Tooth fairy project, childhood leukemia, CDC data… Its all very confusing and confounded by TMI being close along with a chemical plant, several factories that use solvents, and landfill gas burning in the area.
The NRC fact sheets are so self confident, almost smug, while critics like Sternglass and Mangano are so shrill. Its hard to see the true picture for all the smoke.
Its decision time. We need nuclear power to replace fossil ASAP. Then we need to make sure it is done right. Obama has the clearest position on this.
Nuclear power has always been done “RIGHT”.
Right!
sjc,
IMHO, licensing of additional coal plants should only occur if the plant includes actual CCS, not just provisions for future CCS.
“Clean coal” is an ambiguous jargon used by the coal PR agencies to confuse the issue. If you remove the fly ash, the SO2 and the NOx, the exhaust is much cleaner than without the scrubbers and bag houses. If you also remove the mercury, it is cleaner still. Removal of these pollutants, admirable as it may be, does nothing to alleviate global warming.
The problem would self correct if the nation implemented a carbon tax without loopholes and made it stiff enough. The tax needs to be high enough and properly structured so that CO2 sequestration is more economically attractive than operating without it.
Bill
It is because people want it all or nothing. Either they have carbon capture now or nothing. This whole loaf/no loaf approach is foolish and reckless. People are willing to express their opinions with no consideration of the consequences. The art of compromise is what this country was built on. It is time we returned to sanity and started practicing rational human behavior.
There is an incredible bias in reporting regarding carbon capture (already available) and carbon sequestration (never before attempted on a large scale). Most of the information out there makes it look as though carbon sequestration is a given, sending a message that we should keep burning coal, now, see if we can bury it later. Another problem is that the gasification of coal is a highly toxic process that leaves potential Superfund sites in its wake. So why go there? Currently, the technology is used to force oil out of dying wells, so you can see what fine industries might be in favor of IGCC.
I wouldn’t phrase this debate in terms of an unwillingness to compromise, but as the propagation of our filthiest fuel source.
On a separate note, notice that Germany (along with Spain) is phasing out nuclear power but not coal. This is so short-sighted.
Kem,
It is true that we have had outages in the US. Our outages, however, have generally been failures of the grid and/or grid instability. I don’t remember any rolling blackouts from insufficient power generation capacity other than in California when Enron was playing gotcha.
Regards,
Bill
Sjc,
I would agree that utilities could build all the coal plants they wanted if by 2018 there would be a $75/ton CO2 emission tax. The company could avoid the tax if the CO2 were sequestered.
Bill
Ever hear of nuclear power plants having to cut way back because of cooling water problems and dischage hot water problems?
I’m usiing layman’s terminology there of course.
Kem,
Yes, last year there were several power plants, both nuclear and fossil, that had to curtail power both in this country and in Europe.
Any thermally based generation system has to get rid of heat. It can be air cooled or water cooled. Water cooled is more efficient that air cooled. If water cooled, it can be fresh water or, if available, salt water.
There is a risk if a utility chooses lake or river fresh water cooling that they may have to curtail generation in the event of drought or prolonged heat wave.
When you compare a nuclear plant with a coal plant, for a given size generator, the nuclear plant has to get rid of more waste heat. The peak coolant temperature in a nuclear plant is lower than for a coal plant so it is not as efficient.
The Southern company has applied for an environmental permit to build a pair of nuclear reactors in Georgia. There are extensive discussions with opponents of the plant as to whether there is adequate water for the plants and about competing uses for the available water. The issue is currently being considered by the NRC.
Bill
Thanks Bill.
Buttttt, lets build some geo-thermals and try it out, __ lots of them. Kick in the wind, solar power tower ideas too. The main thing, is to stop burning coal, __ dirty or otherwise.
Bill
If the Germans do have blackouts while they convert to 100% renewable energy, this problem can be solved by more speedily divesifying and increasing renewable capacity. It makes more sense than dabbling in nuclear energy.
Guarenteed the potential problem of blackouts can be solved faster than finding a safe method to store radioactive nuclear waste and make nuclear facilities safe against human error and terrorist attack.
Kem,
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a high financial risk in the drilling for geo-thermal. Unless the utility is protected from that risk, geo-thermal is going to be slow going. I would support a more vigorous government participation (if there were adequate protections against fraud) in development of geo-thermal potential but there is not any such program that I am aware of.
I don’t particularly see the advantage of power towers over concentrating thermal power (Google: “Nevada Solar One” for the latest example). That technology is already available. i doubt if power towers are going to be much less expensive.
The wind turbine manufacturers are backordered for a couple of years. That industry is growing rapidly. The best thing the federal government could do for that industry is to pass legislation that the renewable production subsidy is in place for 10 years rather than funding it on a year to year basis.
Andrew,
Wind is the major renewable in Germany. The wind tends to die out during heat waves in that country. During the winter they have excess power that they sell internationally.
Bill
Currently the Germans are working on a ‘Combined Power Plant’ which links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations throughout the country, making the power supply as reliable as any large scale conventional power station.
Nanosolar from Silicon Valley recently announced they could reduce the cost of photovoltaic solar units by 80% with a new manufacturing process. And the Germans are also working on solar in a big way.
Human creativity is too good to settle for something as dangerous as nuclear energy, as renewables are in a growth phase and nukes in a dying phase. In 2002 Germany had
30 000 people in the nuke industry, they now have 240 000 working on renewables, and the numbers are growing by the day.
Hi Bill. I like what ANDREW is writing here, it makes good sense to me. How about you?
Sorry, I don’t by your Geo-thermal drilling arguments, there are many already located Geo-thermal areas which cold be utilized. ___ Many.
Hi Kem,
Andrew’s post is largely opinion. I may not agree with his opinion (or yours for that matter) but I try to avoid arguing with opinion. It tends to piss people off rather than look for common ground.
I may find his specifics shakey or speculative (i.e. Nanosolar has made this statement before but solar panels for $1/watt are not on the market) but I do not have any information to say they are incorrect.
On the geo-thermal exploitation, I believe that, if there were extensive areas ripe for development with low economic risk, utilities would be vigorously developing them.
By and large, the utilities in this country are in a tight spot: If they install coal, which is the lowest cost base load power at this time, they are at risk of being clobbered by carbon taxes or cap and trade. If they install gas, which can be used for base load, they have very volatile and unpredictable fuel prices. Hydroelectric is off the table. Solar is way too expensive. Other renewables are generally not mature technologies. That leaves wind and nuclear.
The wind turbine industry is backlogged for several years. There is a shortage of trained technicians to install and service the units. Wind is intermittent, this can be addressed somewhat with buffer power storage but that adds to the cost. There is beginning to be pushback on the environmental cost of wind.
That leaves nuclear. Nuclear power is a long lead source and expensive to build. There is a high risk of intervenors interfering with construction and licensing which could delay construction and dramatically increase the cost (This is the real reason for the collapse of the nuclear build in the late 1970’s. The accident at TMI just cemented the cancellations that occured before the accident.)
If geo-thermal were low hanging fruit, the utilities would be picking it. Generating capacity in the US has dangerously low reserves and the utilities are scrambling to come up with new generation somewhere.
Regards,
Bill
Bill
If the wind turbine industry is backlogged for several years there will be demand to expand capacity. It must be one of the energies of the future.
We must remember that over and above Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden have also pledged to phase out nukes.
I think it was IBM who predicted there was no market for personal computers and they lost out to Apple who saw the gap and made a fortune
I predict nuclear power stations are going to be like mule wagons in a modern day transport system in a few years time.
The market for renewable energy is growing daily, and public awareness of the dangers of nukes is also growing daily.
Gee Bill, I didn’t see that Andrew’s posts were mostly opinion. He was stating what other countries are doing RIGHT NOW to develop clean energy, so they can phase out coal and nuclear and he’s correct.
From what I have read on the subject of Geo-thermal, we have many places in america where it would be both plentiful and very affordable to tap into and use for generating electrical power. It’s actually readily available in almost every section of the country. In some areas it is very caustic, but in many places it is not.
It is just the fact, that the “powers who are”, own uranium, and coal mines, ____ along with just about everything else, including oil and gas reserves, cattle ranches, huge department stores, trucking firms, railroads, shipping companies, pharmacutial firms, insurance companies, banks, etc. They don’t own the sunbeams or the wind however, big problem there.
Hi Kem and Andrew,
Just a quick response before we drop off the bottom of the page:
The wind industry is doing very well right now in the US. There is a production subsidy for wind of about 2cents/kilowatt-hour. That subsidy is intended to be permanent but Congress extends it on a year to year basis. As long as the subsidy is in place, wind (assuming a good location) is a good investment for a utility; without the subsidy, not as good.
The wind equipment manufacturers are well aware of the political situation and are reluctant to expand their manufacturing capacity too much. Congress let the subsidy expire for one year (I think it was 2005) and the domestic orders for wind equipment dried up. The manufacturers, for that year, were completely dependant on international sales.
If Congress were to fund the production subsidy for 10 years rather than year to year, the equipment manufacturers would more agressively expand their manufacturing capacity.
Wind based electricity does not replace coal (or nuclear) powered electricity. Wind based electricity normally replaces gas fired electricity. Once a utility has installed generating equipment, gas (or oil) is by far the most expensive equipment to run because of the fuel. Once it is installed, renewable generation is very inexpensive to operate and will permit the utility to take more expensive capacity offline.
Base load electricity is the power that is always there and the generating equipment of base load is always on (except for maintenance or an environmental constraint). Other than hydro-electric and a minute quantity of geo-thermal, all of the baseload in this country is based on a thermal process; usually coal or nuclear. Generally about 50% of the total generating capacity is considered baseload. It varies from place to place but nationally there is much more coal than nuclear.
Wind is not normally considered suitable for baseload power generation. On a year round basis, wind averages about 30% of its rated capacity. Usually better in the winter and spring, lower in the summer and fall. If you want to use wind for baseload, you need to have it almost 100% backed up with another reliable generating capability.
Denmark is a country that is almost all coastline. It is very heavy into wind generation. On a good day, the country is completely supplied by wind and they have excess power to sell. When the wind dies, however, Denmark has to import electricity from Sweden which generates its power mostly with hydroelectric and nuclear and has reserve capacity. (OBTW electricity in Denmark is some of the most expensive in Europe.)
The countries Andrew listed may very well be planning to phase out nuclear power (don’t hold your breath on it actually happening though). There are, world wide, about 35 nuclear reactors under construction. 6 in China, 6 in India, 5 in Korea, 6 in Russia as well as smaller numbers elsewhere. There are many more than that in various planning stages. There was a contract announcement this week to build 2 new reactors in Georgia. Construction is scheduled to resume on a partially completed reactor this summer in Tennessee.
The polling numbers that I have seen do not show a drop in support for nuclear power in the last couple of years, quite the opposite. The realization of the risks of global warming because of fossil fuel consumption has changed peoples attitudes.
Regards as we drop into netherworld of the archives,
Bill
Billy, you are absolutely correct, the PTC (production tax credit) for renewables has been an on again/off again fiasco. If I heard correctly in was on for three years (renewed yearly) and off for three others within the past decade. Intermittent funding shuts down investment. I imagine the fossil fuel fossils & nukeys had a lot to do with yanking funding from the competition. We definitely need a 10 year window for the PTC if we are ever to make the absolutely necessary & vital switch to renewables. Perhaps this is why, when researching geothermal, I ran into a lot of dated (stale) material. Here is some info, though, that is pretty interesting even if it was from almost ten years ago.
http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/projects/geothermal1/geothermal1.htm
“According to the article on Enviro$ense, using geothermal energy to heat homes could save between 20%-50% in total emissions, and reduce the load of utilities and appliances (many of which are refrigeration or heating units) on the electrical power grid by 75%. “
“The dependency of geothermal energy as an alternate fuel source is also very high. The University of Erlangen Geology Department says that geothermal plants can be on-line an average of 97% of the time. In contrast to nuclear (65% average on-line time) and coal (75% average on-line time), geothermal sources score quite high. A more economical approach to geothermal harnessing is found at Renewable Energy: Geothermal Energy. Some notable statistics from the report are as follows. Geothermal energy in the U.S. currently costs a very competitive $0.03-$0.08 per kilowatt hour. As well, the known sources of geothermal energy in the U.S. could replace nearly 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (a popular fuel source spreading throughout the U.S.) every year for 30 years. This amounts to over 60 times the amount of natural gas used each year. Geothermal plants that are placed near active geothermal areas (such as at The Geysers in California’s Lake County), are capable of producing the same amount of energy as more typical fossil fuel plants, but produce only 1% of the sulfur dioxide and 5% of the carbon dioxide of a fossil fuel plant. As mentioned in Being Creative, geothermal systems also take up very little land and are a very low hazard for accidents that will effect the environment significantly..”
“Geothermal systems are often hidden in the ground, so unsightly and noisy heating and cooling systems are no longer encountered on a building with a geothermal system. They also take up less physical space when designing a building, and generally provide very low maintenance costs.”
(Randy Ostridge, March 10, 1998, Written for Physics 261
University of Prince Edward Island )
Hi Paul,
I doubt if the nuclear lobby would oppose the wind subsidies. One of the subsidies to encourage new nuclear construction in the 2005 energy bill is a similar but more limited subsidy for new nuclear plants (for the first 8Gwatt of capacity only).
The wind subsidy would be anathema to the natural gas lobby, however. Wind is very much a competitor to gas generation.
The natural competitor to nuclear is coal, not gas.
Regards,
Bill
He ~Bill~ again. That was a great post by ~Paul~ in regards to Geo thermal. Your last two posts, you only addressed wind generation and sort of avoided the geo-thermal issue and replys to you that both Paul and I raised.
As to Denmark havig a good deal of coast line for fairly constant wind power, I’d say we have a considerable amount of coastline here in the States also, including the entire Gulf coast and Great Lakes Areas. No one will convince me that with government support like the nuke industry recieves, that we could not have total clean energy and phase out coal, gas, oil and nuclear power within ten years, if we put a war time effort into it.
We must battle and win the global warming issue. A new “T” shirt and bumper sticker.
……….(GLOBAL WARMING = DENY AND DIE)……….
Hi Kem,
This string has gotten quite lively as it approaches falling off the bottom of the screen.
I mentioned earlier that if geo-thermal was low hanging fruit, the utiliites would be picking it.
The energy potential from geo-thermal is, like wind, solar, tidal, wave or hydro-electric free. There are some other barriers.
I have read (I can’t remember where) that the drilling is high risk; that it is very difficult to model the geology accurately to support geo-thermal.
Much of what Paul wrote is about geothermal heat pumps; a completely different technology. It is a great conservation tool to reduce space heating expenses but is not a power source.
Regards,
Bill
You might read his commments again ~Bill~. Evidently you missed a lot of Paul’s important comments about geo-thermal power plants versus nuclear plants.
I also replied to your comment about “ripe fruit” and disagreed, but you didn’t reply to that, except to repeat yourself. BTW, wonder how many miles of coastline we have compared to Denmark?
Ever been in a mountain valley, where the wind never ceases? Hardly ever in most mountain valleys and then if it does, there is always some wind. You don’t need a lot of wind to power a windmill generator.
Kem,
During a heat wave last summer in California the installed wind generating capacity was providing approximately 5% of its nameplate capacity. That level of performance is not acceptable for base load generation unless you want to sit in the dark.
The University of Erlangen study that Paul cites is either biased or obsolete. For the last 5 years nuclear power has had approximately 90% uptime in the United States. Coal generation is near the same figure.
I do not have any first hand information as to why geothermal power is not more widely deployed in the US other than what I have read. If, as I have read, drilling risk is the major obstacle, I would think government sharing in the risk would be a good idea.
Regards,
Bill
Me too Bill. Thank you for honest replys, even if they are debateable.
Billy, is there really an issue about the safety of geothermal drilling, or is it like ‘the surge is working’, something they just want you to believe. As I noted a lot of the material I tried to find was somewhat dated, possibly due to the schizophrenic legislation concerning the PTC or investment tax credit. It’s sad when millions (billions) of people on a journey can be thwarted by a dollar bill stretched across the road to a better life.
Look what they are doing with Geo-thermal in Norway or Denmark. We have just as good thermal deposits and not deep either. There is no good reason a tenth as much tax money tossed for Nuclear, could not be used to develop geo-thermal.
Paul,
Language is a funny thing.
The risk of drilling in geo-thermal is not a physical or environmental danger (beyond normal industrial activity anyway). It is financial. If a utility drills a well which is not suitable for power production it is money wasted.
This is similar to the risk of a dry hole in the oil industry. In the oil and gas industry they are able to develop 3D maps of the geology prior to drilling and reduce the risk of a dry hole. As I understand it, the 3D mapping for geothermal is not as capable a technology.
Kem,
I am not aware of Denmark trying to exploit geo-thermal energy. It would suprise me.
If you will check, I bet most (not all, but most) of the federal money going to nuclear is either weapons related or Yucca mountain.
The Price-Anderson insurance scheme has never cost the taxpayers a dime.
There were matching funds provided to induce the first couple of nuclear utilities to try the new licensing scheme. Most of the licensing cost for a new reactor is paid for by the utility as an application fee.
There is also a production tax credit for the first couple of new reactors to come on line. The PTC for nuclear does not make a whole lot of sense but it is the law. The economics of nuclear power are very different than for wind power. A PTC makes much more sense for wind.
Regards,
Bill
Kem/Paul
If you still check this string:
Came across a good web site that discusses the current state of geo-thermal exploitation. www.iga.igg.cnr.it . If you scan through the list of projects that have been done, it becomes obvious that almost all of them are small. I believe it was under “Mexico” they gave an interesting statistic: Mexico has recently drilled 59 wells as part of geothermal exploitation with a total depth of over 150 km. That works out to a depth of about 9000 feet per well. I don’t know the details but 9000 feet of well is not cheap.
Post if you are still following this string.
Bill
Hey Billy, I’m still here:
Conventional oil well drilling comes in at about $75 per foot and the TVD (total vertical depth) in the Gulf of Mexico record is almost 35,000 feet, with many wells just below 30,000 ft. Of course part of that depth is just water. 656-1,500 ft is considered shallow, 1,000+ ft deep, and over 5,000 super/ultra deep. The record water depth well is in just a bit over 10,000 ft.
For geothermal, from the available info on a precursory limited search, the wells are generally about 6,000-7,000 feet, but since the heat source never runs out (or ‘dry’) the capital outlay initially is not a ‘throw-away’ investment as with an oil/gas well. Once the well is bored it’s there producing, with some adjustments & routine maintainence of course, virtually forever.
One question I haven’t been able to find an answer to yet is if there is a difference between bore diameter between geothermal & oil/gas wells, which could have an effect on the $75 p/ft cost noted above.
Here is a link to the info cited, Billy:
http://www.touchoilandgas.com/deepwater-activity-mexico-continues-a7145-1.html
For anyone unfamiliar with how a geothermal plant looks & works there is a graphic virtual tour here:
http://www.calenergy.com/html/aboutus4.asp
One thing mentioned, but not clarified for this link, is minerals are separated out from the water brought to the surface, but what they are & their value is (if any) not mentioned. If they are of any significant value they certainly could be a factor in capitalization, production, maintainence cost reduction. More research needed in this area.
Would probably hit oil
I’ll look up the denmark geo thermal maybe it was Finland
Scuse me Billy , it was Iceland. They get 26% of their elelctrical power from Geo and heat 87% of their homes with it and heat city streets and sidewalks in large cities. They plan to go total geo in the near future.
Define the word near?
Hi Paul,
I was looking at a website and now can’t find it. It showed exploration for geo-thermal with a small diameter rig similar to a domestic water driller. It then showed drilling with for exploitation with a drill the same size as oil or gas well. The photos were taken in Nevada before year 2000.
Geo-thermal can peter out on you. The Geysers, a geo-thermal site in California, overtaxed its heat source and had to take some of their capacity offline. They also inject municipal waste water to rejuninate their steam flow.
The website I found said that a geothermal site that gives off dry steam (steam without liquid water) is quite rare. The Geysers in California is one such site. This is the best type of source. You can run a conventional turbine with it.
Most sites are just hot water-no steam. With this type you have to run the water through a heat exchanger to heat a secondary fluid, commonly propane. This secondary fluid is then run through a turbine. The thermodynamics of this type of system are not very good and you will be hard pressed to get your money’s worth out of your investment.
There is a whole lot more geo-thermal used as a direct heat source. The world’s largest and the world’s second largest greenhouses are both in the southwest (either Nevada or New Mexico). Both are heated directly from geo-thermal wells.
Kem,
You mentioned Iceland. The statistics you cite are correct although your electric may be dated. Iceland is not the norm. The whole island is dotted with hot springs and volcanic eruptions are pretty routine. It sits on top of the mid-Atlantic ridge.
If I get a chance, I’ll look for the website. It has a great slide show.
Regards,
Bill
Billy,
I realize from the link I posted with the virtual tour of a geothermal plant the aquaifer sometimes depletes, but it also replenishes itself under normal circumstances, right?
Paul,
From what I have read, there are two types of water sources for geo-thermal: Archeological, which is ancient water; when it is gone, it is gone. Infiltration which, as the name implies, seeps in from the surface and would be renewable.
If a geo-thermal well runs dry and it is an infiltration type, you could wait for the source to recharge. I think the more common response is to inject water (The Geysers uses municipal waste water to inject).
A geothermal source has a limited amount of power that can be withdrawn. As you are pulling water out of a well, the bottom of the well is cooling. It will reheat at whatever rate the earth provides. If you pull heat out faster than the earth can reheat the well will continue to cool. The Geysers is an example of this. They were drawing too much heat out of their source and eventually had to take about 20% of their generating capacity offline.
Reminder: I ain’t no expert on dis stuff. I am trained as an engineer but certainly not in geology. I’ve just read websites for the most part.
Bill