Offshore wind turbines will line the Atlantic coast; vast solar arrays will cover swaths of the southwestern desert; transmission towers will cradle high-voltage direct current lines and take electricity from the windy Great Plains to the populated coasts. That is the renewable future for the U.S. that the Obama administration seems to envision and, certainly, what Jon Wellinghoff forecasts. And as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Wellinghoff has a better than even chance of making his vision a reality.

Already, FERC is rewriting the rules for new transmission lines, potentially making it easier to permit new electricity-carrying capacity—and, as a result, unleashing the development of more renewable resources. The commission released a new rule on June 17 that would require that mandates for renewable energy—enacted in 36 states nationwide—be taken into account when determining where and when new transmission lines get installed.

Wellinghoff's goal is to enable a near total transformation of the electricity sector, allowing for renewable resources, such as the sun, wind and flow of rivers, to meet a greater proportion of U.S. electricity demand. The benefits, according to Wellinghoff, range from "green" jobs to cutting by 80 percent emissions of the greenhouse gases causing climate change by 2050. And, ultimately, electricity harvested from the wind may be the cheapest form of electricity generation, saving money for consumers.

Renewables offer just 10 percent of total U.S. electricity generation at present, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a proportion that drops to just 4 percent when the dams built from the 1930s to the 1970s are not counted. And even FERC cannot get its landlord—the federal government's General Services Administration—to invest in energy efficiency.

ScientificAmerican.com spoke to Wellinghoff about how and why the federal government—and his agency—are pushing for this energy revolution.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

How do you see the mix of electricity generating resources in our energy portfolio over the next 30 to 40 years?
The mix is changing substantially. If you look at, you know, 30, 40, 50 years ago, we had a system where you had primarily local utilities that were serving local loads with local generation. So, it was very balkanized and it was very specific to certain areas that that particular utility would only serve that area with their own generation and to the extent that they may have some excess, yes, they have a little line that was going to the neighboring utility, and maybe they would share. But right now we are starting to build up a system that's moving away from that, primarily because we are trying to lower our carbon footprint in this country and lower it for the world. We are trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and we are trying to do what we can to ultimately ensure that we have clean green energy in this country. To do that we have to go to the sources, and those sources are mostly located in remote locations far away from loads, [so the power] ultimately has to be transmitted to those loads on long [transmission] lines. So, if you are looking at the Midwest where there is a substantial amount of wind—all the way from the Dakotas down to Texas—or if you are looking at the solar availability in this country in the Southwest, in Arizona or Nevada, or even the offshore wind in the Atlantic, you have to build lines from those sources to the loads, and you have to have a much more robust system that can support that. It's not simply the local utility with the local generator to serve the local load, it is now a nationwide grid. To do that we have to look at a much different system that is operated in a much more sophisticated way that hands off from region to region in a very efficient manner, so that these new green resources can be delivered where they need to be delivered.

69 Comments

1. 1. sethdayal 08:36 PM 6/25/10

   Another pack of nonsense, straight out of the global warming and nuclear denier shop at Big Oil HQ. Big Oil is getting a great return on its advertising investment in Scientific American.
   
   Big Oil LOVES not so renewable power, every dollar spent on it is another dollar in their pocket for load balancing gas plant. Less GHG's would be output if the not so renewables and associated fast spooling NG plant were scrapped and high efficiency CCGT gas generation was used instead.
   
   It was some climate hack with zero expertise in power engineering who came up with this distributed not so renewable scam in the November issue of SciAm. Since then the concept has been completely debunked.
   
   http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
   
   An Australian study was done looking at conversion of that entire country to solar. Results:
   
   Solar PV with Pumped Hydro storage: $2.8B
   Solar PV with NaS battery storage: $4.6B
   Solar Thermal with storage: $4.4B
   Nuclear Power: $1.2B
   
   Just the cost of the Power Transmission TRUNK lines (500kv AC - not superexpensive superconducting ) to supply Australia with Wind & Solar Energy is $1.8B -- 50% MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
   
   http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/10/solar-realities-and-transmission-costs-addendum/
   
   http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf
   
   Big Oil hacks like Beillo here love to pull down ridiculous prices for first of a kind nuclear power in the US from years ago studies. Summer 2 and 3 , and Vogtle are now coming in at budget figures of under $5B/Gw for twin AP-1000 units.
   
   Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney’s, corrupt private power companies and pet politicians, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost to build the same nuclear plants in the US.
   
   AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh
   
   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
   
   Real cost of solar.
   
   $32B/Gw or 50 cents a khr
   
   Largest solar installation in the US, just built, at Arcadia Florida 42 Gwh/annual $150M, $32B/Gw or 50 cents a kwh at Florida Power's discount rate. Google it
   
   Real cost of wind.
   
   $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh
   
   Cape wind $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh going to 34 cents over 15 years latest tariff agreement. Goggle it
   
   Scientists tell us we are maybe less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis. Nuclear power is our only hope.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. tomgarven 11:21 PM 6/25/10

   Dear sethdayal:
   
   I understand your passion for nuclear. I have read probably 100 of your posts and yet we don't seem to be going nuclear. I have read the justifications, cost analysis, benefits and yet is seems to fall on deaf ears.
   
   I worked in the nuclear field for 20 years and can attest to how nuclear plants can be operated safely. However, while some money is being spend on nuclear, it does not appear to be the major push for the future and that is probably appropriate.
   
   We have one giant nuclear reactor 93,000,000,000 miles above our head, the power is free and it is delivered to us wirelessly. We don't have to worry about the pollution and it will provide about 5,000 times more power than we will ever need. It gives us solar, wind, hydro, bio-fuels, wave power and most of the food we eat.
   
   To me this is really the only reactor we really need when we someday fully understand how to use it. There is in my opinion the need to about 1200 earth bound reactors for about the next 20-50 years - after that forget it. These reactors should be small, modular, welded shut reactors attached to our old coal and natural gas burning power plants. I am not a nuclear engineer so I won't quibble about the type. There is just no excuse for us to be burning coal and natural gas to produce electricity. Something like the Hyperion concept I guess but slightly larger, maybe 250 MWt.
   
   So in closing I guess the day of the 1200-1400 MW central dual unit reactors is over because they are: Too big, too costly to build, no one wants one in their backyard and no matter how much we try is does not appear to be making any difference. When 75% of the American people want renewable energy that is probably what we are going to get.
   
   Maybe high temperature gas cooled reactors attached to our old coal plants could be sold to the American people. Just maybe they might think that this would be a better idea than killing coal miners and giving people Black Lung. IF the plan included the retraining of coal workers to run the nuclear plants maybe the plan would fly - don't know.
   
   Tom G
   tomgarven@hotmail.com

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. jtdwyer 12:23 AM 6/26/10

   I think your right, tomgarven , but I can agree with sethdayal in that this is nonsense. However, I think it's more public policy political nonsense than nuclear denier nonsense:
   
   "So, ultimately this is going to be a consumer choice, and there are going to be companies like the IBMs and the Googles and others who will get behind it and put the equipment in the cars, in refrigerators."
   
   Gives me 'the Giggles'... Maybe we should just put Google in charge of searching for oil and gas deposits...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. TTLG 10:43 AM 6/26/10

   Sorry, S.A., but I am mostly in agreement with the other comments. Every time I read one of these "we have to build" articles, I get irritated. Neither the justifications nor the claims seem even close to realistic. The power company pay me $1/day to turn off my fridge defrost for a few hours? That will happen about the time they are charging $1/KWH for electricity. Nor do I see any fridges with this capability on the market anyhow. So everyone is going to have to buy new ones to be able to do this? Just after having bought new "energy star" ones? How many decades will it take to recoup the amount of energy expended in building these?
   
   Not to mention the bit about the hot water heaters. I don't even know anyone who has an electric one, so forget about getting anything useful out of that. Or are we all supposed to convert to electric ones.. at an operating cost 4x what my gas one costs.
   
   So we want to reduce our carbon foot print by 80%? My electric consumption is less than 25% of the average American's, and I still have a 10 year old refrigerator. The #1 problem we have here is the wasteful habits of the average American. Work on that before you start making claims about how many billions of taxpayer money we have to spend to increase our power generation.
   
   If everyone made even the easiest changes to reduce consumption we would be pretty close to our carbon footprint goal. And the power companies would have convinced the politicians to let them charge us the aforementioned $1/KWH. But that is another rant for another time.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. lakota2012 in reply to sethdayal 01:11 PM 6/26/10

   seth says, "another pack of nonsense..."
   *****************
   
   
   
   Typical for our boy seth, to jump on each and every article here at SciAm dealing with any renewable energy, only because he must spew his nookular propaganda while dissing every other form of energy! Good job seth for your nookular masters, and your constant one-sided opinion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. tharter in reply to sethdayal 02:31 PM 6/26/10

   Seth, $1.2 billion won't even buy 1/8th of a single nuclear power plant. I don't know where the people you cite get their numbers, but they are pure and utter fantasy land bunk. I also note you fail to mention either wind or geothermal power at all. Care to actually assess the most cost effective options? No, of course not...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. sethdayal 09:49 PM 6/26/10

   You seem to have a gas problem Mr Tharter. It is getting it your eyes and giving you reading problems.
   
   I gave you real sale, and tariff costs for wind and nuclear power. I can't teach you how to use the internet.
   
   The big geothermal boom will come at enormous cost sometime too late way in the future when they can drill fracture and pump with not yet invented high temperature/pressure pumps and without causing earthquakes. By then we will have Mr Fusion units in our Ford's. Current geothermal is just the lowhanging fruit.
   
   Here is some more for ya.
   
   Real cost of Canadian nuclear power built by Canadian engineers in five years or less overseas.
   
   Candu 6 build 2004 $2B/Gw, 2 cents a kwh
   
   "http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx"
   
   Real cost of Korean nuclear power built by Korean engineers in five years or less in the UAE a notoriously corrupt country with no industrial capacity. Every piece of concrete and steel will have to be shipped in.
   
   $3.6B/Gw 1.5 cents a kwh.
   
   http://www.glgroup.com/News/S.-Korea---UAE-Nuclear-Reactor-Deal-45697.html
   
   Both AECL and Westinghouse are predicting less than $1B/Gw their new Gen 3+ units when production levels get into the scores.
   
   The American Power Act promises to drastically reduce the enormous regulatory overload on American reactor construction. Failing that, with the US nuclear industry crippled by inefficient private power and insane regulation, highly efficient Canadian public power companies could rim the border with Candu reactors powered by American nuclear waste making $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates.
   
   If you not so green folk get their way by 2050 the US will be paying 50 cents a kwh for wind and solar load balanced by dirty radioactive radon and GHG spewing low efficiency gas plant while GHG free Asia will be laughing at our destroyed economies with less than 1 cent a kwh nuclear.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. nmanley 09:54 PM 6/26/10

   My view of renewables tends to side more with seth, but for different reasons. I just read an article by Vaclav Smil on the evaluation of power sources. Might be worth a read for a different perspective on renewable sources. Of course, they're viable, but maybe not to their advertised potential.
   
   Power Density Primer (PDF) - http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density-primer.pdf

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. tharter in reply to sethdayal 12:06 AM 6/27/10

   Wind is nothing like $.50/kwh. Nuclear power plants are a giant waste of money. They are massively capital intensive and your costs are a myth because they don't account for waste disposal or decommissioning. They're a fantasy.
   
   For the cost of TWO nuclear power plants the entire eastern seaboard of the US can get its entire baseload power from wind, including enhancements to the power grid required to deal with variations in availability. Total cost, around $18 billion.
   
   I'd have little problem with nuclear power, except it is simply not cost effective. I've studied this for years. I know a BIT about nuclear reactors. Ever worked in one? There are a LOT of issues with nuclear power. Its certainly not the worst thing we could do, but it simply doesn't make sense.
   
   I predict that by the time even one new nuke is ready to go online in the US the economics will be so utterly plainly bad that they'll be scrapped. Its just money down the tube. Luckily the power companies pretty much know it.
   
   Every penny we spend on nuclear power could better be spent on 1) efficiency, 2) wind, 3) dry geothermal. Geothermal requires only small additional low-risk technical investment. The sources you're getting your information from are unreliable. I'm going on nothing more or less than widely accepted studies that have been mostly done by the DOE etc. Heck you can find articles on this very site backing up every single thing I've said.
   
   It makes perfectly good sense to explore all options and make sure that whatever we do is cost effective, but the boat has already sailed on that. The only reason nuclear is even still being talked about is vested interests.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. dwbd in reply to tharter 12:27 AM 6/27/10

    tharter claims: "...cost of TWO nuclear power plants the entire eastern seaboard of the US can get its entire baseload power from wind, including enhancements to the power grid required to deal with variations in availability. Total cost, around $18 billion..."
    
    Let's see the details of your calculations for that. Give us the numbers to support your fantasy.
    
    Peter Lang did an analysis of the cost of supplying sunny Australia with Wind & Solar Energy. Just the cost of the Power Transmission Trunk lines was $180 billion -- 50% MORE THAN THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR OPTION!!
    
    The recent offshore Wind project - Deepwater off of Rhode Island - they want 24.4 cents per kwh increasing by 3.5% per yr. Plus expensive transmission lines paid by the public, plus federal incentives plus triple accelerated depreciation plus mirroring fossil fuel power supply paid by the public. See:
    
    http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/04/rhode-islands-public-utilities.html
    
    And the latest and greatest offshore Wind Project in the USA, the Cape Wind Project off of Nantucket Sound, Senator Lamar Alexander calls "...a costly, colossal mistake... a taxpayer rip-off..." National Grid is going to have to pay 20.5 cents per kwh, increasing by 3.5% per yr for 15 yrs to 33.8 cents per kwh by 2028. Plus 2.1 cents per kwh federal subsidy MUST be added. So 22.6 cents per kwh rising to 35.9 cents per kwh. This compares to the highest Peak power rate currently at 4.5 to 9 cents per kwh. This is the INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY that Renewable Portfolio Standards creates. With the current cost of Nuclear Power at 1.89 cents per kwh, in the USA. See:
    
    http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/05/sen-lamar-alexander-calls-cape-winds.html
    
    And Wind does not significantly reduce CO2 emissions:
    
    http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
    
    Emissions INCREASE, due to Wind Energy in Colorado:
    
    http://ipams.org/wp-content/uploads/BENTEKStudy_How_Less_Became_More.pdf
    
    Peter Lang shows that the CO2 AVOIDANCE COSTS OF WIND, including necessary backup are $830 to $1149 per tonne CO2 avoided, vs Nuclear at $22 per tonne CO2 avoided:
    
    http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
    
    #1 Wind Energy country, Denmark has the highest power rates in Europe and produces the highest CO2 emissions of 881 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity, #2 Wind Power Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh, while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. sethdayal 06:11 AM 6/27/10

    @tharter
    
    Still having gas problems.
    
    " your costs are a myth because they don't account for waste disposal or decommissioning. "
    
    I can't teach you to use the internet but if you call a friend at home who can help you, you will find that a part of the current 1.86 cents a kwh, are NRC assessments for decommissioning and waste disposal.
    
    The waste is actually valuable fuel for the current crop of Gen IV reactors now being built and operating in technically advanced Asian countries.
    
    The US, a country run by attorneys, is a backwards third world county when it comes to most new technology especially nuclear.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. JamesDavis 08:13 AM 6/27/10

    "sethdayal and Soccerdad", the two pro Bush the Demigod (spend taxpayers money like a drunken sailor and anti-environmentalists) and pro Bush the Demigod nuclear republicans are at it again, so I mise-as-well put in my two cents worth of "pro-Gore the tree-huger" opinion.
    
    Geothermal costs a very small fraction of what a nuclear or even a coal burning, or natural gas burning power plant does in terms of its near zero pollution. When you add in the cost of the destruction on the land, water, and air that coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil creates, the cost of geothermal drops to near "free". It does not destroy the land because it uses water that is already there and it can even use ocean water that hurricanes or other storms bring in. It can be placed where these coal burning and radioactive nuclear power plants are now and the power can be placed in the same grid that the coal and radioactive nuclear burning power plants put theirs now. Since geothermal's power source is water and free, that should drop power rates to an all time national low.
    
    Smart non-greedy people and governments with foresight, like Norway and Iceland, know this fact and have been using geothermal as a power source for decades and geothermal have not created any earthquakes or black holes to open in space or wiped out whole communities like nuclear, coal, natural gas, and oil have. The smart choice...geothermal.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. scots engineer in reply to dwbd 08:39 AM 6/27/10

    Hi dwbd &sethdayal- you are certainly giving a stout defence for nuclear power, and you may be wholey correct, but in the UK, who were the first to have a nuclear power station, the disposal of waste is not yet resolved, and who actually pays for the decommissioning and it's true costs are not easily ascertained. Wind power and it's outrageous claims are easier to expose. Thanks to a largely technically illiterate legislature, windpower has been over developed in UK to the point where on a breezy summer evening, the wind farms production exceeds the demand above base load, so that they are seriously talking about paying the wind farm operators money to stop their turbines, and because they would have got a high price for their power, due to the way the subsidy is paid, the compensation for not producing when they could, is equally high ( about 180 pounds sterling per megawatt hour ) Needless to say they announced this on a bad news day, during the world cup. The stark realities of wind power are that every megawatt of on shore capacity costs about a million sterling, and produces about 2700 megawatt hours electricity per annum. With no subsidy,wind power could then just break even at about 5pence per unit.This of course puts no charge towards the costs of accommodating them in the grid supply demand situation ( ie the cost of shutting down some other supplier to take their electricity when they have it to supply )Off shore wind, which these technically illiterate politicians are so keen on, costs more than twice the price of on shore, but at BEST only produces about 30% more power, has the additional handicap of being inaccessible for maintenance or repair for more than 10% of the year. This latter fact must increase the insurance risks quite dramatically. It is probably no surprise that insurance costs are not something the industry boasts about.Intermittant renewables such as wind and solar can only supply a large part of the power on the grid if and when there is large scale storage of power in facilities like pump storage hydro, CAES, and electrolysed hydrogen, either stored as such or chemically bonded to create synthetic fuels. A smart grid will be a lot easier and smarter to run if there is a storage option available.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. lakota2012 10:09 AM 6/27/10

    Gotta just love the usual attacks on renewable energy by the same culprits on every article here at SciAm, with the same biased blogs or websites, promoted as "factual" information. I'm sure the pro-nookular "bravenewclimate" site or the "atomicinsights" blog, gives you anti-renewable people all the ammunition you could possibly use in your constant attacks.
    
    Luckily, you one-sided, one-trick pony nookular operatives are not influencing energy policy today, and each of your comments here with outrageous figures from biased sites are laughable at best.
    
    Better yet, are the highly-partisan comments full of nothing but political rhetoric and attacks, since they have nothing else to add but sarcasm to our fossil fuel dilemma today pushed by a well-funded industry full of well-paid lobbyists.
    
    
    If you look at a future with significantly less consumption, energy efficiency and sensible resource use, then renewable energy becomes a more attractive, affordable and sustainable solution.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. gervster 11:30 AM 6/27/10

    Agreed. I do love people who quote blogs as evidence. What a joke.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. dwbd in reply to JamesDavis 11:40 AM 6/27/10

    Geothermal won't ever be a significant world energy source. BTW it is a type of Nuclear Energy - produced by radioactive decay of mostly Uranium & Thorium inside the Earth.
    
    Iceland is the geothermal power center of the World - with decades of experience. They just completed a large 690 MW Hydro project with a 76% CF. So why didn't they go geothermal instead? They only get 11% of their electricity from geothermal power, the rest from Hydro.
    
    Alaska sitting on top of Volcanoes, hot springs & active fault zones uses 9.4% Coal, 14.8% Oil, 56.7% NG, 18.9% Hydro and a WHOPPING 0.2% for ALL OF Geothermal, Wind, Solar, Biomass etc.
    
    You would think Hawaii, sitting on top of active volcanoes, would be the Geothermal Power capital of the USA. Instead it relies on Coal for 13%, and expensive imported Oil for 68% of its electricity supply, with 1.8 % coming from Geothermal, 0.7% from Wind Energy and not surprisingly has the highest power rates in the USA of 21.3 cents per kwh. I would say if Geothermal was so economical they would have figured it out in Hawaii decades ago.
    
    Toxic metals, minerals, chemicals & gases leach out with the geothermal steam or hot water, as it is forced through rock fissures. Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Methane & CO2, Sulfur, Vanadium, Chlorides, Mercury, Nickel and Radon & other Radioactive isotopes are released.
    
    Geothermal uses 2-3X more Water per Kwh produced, than Nuclear, Coal or NG. And full lifecycle CO2 production of Geothermal is 23-122 gms CO2 per kwh produced vs 2-22 for Nuclear.
    
    http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-the-numbers/
    
    Geothermal startup suspends drilling. See:
    
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10344441-54.html
    
    Dr. Gene Preston on Geothermal Power:
    
    "...One geothermal project I recently worked on for determining the transmission access for looked like a good project until the geothermal energy extraction failed to work. Recently other geothermal projects have created human induced earthquakes. Geothermal energy seem less likely today than just a few years ago..."
    
    Geothermal has been a terrible energy investment in the USA, considering what simple technology it is:
    
    Subsidies for non-carbon emitting electricity, 1950-2006:
    
    http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/09/federal-support-for-non-carbon-dioxide.html
    
    Geothermal: $7B for 0.3% of USA electricity production.
    
    Nuclear: $65B for 19%.
    
    Geothermal 6.9X the subsidies of Nuclear per TWh produced.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. dwbd in reply to lakota2012 12:00 PM 6/27/10

    More vigorous arm-waving by Lakota. No facts, no argument, no links or citations and nonsensical statements like:
    
    "...highly-partisan comments full of nothing but political rhetoric and attacks...".
    
    Really, is this your imagination showing or do you actually read what is written? I suppose your mind probably blanks out when you have to read facts, logical arguments, numbers or citations.
    
    And let's not forget that Lakota is a Vested Interest. He makes a living selling Solar PV. I don't make one dime off of any Nuclear related business, industry or organizations.
    
    And for the mental midgets who like to declare blogs, like BraveNewClimate.com as bad sources of information - maybe you should actually read what is written there. And follow their citations - which are reputable analysis and studies.
    
    I suppose gervster thinks, we lowly peons should not be allowed to debate important issues like energy. Only the "honest experts" appointed by "honest politiicians" who produce reports funded by "honest Big Corporations" should be allowed to debate issues such as Energy Policy.
    
    And I guess gervster must think that a logical scientific or technical argument is only valid if it is done by some illustrious high & mighty, gov't appointed authority living in an Ivory Tower.
    
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. lakota2012 in reply to dwbd 01:35 PM 6/27/10

    Sorry dwbd, but my post included replies to several different posts, and soccerdad was the one with the most blatant political rhetoric and highly-partisan attacks. You on the other hand, love to use nookular BLOGS as "citations," and good ol' seth likes to use one-sided nookular websites for his "facts" proving that renewable energy costs a million times more than nookular and still produces tons of greenhouse gases.
    
    Luckily, renewable energy is growing leaps and bounds around the world, and just as the above article states, 36 states have enacted legislation promoting it, including here in Colorado! First it was the VOTERS in Colorado that passed our renewable energy standard in 2004, and since then, the CO legislature has passed two bills raising that renewable energy standard first to 20%, and then 30% earlier this year! This means that Xcel Energy and other investor-owned utilities serving Coloradans would be required to draw 30% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. That same 2010 bill also emphasized small-scale, home-based energy production.
    
    Your attacks on renewable energy or those using renewable energy like myself, since I live by example and prove that you don't need a fossil fuel balancing act if you have storage capacity. As better and more efficient means of storage are developed and put into use, renewable energy will continue its rapid expansion over the past few years.
    
    It's easy to find sites all over the internet that agree with your preconceived ideology promoting any one-sided energy plan like nookular, but they certainly cannot prove to be factual. Luckily, you and your ilk are not making energy policy today, and with your fictitious costs promoting nookular as being the ONLY cost-effective energy production despite being heavily subsidized, it only makes thinking people wonder.
    
    If you look at a future with significantly less consumption, energy efficiency and sensible resource use, then renewable energy becomes a more attractive, affordable and sustainable solution, especially when coupled with 21st century storage technology.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. gervster 02:06 PM 6/27/10

    Blogs are only as good as those who write them, kind of like wikipedia.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwbd
    
    Unfortunately, anybody can make a blog no matter what their take on on a given discussion.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. lakota2012 in reply to gervster 03:35 PM 6/27/10

    Too funny, gervster, but wiki has already deleted it!
    
    It did show up on Google though, as a "renewable energy lover, especially a fan of wind energy and geothermal energy, often quoting them as being more cost competitive than nookular."

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. tomgarven 03:55 PM 6/27/10

    I guess this will be my last post on this article. It appears everyone is just defending their position and taking pot shots at each another. We don't appear to be headed for any type of useful consensus or workable set of goals to strive for. Bickering and fighting does not accomplish anything.
    
    Most of us who post here have already made up our minds either by education or life experiences which approach we see as the future for our country. At this moment in our history it appears to me that most Americans want us to focus on renewable energy. Maybe the next President and Secretary of Energy will be different. But trying to sell something different to the American people by posting stuff on this website will probably not change our direction.
    
    If you really believe in your heart that nuclear is the best approach for our country then I recommend you start building a consensus around your beliefs. This however is going to be very difficult if some people are not willing to listen to others. A "my way or the highway" attitude is not going to get the job done. There needs to be a willingness to succeed as a group. You don't win points with your member of Congress by being inflexible or unwilling to at least discuss alternatives.
    
    I happen to believe that the nuclear reactor above our heads can someday give us all the energy we are ever going to need. We aren't quite there yet, but we are making very good progress everyday. While I do care about what happens in Asia or Europe, it has little or no relevance to the way I think about what is best for America.
    
    Here is what I think. I don't like coal burning power plants. Yes I know it's cheap and creates 40% of our electricity. But for heavens sakes; burning coal is what we were doing in the stone age and I don't care what you do to it; it is dirty. There are about 600 coal plants in the U.S. If you came up with a plan to use small modular reactors to power these coal plants you would get my support.
    
    You might even get the support of many members of Congress. If your plan also included a retraining program to use the same people currently working in the coal industry to modify and run the plants - it could be a real win - win. There is just no sense in wasting 600 turbine-generator sets, switch-yards, pumps and valves.
    
    In closing if you sincerely believe that nuclear could be a good source for our future then start looking for places where people will support it's use - you can win with that strategy.
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. tomgarven 04:24 PM 6/27/10

    gervster wrote in part: Blogs are only as good as those who write them, kind of like wikipedia.
    
    I agree; when I read that about 10,000 miles of new transmission lines would be needed for renewable energy I found that a little hard to believe. I found the below study which I think is a much more accurate representation of actual transmission needs for renewable energy in a state like California.
    
    Since I once worked in a tower and sub-station engineering group, the only comment I would make is this; utilities are constantly upgrade their distribution grids. Not everything being done today is for the sole purpose of the transmission of renewable energy. The link to the 120 page study is below.
    
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/RETI-1000-2010-002/RETI-1000-2010-002-F.PDF
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. dwbd in reply to lakota2012 04:24 PM 6/27/10

    Lakota: "... use nookular BLOGS as "citations..."
    
    An idiotic statement, that demonstrates your complete lack of integrity. My last reference - a lightbucket blog article on LCA's. This article contains no less than 31 citations and references. Some examples:
    
    ExternE – a research project of the European Commission.
    
    Sustainable Development Commission is the UK Gov't independent advisory body on sustainable development.
    
    Vattenfall AB is a Swedish electricity generating company.
    
    Yep, those are all invalid because they were used in a "nookular BLOG", according to You & Gervster. And your definition of a "nookular Blog" is any Blog that is pro-Nuclear, even if 90% of it's content has nothing to do with Nuclear Energy - like the depletedcranium blog.
    
    Lakota "...36 states have enacted legislation ...was the VOTERS in Colorado that passed raising that renewable energy standard first to 20%, and then 30% earlier this year..."
    
    Good point. A prime example of subsidies to Wind & Solar Energy - a particularly COWARDLY, DEVIOUS, DECEITFUL way to supply MASSIVE subsidies to Renewable Energy and HIDE them. Unfortuneately the public are vulnerable to being suckered in by the Press saturated with disinformation from Oil, Coal and Gas funded Lobby Firms, Press, Vested Interests and Environmental Organizations. Lot's of people were duped by the #1 pro-Renewable Oil Company - namely BP – now that their True Colors have been shown - not so many in support. Any expenditure on Renewable Energy helps maintain the Hegemony of Fossil Fuels. In most cases RPS' are abandoned (i.e. Germany) by subsequent administrations when they can't pay for them. And/Or they achieve them (i.e. California) by importing Coal power from out of state - not counted.
    
    Lakota"...Your attacks on renewable energy or those using renewable energy like myself..."
    
    I could care less if you use Renewable Energy. Good luck. As long as you pay for it - no subsidies - good for you.
    
    Lakota: "...renewable energy will continue its rapid expansion over the past few years..."
    
    Yep, they've been doing that a long time in Germany - the #1 Renewable Energy country in the World. This is a graph of their Primary Energy Supply:
    
    http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdfs
    
    See that skinny little Red Line on top, that's your Solar, Wind & Geothermal Energy. Does that look like "growing in leaps and bounds"? And that doesn't count the extra fossil fuel req'd to balance the Solar & Wind Energy. Include that and the Red Line would be of Negative Thickness.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

24. 24. gervster 04:54 PM 6/27/10

    Not true dwbd - fact is all blogs are pretty much non-scientific by nature. They often quote the most obscene single-minded scientific literature to make a point for their own personal opinions. And it goes both ways, I've read some pretty awful renewable energy blogs as well.
    
    That being said, I do advocate clean energy on a whole and I think future energy demands will be supplied by a variety of sources; wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear inclusive. Wind could play a huge roll in plug-in electric cars, assuming that they're charged mainly at night when the wind is the strongest. Sunny states like Nevada could really provide a large chunk of solar thermal energy to the grid, while geothermal could pretty much be built into new houses anywhere. All the while, nuclear would be able to supply a hefty base load a smart grid system.
    
    For the record though, more European nuclear power was decommissioned than installed in 2009.
    
    http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/general_stats_2009.pdf See figure 1.2.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

25. 25. tomgarven in reply to gervster 05:35 PM 6/27/10

    Give gervster a gold star. If we are ever going to accomplish anything we need to stop this one type of energy fits all mentality and start developing an effective energy plan.
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

26. 26. lakota2012 in reply to tomgarven 05:40 PM 6/27/10

    tom says, "A my way or the highway" attitude is not going to get the job done..........If you came up with a plan to use small modular reactors to power these coal plants, you would get my support."
    *************
    
    
    Yes, I see so much of the "my way or the highway" attitude today, with compromise being a thing of the past. Putting all of our eggs into one basket like the nookular crowd here, is just plain silly and is doomed for failure.
    
    I still want to see a diversified energy plan to eventually move completely away from fossil fuels, and modular, 4th generation nuclear to replace all the dirty, coal-fired plants is a great move, coupled with renewable energy, should solve all our future energy needs.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

27. 27. lakota2012 in reply to dwbd 06:05 PM 6/27/10

    Hey dwbd, your incessant attacks are no different than a rabid pit bull, and your nookular blogs are still poor sources of facts.
    
    First off, the Colorado VOTERS that first changed renewable energy in Colorado was passed in 2004, when absolutely no subsidies existed in the state or from the feds! YOU just don't get it, and most likely never will with your one-sided ranting, but the VOTERS passed this -- not the politicians -- amid a huge negative campaign by providers like Excel. Now, in 2010, even Excel was on board the latest 30% by 2020 bill, since they were ahead of schedule for the 20% renewable.
    
    As far as my own hybrid system powering my house, it was designed, built and maintained by me, without any subsides from the state or the feds. Tell me which nookular plant was EVER built without taxpayer subsidies and federal loans and insurance. NONE, since they have been heavily subsidized!
    
    I realize you're just jealous that some of us can design and build renewable energy systems to power their homes, and you, being only a nookular advocate, cannot, so you are totally dependent on your local power company for energy!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

28. 28. lakota2012 in reply to gervster 06:12 PM 6/27/10

    gervster says, "For the record though, more European nuclear power was decommissioned than installed in 2009."
    ***************
    
    
    GEEZ....now you did it.....poked a hole right in that ideology, and dwbd is probably whinin' and cryin' now!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

29. 29. dwbd 06:21 PM 6/27/10

    Maybe, I haven't been too clear on what I think a Rational Energy Policy is.
    
    First thing to understand is that there are three classes of Energy we are working with:
    
    1) Fossil Fuel Energy -- right now supplies 85% of World Energy. So to state "one solution won't work" is contradicted by the fact that right now the World is using almost entirely ONE Solution - Fossil Fuels.
    2) Renewable Energy -- right now 9% of World Energy and old sources - Hydro & Biomass are 7 of that 9%. The much touted New Renewables Solar, Wind & Geothermal have been around for centuries, and still haven't made a tiny indent in Fossil Fuel consumption.
    3) Nuclear Energy -- 6% of World Energy right now. It has three subclasses: 1) Fission 2) Fusion 3) Exotic (i.e. antimatter, LENR, Mach Effect).
    
    It is a misrepresentation to claim Nuclear is one Solution, when in fact it is a collection of thousands of very different solutions.
    
    The fact is, we are approaching Peak Fossil fuels, and we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Renewables are theoretically capable of doing the job - but economically they can't. Only the Nuclear CLASS of Energy can replace that 85%. In the meantime, undoubtably we will & should continue to use what's left of our fossil fuels in the most rational way.
    
    Hydro is good but severely limited and Nuclear is becoming cheaper than Hydro. Geothermal, Wind & Solar undoubtably are good applications in certain areas, but to claim that the Sum Total of those are going to or should be used to make a significant drop in that 85% number is just not correct - it just isn't possible economically - and is entirely illogical, since Nuclear is much faster & cheaper method to do the job.
    
    Energy Efficiency & Conservation is great. I'm all for it. But only if it makes Economic Sense. Replacing HID or CFL with LED bulbs at $69k per kw saved is an example of stupid, religious or ideological subservience an irrational ideal.
    
    Electrification of Transport - great & cost effective, better home insulation standards - good sense. Telecommuting, a cheap, simple way to greatly reduce energy consumption. Methanol, made from NG - another great way to start moving from imported Oil. Pumped Hydro to store Nuclear Baseload at night, to supply Peak Daytime Energy - makes good sense. The Home Battery Bank to supply Emergency Power for Homes, greatly reduce Domestic Peak Demand - a cost effective option.
    
    Heat Pumps, which ARE NOT Geothermal Energy, are getting cost effective, and replace Old Dirty Fossil Fuels with New Green Nuclear Electricity.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

30. 30. lakota2012 in reply to dwbd 06:22 PM 6/27/10

    Hey dwbd, I see the problem you have with renewable energy now. After years of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry as well as the nookular industry from the taxpayers, you're just upset that there are now subsidies for renewable energy -- basically the first from the feds since the Carter days!
    
    You just want subsidies to go to your beloved nookular industry and none to any other form of energy.
    
    Yep...there's that "my way or the highway" mentality!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

31. 31. tomgarven in reply to lakota2012 06:53 PM 6/27/10

    Very well said lakota2012.
    
    I personally like renewable energy and can see that in about 10-15 years from now, it might be all we need but much more needs to change between now and then. Here are just a few.
    
    1. We need much more research into photovoltaic power while still continuing to buy and install our existing technology. You can't build an entire industry while we wait for some magic technology to appear. Incremental continuous improvement is a valid business strategy and it works.
    
    2. We need to design, build and test some new reactor designs with specific purposes in mind. 1200 MW dual unit reactor plants have just become too expensive to build in the U.S when the average union rate is $25-50/hr. and these plants are not without problems.
    
    3. I could easily be convinced to support reactors specifically designed to retrofit our existing coal and natural gas plants. Small, welded shut, easily manufactured on a production line type reactors. I have great hope for reactors operating near atmospheric pressure.
    
    4. Cheaper ways to drill geothermal wells for geothermal ground/water source heat pumps for both homes and businesses.
    
    5. Learning how to more effectively fracture rock without contaminating our water supplies so we can have adequate supplies of natural gas for our trucking industry when we run out of cheap diesel .
    
    6. Gear-less wind turbines should be a standardized design and mass produced at 2 or 3 different power levels depending on where they will be installed.
    
    7. Geothermal and hydro power plants should be encouraged where sources are available - like free flowing river designs.
    
    There is so much to do and the above only address a very small part of the hardware side of the energy business. How about the PEOPLE side of the business.
    
    1. Changing peoples attitudes about electric vehicles.
    
    2. Educating our next generation of children to really believe in conservations and cradle to cradle living.
    
    I get a kick out of people who think that Cap and Trade/Tax is the answer to our energy problems. Redistribution of our wealth to another country is not a solution either. Giving Africa 10 billion dollars will just end up in the pocket of some dictator. However, in my opinion, giving them 5 GW of solar panels a year would be a much better way to help their society. And lets not forget to put a small American flag on the side of each panel.
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

32. 32. dwbd in reply to lakota2012 06:54 PM 6/27/10

    It is irrational and self-defeating to spend major public funds on Technology that is not cost effective and will not become cost effective. At most, it makes sense to fund research on Solar Tech that can conceivably become economical. Wind is an uneconomical abomination and deserves no funding, like Corn Ethanol is. I see some potential to develop Solar PV that is economical for certain areas - not a major hope for the coming Global Warming / Peak Oil crisis.
    
    I have listed an entire collection of Tech that well deserves funding - Not Just Nuclear. EV's and Battery Tech is a real viable area for funding. Some types of Public Transport are worth major funding. If it makes good sense - do it. If it's just for show or is part of Big Oil's Bait-And-Switch campaign, or to pad the pockets of Politically Connected Companies, like ADM - that Crap is going to cause a Worldwide Catastrophe.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

33. 33. dwbd in reply to gervster 07:15 PM 6/27/10

    Gervster says: "...fact is all blogs are pretty much non-scientific by nature. They often quote the most obscene single-minded scientific literature..."
    
    Have you even visited:
    
    http://depletedcranium.com/
    
    http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/
    
    http://bravenewclimate.com/
    
    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/
    
    http://djysrv.blogspot.com/
    
    Why don't you drop by and tell them how and why they are non-scientific and use "obsene" literature as references. I can pretty much guarantee you, that you will leave with a few new holes ripped in you.
    
    And, as for Nuclear Power, 375 GWe operational right now, with 58 GWe being built, 166 GWe on order or planned and 367 GWe planned. And uprates for current NPP's are up to 20% with 50% planned by Korea, with annular fuel. Russian uprates have been $200 per kwe. That's all with no serious World Effort to replace Fossil Fuels.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

34. 34. gervster 07:47 PM 6/27/10

    Dwbd - By non-scientific I really just mean they're completely one-sided. For example, bravenewclimate.com - no doubt your homepage as you're clearly in love with the author - is pretty much a huge compilation of articles supporting nuclear, and rejecting renewables. Heck, they have one tab called "renewable limits" and another called "sustainable nuclear". Talk about tunnel vision. One could just as easily make a blog site devoted to wind energy whilst bashing nuclear. It's those who actually consider the whole picture that actually get recognized, in my experience anyways.
    
    Funny enough, by definition nuclear is definitely not sustainable. Quite the opposite really, but more on that later as I'm sure you'll be against this claim.
    
    Unfortunately, this conversation is making it seem like nuclear has no role to play in the future, which is certainly not the case. It does have a role, but it's just not the only role... by far.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

35. 35. tomgarven 09:26 PM 6/27/10

    o.k. I think we are finally starting to make some progress. Some wind, some solar, some nuclear, some conservation, some bio-fuels, some hydro, some ... all of the above and more.
    
    Tom G.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

36. 36. dwbd in reply to tomgarven 10:14 PM 6/27/10

    tomgarven, you are an intelligent man, but you really need to do some research on the hard facts about Energy. I used to believe, much like yourself that a balanced Energy Mix was the best approach, but the more research I did, I've had to conclude that most of the highly touted Renewables are part of a Bait-And-Switch campaign by Fossil Fuel Interest to prevent Real alternatives to their Energy Hegemony.
    
    You need to take a good hard, detailed look at the numbers on Wind & Solar Energy. Don't do like most do, ignore the huge energy Area that is Power Demand - Wind - Solar Energy. That Shadowing Fossil Fuel power supply is a Necessary complement to these intermittent power sources. And it does have serious implications. And look at Energy Storage - that in principle could solve the intermittency problem of Renewables - but when you delve into the details and work the numbers you will find that Storage is Exceedingly Expensive, and completely bankrupts any serious Renewables Penetration. A few good sites to do research at:
    
    Ted Rockwell - Energy Facts Report:
    
    http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/
    
    The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard Cohen:
    
    http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
    
    Bill Hannahan, Things Everyone should know about Energy:
    
    http://www.coal2nuclear.com/energy_facts.htm
    
    BraveNewClimate Tcase series gives a good analysis of the harsh Realities of the Renewables Options - they actually do work the numbers:
    
    http://bravenewclimate.com/category/tcase-series/

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

37. 37. tomgarven 01:22 AM 6/28/10

    dwbd said in part: tomgarven, you are an intelligent man, but you really need to do some research on the hard facts about Energy. Tom G. responds - thank you for the complement and I also see value in your knowledge.
    
    I try to do as much research as possible but there is never enough time to study everything I am interested in. I also participate in several different blog sites covering a variety of subjects including things like hybrid and electric vehicles. Just tonight I was reviewing the re-licensing process and issues facing nuclear power plants past the first re-licensing interval [40+ years of operation]. About 30 plants on the East Coast and Midwest will soon fall into this category.
    
    I look to people like yourself to tell me what type of reactors MIGHT BE feasible to convert a coal plant to a nuclear plant. Maybe it's not even worth thinking about but I would really like to do something about carbon since I don't really buy into this whole global warming idea. However, I do buy into the fact that we are really screwing up our air, rivers, lakes and mountains by burning carbon stuff. So tell me - is it technically possible for a coal plant to be re-powered using small modular nuclear reactor? If so what type of reactors would they be? Would it make financial sense?
    
    We can fight a war of words trying to convince everyone to go nuclear and maybe win a battle but never win the war. Or we can systematically spread our energy resources over a broad range of different technologies which I believe is a better approach. I learned a long time ago nothing is perfect in life or power plants, LOL. There is nothing wrong with nuclear; it has a place - but so do the other sources of power people talk about on this site.
    
    Like yourself, I am also very concerned about the consequences of peak oil. I don't think the American people have a clue what is coming.
    
    Tom G.
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

38. 38. scots engineer in reply to tomgarven 02:51 AM 6/28/10

    Hi tomgarven and dwbd - nuclear plant and coal powered stations have a lot in common in that they both heat water to produce steam for turbines. It's just the source of heat that is different - so in theory, and probably practice, replacing the furnace with a reactor is what is needed and certainly not impossible. As to the friction over the provenance of information sources some things come to mind. There is an old saying, for old folks like me"paper takes on anything". This probably applies to computer screens as well. Another little gem is "if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't".
    A bit of healthy scepticism should not be an excuse for denial, and climate fears etc aside we do our descendants no favours if we rush to consume all the readily available resources in uncritical obedience of the flawed economic model that equates consumption with prosperity. Dyslexics get sympathy and understanding, particularly if some media darlings confess to the affliction, but discalcula ( number blindness ) is largely ignored. A consequence of this is that misrepresentation on energy matters often involves unfair comparisons misusing percentages or false measures like "homes powered" and occurs far to often. About a century ago if memory serves me the ravages brought about by the then monopolistic captains of industry, caused your legislatures to pass anti trust laws. It would be reasonable to assume that those with an inclination towards monopoly ( many in business )will have been chipping away at finding ways round these laws, and that the background to the renewables debate is an unease some have with the power and ambitions of big business. In an ideal world power would be constrained by indissoluble responsibility - but neither seems likely any time soon. Like it or not a mix, or muddle is what we will get, and continue to get until some unignorable threat forces us to cooperate with a common objective.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

39. 39. lakota2012 in reply to dwbd 10:56 AM 6/28/10

    dwbd says, "Pumped hydro to store nuclear baseload at night, to supply peak daytime energy, makes good sense."
    *****************
    
    
    Any type of storage during times of excess power production for use at a later time like batteries or hydro definitely makes good sense. Did you overlook these possibilities for wind/solar while relentlessly pushing only nookular?
    
    Why does a home battery bank have to ONLY supply "emergency power" for homes, and not provide power at night for a PV system, or during calmer times with a wind system?
    
    While I certainly agree with your "energy efficiency and conservation is great" line, why do you now attack super-efficient LED lighting as "stupid, religious or ideological subservience," which is irrational on your part? I love both my CFL and LED lighting throughout my home, and just like PV, prices continue to fall dramatically. As a matter of fact, my new LED-backlit LCD HDTV, is the best TV on the market today, and uses the least amount of power for its size!
    
    Yes, energy efficiency and conservation is the key, and it certainly doesn't have to stop at just lighting, and I'm willing to bet that someone like myself living off the grid, could teach many people how to save energy, water and lots of money!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

40. 40. lakota2012 in reply to tomgarven 11:31 AM 6/28/10

    tom says, "I think we are finally starting to make some progress. Some wind, some solar, some nuclear, some conservation, some bio-fuels, some hydro....all of the above and more."
    **************
    
    
    Exactly! Those with tunnel vision, putting all their eggs into one small basket instead of diversifying our energy production and conservation, defeats every purpose for our future in the 21st century. While our economy has definitely been fossil fuel-based for over 100 years, it is well past time to end that monopoly and move forward.
    
    I'm hoping that newer technology like thin-film PV and concentrated PV will move the solar industry forward.
    
    Even Bergey Windpower, an American company, has increased the reliability of their mid-sized 10kW models, the Excel-S for grid-connected installations and the Excel-R for battery-charging systems, providing 10-year warranties!
    
    We just need to keep funding R&D in places like the NREL in Colorado and The Idaho National Laboratory, as well as hope that the many Silicon Valley private enterprises working on new energy technology such as the bloom box, moves us forward and away from the dirty fossil fuel age!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

41. 41. tomgarven in reply to lakota2012 11:54 AM 6/28/10

    I know this post is going to be somewhat off topic but when it comes to conservation, some things really bug me.
    
    My home here is Arizona has been upgraded with all the energy efficient technology I can think of - Low E windows, more insulation, shading, attic ventilation, evaporative cooling, low flow everything. Wall are 2X4 construction with 1" of foam covered with stucco. My all electric home cost me $110/mo. on a level pay plan and I use about 12,500 kW/ year.
    
    So I went shopping for a new more efficient heat pump for my home the other day. Did you know they are still selling 14 SEER air conditioners? I thought we would have stopped selling that junk 10 years ago? Did you know you can still buy AC units that use R22 [a greenhouse gas]?
    
    What I want is this. I want a new variable speed inverter style unit with a 22 SEER rating. Trouble is I can't find anyone who is even selling them. Why do I want an inverter style unit you ask?
    
    Because having air conditioning compressors cycle on and off is just plain stupid. It creates lots of stress on the compressor, fan motors and bearing, causes many people to over cool their homes to remain comfortable and is generally stone age technology.
    
    Inverter style units on the other hand do what is known as soft starts and can vary their output from a few thousand Btu's up to their full rated capacity. They provide just enough cooling to meet the requirements of the area to be cooled or heated which is much more energy efficient. The comfort level is also significantly improved.
    
    Inverter style units have been common place in Asia and Europe for many years and they are only slightly more expensive than the cheap junk we are currently buying online or at our home improvement centers. There is nothing new in the unit. It has a compressor, it has an evaporator, a condenser, some wiring, valves and copper piping. The only real difference is in the design of the compressor. It operates on a variable frequency instead of a fixed frequency of 60 Hz. O.K. so I will admit there is a printed circuit board with some solid state devices on it. Manufacturing them in 100,000 piece lots probably costs $50.
    
    Where is the darn government regulation when you need it. We talk about conservation and continue to sell the same old 1980's junk to the American people. I often wonder if we are really the sharpest cheddar in the deli case.
    
    Tom G.
    
    Tom G.
    
    Recently went shopping for a new heat pump both online and received two bids from local contractors.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

42. 42. eco-steve 05:00 PM 6/28/10

    The only good energy is saved energy. Gas guzzlers are driving the planet into ruin.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

43. 43. lakota2012 in reply to tomgarven 06:38 PM 6/28/10

    Never heard of "inverter-style" AC units, but compressors sure use some power. The newer refrigerators use far less power than just a few years ago, so I would have imagined AC units would have gotten more energy efficient. It appears they are still selling 13 SEER AC units today.
    
    While the NREL is boasting a totally new AC design slashing energy consumption by 25-75%, they also estimate it to be 3-5 years before the novel technology can be commercialized.
    
    It seems like an evaporative cooler on steroids, which has 2 air streams -- water passes through one air stream to make it cooler and wetter, cooling a membrane that cools the other air stream without adding water.
    
    More at:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20008003-54.html

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

44. 44. lakota2012 in reply to tomgarven 06:54 PM 6/28/10

    Hey tom, check out this Denver company called Coolerado, which supposedly manufactures the most efficient air conditioners made -- using up to 90% less energy than traditional AC units according to them.
    
    www.coolerado.com/products

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

45. 45. lakota2012 in reply to lakota2012 07:12 PM 6/28/10

    Coolerado was co-founded by Dr. Valeriy Maisotsenko, former director of the Thermal Physics Research Laboratory in Odessa, Ukraine, and brought a new thermodynamic cycle -- the Maisotsenko Cycle -- with him when he came to the U.S. in 1992. The NREL also helped develop this energy-efficient AC unit.
    
    www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/esb/2005/june/jun057b.htm

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

46. 46. tomgarven 09:27 PM 6/28/10

    lakota2012 thank you very much for the heads up.
    
    I read the article about the new design about a week ago. I will also try to contact Coolerado again. I had sent them an e-mail with a couple of questions in 2009 but never got a response.
    
    Thanks again
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

47. 47. jerryd 12:31 AM 6/29/10

    Sethdayal and DWVD are so out of it. They post nuke costs that are under coal, $4k/kw or even NG plants costs at $3k/kw. It's just not going to happen.
    
    Recent FPL, Progress Energy nukes priced in Fla at over $10k/kw. And those in Progress area will have to pay $.029kwhr for 10 yrs before it's even completed!! So much for their low prices.
    
    Now you can buy PV panels for under $2k/kw, sunelec.com or wind $1.5k/kw at magnets4less.com including the inverter in home/ building sizes. Plus you don't have to pay utility mark ups saving far more. Both give power for 30-50 yrs.
    
    So Seth, DWVD what do you pay your utility for nuke power?
    
    Notice those who signed up in Colorado in 2000 shortly afterward paid the lowest electric cost there!!
    
    I too am for small, inherently safe nukes like 100-250Mw Hyperion style units but until then, no thanks. I'll be making money selling RE power power to Seth, ect!!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

48. 48. dwbd in reply to lakota2012 12:34 AM 6/29/10

    Lakota: "...Any type of storage during times of excess power production for use at a later time like batteries or hydro definitely makes good sense. Did you overlook these possibilities for wind/solar while relentlessly pushing only nookular..."
    
    Problem is that Energy Storage is Very Expensive. With Pumped Hydro around $2k per kwpk. You need to maximize economic value to make it feasible. That means running full out storage at night when power is dirt cheap and selling that all back in late afternoon & early evening when power is real expensive. You need a steady reliable, cheap O&M source of baseload power for that. Wind is unpredictable & random. And taking Wind at $2.5k per kwpk add $2k per kwpk at 30% C.F. you are running $15k per kwavg – add $1k per kwpk for long distance transmission lines and you are up to $18k per kwavg. And you still will have only about 6-10 hrs storage. And that may be at times of high power cost when you want to sell power not store it. So what happens during a 2 week summer heat wave when Wind is Nil, over continent wide areas – as it often is. You can't afford to store power for that length of time. Add misery to madness, Pumped Hydro is simplest & cheapest with pumps that run full out driving those thousands of tons of water uphill. With fluctuating Wind Energy you need Huge Expensive Frequency Drives on your Pumps. Reducing efficiency and increasing cost.
    
    Solar is better than Wind. More predictable and higher in daytime when demand is higher. But is not nearly as cost effective to buy storage at high daytime prices, to sell it at low nighttime prices, when Solar is nil. Best storage with Solar is home batteries which will store morning and early afternoon Solar Power to cover late afternoon and evening Shoulder & Peak loads. Long periods of cloudy weather lasting days or more are just too expensive and pushes already high priced Solar Power into the Stratosphere.
    
    And both Wind & Solar suffer from large seasonal & even mutli-year dips. The only way you can store enery for those long periods is with liquid fuel production. Round Trip efficiency typically about 25%. Plus high capital cost. Push Wind from $12k per kwavg to $50k per kwavg. The Developed World was built on Energy Supplies that amounted to less than $1k per kwavg. You might as well advocate mass suicide to pursue those Solar & Wind Pipe Dreams.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

49. 49. dwbd in reply to lakota2012 01:05 AM 6/29/10

    Lakota: "...Why does a home battery bank have to ONLY supply "emergency power" for homes, and not provide power at night for a PV system..."
    
    A home battery system is great for shaving household peak load - a considerable value to the utility as well as emergency power to the homeowner - and an excellent system to add efficient charging systems like a Diesel generator (run full out at max. efficiency to charge the battery bank and then shut off), Solar PV & rarely a Wind Turbine. Great for an independent home power system. A great peace-of-mind for emergencies. I want that. But is the Solar & Wind power going to significantly dent that 85% fossil fuel energy supply I talked about. Not-a-chance. We need cheap, factory produced, green alternatives to Coal. And that means Nuclear. Energy conservation doesn't mean dick to developing countries where most people lack even a refrigerator. And most Energy Growth will be in Developing Nations. Give them cheap, factory produced, small nuclear reactors - they will use that - otherwise they will burn Coal.
    
    Lakota: "...you now attack LED lighting as ..stupid...which is irrational on your part? I love both my CFL and LED lighting..."
    
    That's fine for a homeowner to put in LED lighting, and there are odd applications that it is well worth it - like aircraft warning lights. But the energy savings over using CFL or HID lighting amount to buying power at over 60 cents per kwh. This is not a serious solution. This is throwing precious Gov't subsidies down the sewer stupidly.
    
    Most people have no idea of the magnitude of this coming Energy Crisis. And even if Developed Nations use extreme debilitating methods to enforce Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Those high costs will drive industry to go to the cheapest power in developing Nations. Big Smoke-Belching Dirt Burners. And what are you going to tell the dirt poor Developing Nations - you must pay $10-50k per kw for energy efficiency & renewable energy, instead of $1k per kw for a big dirt burner. They will say - gringo - you filled the atmosphere with CO2 burning cheap fossil fuels and now you want us to suffer for your selfishness & greed. You want us to use expensive energy efficiency & renewable energy - you pay for it. Now how much do you think it is going to cost Americans if they have to subsidize, not just domestic energy by an incredible $10-50k per kw, but ALL developing nations by the same amount. If we don't, industry will simply move to the developing nations with the cheapest power.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

50. 50. tomgarven 12:20 PM 6/29/10

    dwbd [said in part] Lakota: "...Why does a home battery bank have to ONLY supply "emergency power" for homes, and not provide power at night for a PV system..."
    
    Tom G. responds.
    
    I looked for the above quote in some previous posts and did not find it but to be honest didn't look real hard either, LOL
    
    I am only guessing of course but I don't think anyone would say that having a battery backup system is a bad idea under certain conditions. Battery backup for people living off-grid is really important. Battery backup for me living in Arizona with a grid tied solar PV system- not so much.
    
    However even for me - IF - I had a plug-in hybrid vehicle, was connected to a smart grid and could draw power from that vehicle at night, it might make some sense under certain conditions like a power outage for example. Of course my last power outage was in 2009 and it lasted for about 5 seconds. The one before that - a couple of years ago. However if you happen to live where tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, hail storms and freezing rain occur frequently backup power can be a real life saver.
    
    So is backup important; yup sure can be in certain places in American.
    
    I have no comment regarding LED lighting except that when one of my CFL's quite working I will consider replacing it with an LED unit.
    
    If I can make one recommendation regarding your otherwise excellent posts it is this. Please stop using terms like the following.
    
    " Gov't subsidies down the sewer stupidly."
    
    You are much to intelligent to stoop to this level of communication to make a point. I know I do the same thing from time to time but try to control myself, LOL.
    
    Tom G.
    
    p.s. reading some of your recommended documents and blog sites today.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

51. 51. sethdayal 12:26 PM 6/29/10

    Jerry also good to hear from you.
    
    How's negotiations with Siemens coming on your untraefficient 24/7 always on wind generator going. Folks may not know it but Jerry here is a energy DIY'er ad extraordinaire.
    
    I know you like to bring up Florida and Progress energy but Jerry everybody knows that Florida is one of the most corrupt places in the world with every two bit attorney, bureaucrat and politician in the state with his greasy palm out. Yuse good ole boys were even able to get Dubya elected when the bent voting machines didn't work as planned.
    
    All big projects in Floride have to double cost to cover the payola.
    
    Summer 2 and 3 in SC are under $4.5B a GW for first of a kind in US reactors. As a DIY'er Jerry must know that building a copy of his first electric motorcycle for cousin Ruby is going a lot quicker and cheaper than the first one.
    
    Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney’s, corrupt private power companies and pet politicians, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost to build the same nuclear plants in the US.
    
    AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh
    
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

52. 52. tomgarven 12:59 PM 6/29/10

    So sethdayal and dwvd what do you think.
    
    1. It is technically feasible to re-power our coal plants with small modular reactors?
    
    Yes
    or
    No
    
    2. Could or does it make financial and/or environmental sense?
    
    Yes
    
    No
    
    3. What type of reactor technology could be used?
    
    Type of reactor?
    
    Please respond
    Thank you
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

53. 53. tomgarven 01:31 PM 6/29/10

    To: lakota2012
    
    I checked out Coolerado today by filling out their online system needs analysis tool. They currently do not have a product suitable for my area. I did sign up for future info.
    
    Thank you
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

54. 54. jerryd 06:39 PM 6/29/10

    sethdayal wrote, Summer 2 and 3 in SC are under $4.5B a GW for first of a kind in US reactors. As a DIY'er Jerry must know that building a copy of his first electric motorcycle for cousin Ruby is going a lot quicker and cheaper than the first one.
    
    JD I looked them up and Seth doesn't mention a few things. First the numbers are 2008 ones which in Fla were about the same but then reality set in where Fla PSC forced a real cost which over 2 yrs increased to $10B/Gw.
    
    All western units have about doubled from original costs by the time they are actually built which in this case won't be for 8-10 yrs. Now the utility wants the customers to pay $.5B financing costs in advance.!!
    
    So try putting all the facts in Seth.
    
    So let's look at Seth's other point, that wind isn't full time. They run about 33% cap so 3x's as many needed for the same power out. That brings them to the nukes low ball figure that won't be met. With many units spread out wind averages out so doesn't need back up anymore than any other plant. Nukes don't need back up do they Seth? ;^P
    
    But since you have your own wind or solar on your home you not pay the construction, running cost of nukes but utility mark up of 2-3x's. This makes RE 2-3x's as cost effective in home sizes, thus that much cheaper than nukes.
    
    Nor do you mention you can't turn down nukes without wasting it's fuel anyway. So at night off peak with all 3 nuke plants running at 60% of the utilities power, 50% of the time, all the power isn't needed, thus wasted or sold for dirt cheap off peak prices. In a home one can put it in lead batteries which are only $10/kwhr/yr easily pay for themselves selling power back during peak power times, even making a profit. That makes it better than 24/7 power with only the same kwhr of wind.
    
    But wind has far lower running costs and no fuel costs and prices are firm, can be installed in 1 yr instead of 10 yrs for nukes. Now add the financing for nukes for those 10 yrs before the first kw is made raises nukes costs again.
    
    So please tell me how wind is more expensive than nukes Seth? And please don't lie this time or leave out details.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

55. 55. blsally 09:24 PM 6/29/10

    We definately need to move more toward renewable energy! Personally I would like to have my home generating the pwer it needs to operate! I'm sick and tired of paying money to the utility company every month. I would also like the piece of mind to know that I could be comfortable and provide for my families needs when the "power" goes out.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

56. 56. sethdayal 02:42 AM 6/30/10

    @jerry
    
    I'm saddened that after all this time you still apparently haven't learned to read.
    
    Real cost of solar.
    
    Arcadia Florida newest largest solar plant in the US$32B/Gw or 50 cents a kwh.
    
    Real cost of wind.
    
    Cape wind $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh going to 34 cents over 15 years latest tariff agreement.
    
    Current American nuclear costs are 2 cents a kwh.
    
    South Carolina Summer 2 and 3 AP-1000 $4.5/Gw 2010 info
    
    http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
    
    Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney's, corrupt private power companies and pet politicians, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost to build the same nuclear plants in the US.
    
    AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh
    
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
    
    Real cost of Canadian nuclear power built by Canadian engineers in five years or less overseas.
    
    Candu 6 build 2004 $2B/Gw, 2 cents a kwh
    
    www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx
    
    Real cost of Korean nuclear power built by Korean engineers in five years or less in the UAE a notoriously corrupt country with no industrial capacity. Every piece of concrete and steel will have to be shipped in.
    
    $3.6B/Gw 1.5 cents a kwh.
    
    www.glgroup.com/News/S.-Korea---UAE-Nuclear-Reactor-Deal-45697.html
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

57. 57. gervster 07:41 AM 6/30/10

    I can see the 2110 Scientific American headlines already:
    
    "What happens when Uranium is gone?"

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

58. 58. tomgarven 10:45 AM 6/30/10

    So sethdayal and dwvd what do you think.
    
    1. It is technically feasible to re-power our coal plants with small modular reactors?
    Yes
    or
    No
    2. Could or does it make financial and/or environmental sense?
    Yes
    No
    3. What type of reactor technology could be used?
    Type of reactor?
    
    Please respond
    Thank you
    Tom G.
    p.s. it is o.k. to say that you don't know - no one can know everything. In my opinion if we are ever going to make progress in getting people to support nuclear we need to find something they will actively support. Just saying the same old things over and over again using many of the same references might not get us very far.
    
    Here is a new reference for your information. I recommend clicking on the 2009 update balloon - enjoy.
    
    http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
    
    Please let me know if this idea and the use of nuclear in this way is technically possible and finacially feasible.
    
    Thank you

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

59. 59. jerryd 04:45 PM 6/30/10

    sethdayal,
    
    Still putting up incomplete or old numbers I see. Put up present numbers that are valid, include everything and they are forced to meet, not about, est, ect that are meant to fool people into far more, oh now it costs 2-4x's as much numbers. Then you have always seemed to be a fool..
    
    And ones for US as that's the only ones that count for US. Like I said, when forced to have accurate pricing, US nukes are around $10B/Gw.
    
    Picking the most expensive RE you can find then jacking them up with strange calculations is not honest seth. Good land wind runs around $1.5-1,75k/kw and regularly sells power for $.06kwhr for a profit. How do they do that at your numbers? If they can't, Wall street wouldn't invest in them as they clearly do. Notice WS won't invest in nukes!! Why?.
    
    But you know I wasn't talking about them. I was talking home size RE which is far more cost effective than nuke, coal, NG. ect as I proved. And it's a price you can buy retail today, install next week, not put billions down and wait 5-10 yrs to get then pay 2-3x's as much.
    
    If you want to pay for nuke, go ahead but I want far less expensive power as do most others. And not being held hostage to big nuke, coal, oil. For under $5k one can have home, transport RE energy for 50 yrs!! Deal with it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

60. 60. sethdayal 05:04 PM 6/30/10

    jerry obviously you simply can't read.
    
    It is fun reading about your silly dreamland DIY machines you saw in a comic book but it is fairly obvious you never got past grade school. Hence your reading, arithmetic and elementary science issues.
    
    All the numbers I gave you are from recent mainstream media sources. You can google any of them.
    
    Call your school librarian, perhaps you can get help there.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

61. 61. tomgarven 09:40 PM 6/30/10

    sethdayal:
    
    Did you read this link yet?
    
    http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

62. 62. dwbd in reply to tomgarven 11:55 AM 7/1/10

    Tomgarven, in answer to your questions (sorry for the delay, but I’ve been busy):
    
    Seems to be quite feasible to replace the steam boiler on a Coal plant with a Nuclear Reactor, and some companies have targeted this market. It may also be advantageous to replace the steam turbine as well, for one optimized to the Reactor, since the Coal Power Plant Steam Turbine is likely near the end of its life anyway.
    
    This site is dedicated to the concept:
    
    http://coal2nuclear.com/
    
    Jim Holm advocates using the Russian 800MWe BN-800 liquid sodium cooled fast reactor.
    
    Some discussion on the use of Small Modular Reactors for that purpose here:
    
    http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/06/platts-small-modular-reactor-meeting_29.html
    
    “…In the case of the mPower and the IRIS, one of the target markets is replacing the boiler heat systems in existing coal fired power plants…”
    
    http://www.babcock.com/library/pdf/E2011002.pdf
    
    More discussion here on using Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors (LIFTR) to replace Coal Boilers:
    
    http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1400&start=45&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=7d0fdc52a1196d2954b4a3845e3e2710&view=print
    
    LIFTR video and powerpoint presentation:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
    
    http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt
    
    More discussion here on Coal to Nuclear conversions:
    
    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/04/coal2nuclear-conversions-steam-turbines.html
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

63. 63. tomgarven 12:12 PM 7/1/10

    dwbd:
    
    Thank you for the response. Will start reviewing the data.
    
    Tom G.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

64. 64. jerryd in reply to sethdayal 07:49 PM 7/1/10

    
    Sethdayal, your sources use old and biased numbers, leaving out many things like financing costs for the 10 yrs before they put out the first kw. Like in the NC nukes, they just requested $.5B just for partial finance costs you left out. Like I said, recent AP100 nuke units were just priced at $10B/gw. That is current pricing anyone in the US has to go by.
    
    You say that some Nukes cost only $.016/kwhr but Progress customers have to pay twice that for 10 yrs before they even get any power!! That's a 29% increase on their electric bill!
    
    Mine are not DIY but retail units from current sources, magnets4less.com and sunelec.com. But DIY is a great idea as an Axial- flux 2kw wind generator that will last 50 yrs only costs $500 in parts. If mass produced would only cost to build the same $500 for parts and labor. Selling them at $1k/kw would make a nice profit as many builders are now doing. Details on magnets4less also besides factory made units.
    
    My units can be installed tomorrow and the home/building owner owns them and their price never goes up. Nor do they pay utility mark up like utilities do with nukes, RE, fossil fuels. So they are far more cost effective than your precious, over priced nukes that won't come online for a decade.
    
    I don't care what utilites pay for units, I care what people pay. And Home RE is far more cost effective than any utility power.
    
    But even utilities pay more for nukes in the US than an equal output from wind, CSP.
    
    If you want to get screwed by utilities by their low ball figures that always way under finished costs, then be my guest. Not to mention their mark ups. Or do you think they well sell you it for a few cents/kwhrs?
    But I rather make my own power at 25% of the cost and sell it to them for a profit.
    
    You my friend is the one living in fantasy land. Deal with it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

65. 65. dwbd in reply to jerryd 10:41 PM 7/1/10

    Concerning the 2X-5X higher cost of Nuclear Power in the USA vs Asian & some European countries.
    
    Nuclear, latest NRC Combined Operating & Licensing Streamlined Review is 42 months. Legislated maximum licensing review for Gulf Oil Spill Catastrophe Drilling Rig is one month.
    
    Nuclear, new streamlined NRC Standardized NPP design. AP1000 was certified basically through the AP600 in 1999 but the NRC delayed it to 2006, and since the NRC Lawyers decided it isn't sure about an Aircraft collision combined with an Earthquake combined with the extra load of an Emergency Cooling Water Tank on top of the Containment building. Although tests have revealed an aircraft would disintegrate on colliding with the outer containment structure. All designs have to be earthquake proof - even though not located in an earthquake zone. A typical $5k motor starter costs $100k if it is Earthquake Certified.
    
    Toxic Catastrophic Oil Spill Rigs in the Gulf. No Hurricane plan is req'd. All Oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico have one Carbon Copy plan for a worst case disaster (those of course never happen) - save the Walruses in the Gulf of Mexico is paramount and contacting a Scientist who has been dead for 5 yrs is the expert advisor.
    
    Terrorism. No aircraft collision with an Oil Rig is a concern. Even though it would kill a couple hundred people and might release billions of gallons of carcinogenic, toxic Oil into the Gulf. A trivial effort of Terrorists and a boat full of explosives to collide with an Oil Rig - no protection needed by Gov't Regulation.
    
    Nuclear Power Plant. Must have at least 3 redundant Failsafe Shutdown Systems. Remote Operator Emergency Shutdown. Double Containment system.
    
    Toxic Catastrophic Oil Spill Rig - only one safety device - the Blowout Preventer. No backup req'd. Battery goes dead - too bad. Hydraulic Accumulator pressure too low - too bad. No failsafe req'd. Control failure too bad - no remote activation req'd. Terrorism - a simple wire or video guided torpedo - North Korea or Russia will sell them to any Terrorist group - dirt cheap, would completely destroy a BOP - releasing millions of gallons of Toxic, Carcinogenic Crude Oil & Radioactive Radon spewing NG into the Ocean.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

66. 66. dwbd 11:18 PM 7/1/10

    NPP vs Oil Rig cont'd:
    
    NPP - must be protected 24/7 by a SWAT type team and has two NRC inspectors on site at all times. Worst case scenario of a virtually impossible Terrorist attack is on-site damage & fatalities - no off site fatalities or damage. Oil Rig - no inspectors req'd - no security against Terrorists req'd.
    
    Nuclear - clean, carbon free energy. Oil - dirty, carcinogenic, CO2 & Radiation belching energy. One run-of-the-mill NPP produces double the Energy in its lifetime as the entire Tiber Oilfield BP was drilling into.
    
    Nuclear liability insurance $10 billion cap. Oil Spill Rigs - maximum $85 million liability by U.S. law.
    
    Full Levelized cost of Electricity:
    
    According to the pro-Renewables European Commission in 2020:
    
    Nuclear 6.7 - 11.25 US cents per kwh
    
    NG 13.2 - 14.3 US cents per kwh
    
    Wind, offshore 8.1 - 14.4 US cents per kwh, not including long distance transmission lines and shadowing fossil fuel power source.
    
    Solar PV 33.8 - 55.2 US cents per kwh, not including the cost of the shadowing fossil fuel power source. See:
    
    http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/electricity-costs-and-carbon-emissions-by-technology/
    
    A survey of 11 different Levelized 2009 Cost of Green Electricity sources puts:
    
    Nuclear at 2.7-11 cents per kwh
    
    Wind Offshore at 5.8-23.5 cents per kwh (not including Transmission & Mirror Power Source)
    
    Solar PV at 13.9-103.2 cents per kwh (not including Shadowing Fossil Fuel Power Source)
    
    http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2009/07/levelized-cost-studies.html
    
    This MIT study, explains Jerry's erroneous numbers and puts levelized cost of Nuclear at 8.4 cents per kwh in $2007.
    
    It puts Coal at 6.2 cents & NG at 6.5 cents. This is without any Carbon Tax or charge.
    
    http://www.nei.org/filefolder/MIT_Updated_Cost_Analysis_on_Nuclear_Power_05-2009_1.pdf
    
    And all of these are Business-as-Usual Nuclear not Save-Our-Civilization Nuclear. Although Jerry has never heard of Scale Economies or Mass Production, if we really want to avoid Global Warming or Peak Oil catastrophe and embarked on a WWII style factory production Nuclear Build. It is absolutely certain that Nuclear Power could be produced for under $2k per kwe or 2 cents per kwh in the USA. Much cheaper than Coal, NG, Oil, Wind, Solar or Hydro.
    
    Even large NPP could be built using Factory Production Economies of Scale if Floating Barges are used. See:
    
    http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html
    
    http://coal2nuclear.com/energy_facts.htm
    
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html?terms=barge
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

67. 67. scots engineer in reply to sethdayal 02:37 AM 7/4/10

    Hi sethdayal - not making nuclear energy part of the mix of energy sources would certainly be stupid, especially if they keep improving the designs. On the Australian study there may be a whiff of "big coal" distorting the picture in their own favour. A few years ago world news services reported on the particularly aggressive bush fires in New South Wales and Victoria. It was commented at the time that more energy and co2 was released by these fires than the total Australian energy and co2 output for a year from all human utilised sources. There are other regions of the world, including southern California where bushfires are a continueing menace. The best major defence against uncontrolled bush fires is wide enough fire breaks that are too wide for any fire to jump. This means harvesting most of the burnable biomass from these firebreaks on a continueing basis, and this in turn would provide a source of fuel.Fighting fires and the damage they cause costs a lot of money and resources, so the cost benefit analysis should reflect that when valueing the fuel produced. When valueing the cost of wind power that is grid connected the depreciation and maintenance of the turbines are not the only costs to consider. It costs the organisation operating the grid to deal with the variable output from the wind turbines as other suppliers have to alter their output to allow the wind turbines privileged access.Wind power is now at a level in the UK where the imperative of load balancing means that on a windy summer evening demand drops such that there is no demand for the wind power and they ( the grid) are paying wind farm companys to shut down their turbines even though there is wind available. Because the price they would have got is jacked up with subsidy, the compensation price is also high ( $270 per megawatt hour, or 27cents per kwh)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

68. 68. scots engineer in reply to jerryd 02:11 AM 7/5/10

    Hi Jerry - I'm sorry but on shore wind installed on a good site for $1.5 - $1.75k per kw cannot sell power profitably at 6 cents per kwh without a subsidy. Few indeed surpass 3000 kwh per kilowatt rated capacity per annum. Depreciation,interest( or opportunity cost ), insurance, maintenance and repair all add up to at least 12% of the initial cost per annum. Which means that at best they are breaking even on an investment running into millions of dollars,( because the smaller wind turbines are even more expensive and less efficient)The above costing does not include charges from the grid operator, which may vary in the US, but in UK increase with distance from London.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

69. 69. bucketofsquid 04:59 PM 7/6/10

    I just talked to our rates guys and this is what they told me:
    We don't use nuclear any more because the Brownville plant started costing us a fortune by being shut down for repairs all of the time so we had to buy on the spot market. Thus no price figures on nuclear.
    We have 2 wind turbines. They cost 16 cents per kwh.
    We have a nat gas turbine that costs about 8 cents per kwh.
    We have oil black starts for peak load that cost us about $4.00 per kwh.
    We buy from 3 different coal plants that charge us 4 cents per kwh on average.
    
    Make of that what you will. No prices on solar or nuclear but coal wins of the sources we use. As far as carbon sequestering, that is easy - plant trees and let them grow. Better yet, clear cut every 5 years and bury the logs and replant.
    
    I'm not convinced global warming is happening and certainly think it is good if it is happening.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this