Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary

Source: New York Times

No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.

"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.

<snip>

Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.

"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/22/22greenwire-no-need-to-build-new-us-coal-or-nuclear-plants-10630.html

Nice to finally have real leadership in Washington.

solar, wind, EV, and biomass r&d, and small companies that can get this going.

Example: I was at the Earth Day celebration on the National Mall Sunday and saw small car companies like Genovation, a local Rockville, MD, company, rehabbing cars presently on the road to get 100+ mpg. But Genovation doesn't get the billion$ in subsidies that GM and Ford get. :grr:

Also learned that Chevron holds rights to a battery for EV's that a lot of innovative car companies want but won't sell the batteries except at exorbitant prices no one can afford. Apparently, Chevron doesn't want car co's to get this technology so we can keep buying Chevron's fuel.

Baseload is real, and some source must supply it. Given our current technology, wind and solar can not do the job, and we are many, many years away from having the ability to efficiently store electrical energy (and that's the problem ... the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't shine at night).

In addition, wind power is a complete boondoggle. (ask and I will supply links)

:dem:

-Laelth

If you read his comments from the same article, you'll get a sense of what I feel is a much smarter approach to this problem. Wellinghoff and Chu are obviously not on the same page on this issue. Frankly, I have no idea what Wellinghoff is talking about or why he's presenting his position in such an unrealistic way. His quotes from this article make me think he's in la-la land.

He might be a smart guy with another agenda, however ... ramp up U.S. production of wind turbines and solar panels, and to heck with whether they work. We need the jobs. Personally, I think that's a colossal waste of resources. We need the jobs, yes, but I'd rather build something that will work.

:dem:

-Laelth

That's my take, too-

and it seems to be where some posters on the thread are as well.

You and your bogus astroturf manufactured "links" are much more knowledgeable and convincing than the fellow in charge of the reliability of our nation's electric grid.








http://www.ferc.gov/about/ferc-does.asp

And if you read what he has to say in the same article, it's clear that he and Wellinghoff do not agree. I hope Secretary Chu's position wins out in this debate.

:dem:

-Laelth

1. You have an excellent appeal-to-authority argument going. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

2. Of course, the fallaciousness of (1) depends on his status as an expert.
He is certainly an expert. "Chairman Wellinghoff is an energy law specialist with more than 30 years experience in the field."

If he's commenting about energy law, he's an expert. He's commenting on technology. His expertise in this field is probably not based on extensive study of the field as a whole, but a combination of what was needed to make his clients' cases in court and before regulatory agencies, and that's going to mostly be what they say.

Even if he's an expert in the field that's involved in the appeal to authority, it still smacks of fallacy, however: The truth or falsity of what an expert says depends ultimately not on the expert, but on the veridicality of what he says. Experts are often wrong, for many reasons. This brings us to (3).

3. He's an advocate. Some lawyers take whatever cases they get, within their field of expertise. Being a mercenary in that way is a time-honored practice, and one that it's accepted as not being unethical. However, he's not mercenary: He didn't take a broad range of cases, he took a narrow range. Now, this might be accidental. It's probably not.

Advocates are a fine and dandy thing, but they almost always have a drawback: They're biased. They argue the side they believe in. Personally, I don't care if the crusader is on "my" side or "their" side, I don't like crusaders. They forgive their own errors too quickly, and their followers also forgive their errors, and that's when their discipline has standards of objectivity--you'd never, the principle goes, propose an argument you know to be flawed, nor use any metric but "is this the truth?" to qualify or disqualify evidence. He's a lawyer. The goal isn't to reach the truth, but to win. Disqualifying perfectly truthful evidence is a standard technique; not presenting the entire truth is also a standard technique. While this is a problem for most advocates, for laywers it's standard operating procedure.

that lawyers have a tendency to think that they know everything and often greatly overestimate their technical knowledge and abilities, at least in my experience.

This guy may fit that mold.

while the windmills, smart grid and solar plants are built.

Sorry, but we've been hearing the excuses going on 40 years. It's time to put up or STFU.

other then just wishful thinking.

We already have implemented energy conservation measures through out the commercial users market for the last 20 years.

To quote yourself -"It's time to put up or STFU."

In fact, as any sane person can see, we need a lot more baseload if we're going to significantly reduce carbon emissions. Wind, solar, and biomass simply can not do it.

Wellinghoff gives the impression that he's living in la-la land.

:dem:

-Laelth

EVs are the key to distributed generation as they provide the storage you love to carp about. As batteries become a mainline electronics product driven by demand for EVs, the price/kwh of storage will plummet. This, in turn, brings significant on site storage of home solar PV into the range of easy affordability. A system consisting of home based solar generation augmented by large scale wind, solar, geothermal, wave/current/tidal and various large scale storage strategies can all be tied together via a grid capable of handling (what is by today's standards) micro-transactions. This is precisely the scenario that FERC is looking at.

We would maintain nuclear at 20% for another 30 or so years, while phasing out first gasoline, coal, then natgas.

You can pooh-pooh this if you want, but it certainly isn't la-la land. It is a plan that is a product of a vast amount of research. Chu's comments about more nuclear are in relation to maintaining the 20% as older plants reach the end of their life cycles. He is, in fact, a huge proponent of solar.

Oh yes, one more thing - there currently exists excess generating capacity to meet approximately 75% of our light duty needs. Most of it in the form of spinning reserve that is offline during offpeak hours. When we look at utilizing just this capacity in EVs, with no renewables added to sweeten the numbers, we reduce GHG emissions for the transportation sector by nearly 60% due to increased overall efficiency.

Perhaps we read different articles.

:dem:

-Laelth

Not to mention the line loss (1 1/2%), transformer loss (8-10%) KVAR loss (Sky is the limit on this one)

But some thing has to put the energy in those EVs in the first place

Why should we need 200,000,000 electric cars in USAmerica to replace the 200,000,000 gas guzzlers?

Can't you imagine a future within which we have walkable Urban Villages, human and solar powered inter-village transport and relocalization of production of necessary resources (food, water, entertainment, etc.)?

I guess not.

What are you going to do for water or food when the mean temperature in the former "temperate" zones is over 100 Degrees in the summer? Keep supporting the current (coal fired) present and that's what you'll get...

Power down, relocalize!

www.transitionus.org

But that's not the world we live in. That's some fantasy world that does not exist. I want to address the problems that exist in the world as it is. Policy based upon a fantasy world that does not exist is doomed to fail. "Teaching" abstinence, for example, based upon some fantasy world where teens aren't sexually active does nothing to curb teen sexual activity. Why? Because it's a policy based upon a fantasy world that does not exist.

I want to see coal-fired plants eliminated, snarkmaster, and I think our transportation needs to be 95% electric (we're a long way away from electric aircraft). I agree that we must stop burning fossil fuels to save the planet, but wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and all the other boondoggle technologies can not currently replace oil and coal. No way, no how, not now--maybe in 60 or 70 years, but that might be too late. We need to invest our money and energy now into something that can actually improve the situation.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

is the one you're living in.

You tell me that we must stop burning fossil fuels to save the planet (and you're right, in fact the informed, scientific opinion tells us that we must cut GHG emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2030 TO HAVE A CHANCE -- and those are the optomists) ...

You tell me that wind, solar, etc. will not replace fossil fuels (and you're right, they can't. The heroin fix of fossil fuels was an ephemeral, not to be repeated abberation)...

Then you tell me that humans will be traveling on the highway to hell in their hundreds of millions of personal vehicles into the far future...

And I'M the one living in a fantasy world.

Do the math, friend...

I've already told you, there are existing technologies for converting, storing and re-routing energy.

Batteries, Supercapacitors, water displacement, air compression and flywheels. Take your pick. And they're all efficient.

This is an engineering problem, not a scientific problem.

And yes, I realize the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine at night. But NOBODY'S advocating a total wind/solar system with our current energy load.

And that experiment allegedly proved that such a storage device was a theoretical possibility, at best.

If that experiment is verified, and if the proposed battery can be made to work on a large scale, then, perhaps, we may find a way to reliably store enough electrical energy to do some good. At the moment, it's theoretical, and a remote possibility at best.

We need to tackle this problem now. We can't wait for your battery.

:dem:

-Laelth

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/09/aep-to-deploy-additional-large-scale-batteries-on-distribution-grid-49926

As part of an effort to integrate new technologies for reliability, renewable energy, and energy efficiency to meet customers' future needs, American Electric Power (AEP) is expanding its use of large-scale battery technology on its electricity grid.

AEP will be adding stationary sodium sulfur (NAS) battery technology in its West Virginia and Ohio service territories next year.

The company will also work with wind developers to identify a third location within AEP’s 11-state service territory for NAS battery deployment next year, using the storage capability to help offset the intermittent nature of wind generation.

AEP has placed an order for the three new NAS batteries with NGK Insulators Ltd. of Japan, the manufacturer and co-developer, along with the Tokyo Electric Power Co., of the technology. AEP anticipates delivery in spring 2008. The six megawatts (MW) added to AEP’s system during this deployment is a step toward the company’s goal of having 1,000 MW of advanced storage capacity on its system in the next decade.

<more>

New battery packs powerful punch

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery_N.htm

Batteries have long been vital to laptops and cellphones. They are increasingly supplying electricity to an unlikely recipient: the power grid itself.
Until recently, large amounts of electricity could not be efficiently stored. Thus, when you turn on the living-room light, power is instantly drawn from a generator.

A new type of a room-size battery, however, may be poised to store energy for the nation's vast electric grid almost as easily as a reservoir stockpiles water, transforming the way power is delivered to homes and businesses. Compared with other utility-scale batteries plagued by limited life spans or unwieldy bulk, the sodium-sulfur battery is compact, long-lasting and efficient.

Using so-called NaS batteries, utilities could defer for years, and possibly even avoid, construction of new transmission lines, substations and power plants, says analyst Stow Walker of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. They make wind power — wildly popular but frustratingly intermittent — a more reliable resource. And they provide backup power in case of outages, such as the one that hit New York City last week.

<more>

too bad - try again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=99200

Denmark's first full-scale hydrogen-energy plant and testing facility, the Lolland Hydrogen Community opened May 2007. It is also the EU's first full-scale Hydrogen Community Demonstration facility for residential Fuel Cell Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

<snip>

The island is producing 50% more energy from renewable energy sources that it consumes and the hydrogen project is seeking to locally store excess wind power in the form of hydrogen for use in residential and industrial facilities.

Hydrogen is produced by using excess wind power to split water into oxygen and hydrogen through electrolysis. The oxygen is used in the municipal water treatment plant nearby to speed up the biological process. The hydrogen is stored in low-pressure storage tanks at 6 bars and fuels two PEM Fuel Cell Micro Combined Heat and Power (CHP) stations of 2 kilowatts (kW) and 6.5 kW, respectively.

Within the next couple of years the project will install residential micro CHP units in 35 homes in the village of Vestenskov making it the first hydrogen-powered community in Europe.

<more>

try again

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1073916.html

Wind power is clean and renewable. Now a group of utilities in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas has a plan to make it reliable.

Using existing technology, backers plan to spend $200 million for a "wind storage" project that would be under construction in 2009 and in service in 2011.

<snip>

While Xcel Energy and the federal government also are experimenting with ways to "store" wind power in the form of hydrogen, the Iowa Stored Energy Park would employ a far simpler strategy. Wind parks in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas would ship energy over the power grid to a rural site outside Des Moines, about 230 miles south of the Twin Cities.

Three thousand feet below the surface outside Des Moines, a sandstone aquifer (caverns that now hold water) will be injected with pressurized air, with the air temporarily displacing some of the water. The electricity from wind turbines will power the compressors. A pipe will deliver underground air compressed to 900 to 1,000 pounds per square inch. The compression of millions of cubic feet of air will be scheduled for nights and weekends, when wind power often sells for next to nothing.

<more>

too bad - try again

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/iowa-to-combine-wind-energy-caes-technology-47096

Backed by the U.S. Department of Energy, a group of municipal utilities in Iowa and surrounding states are planning to build a new energy park that would integrate a 75-150 megawatt wind farm with Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) technology.

The proposed project, known as the Iowa Stored Energy Park (IESP), will use low-cost, off-peak electricity -- and wind energy that is not being sold on the grid at that time -- to store air in an underground geologic structure of porous rock located 3,000 feet underground, beneath layers of impermeable cap rock. The air will be injected under pressure, pushing back water stored in the rock.

The rock will hold air much like a sponge holds water. Then, as demand for electricity rises, the stored air will be released, heated, and used to drive generators -- in turn producing electricity for residents in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas.

"Iowa is a leader in wind production but we have not developed a feasible way to store the abundant energy produced by wind. ISEP is the solution for storing energy. The project just makes sense. As an Iowan, I want to keep the clean and healthy quality of life here. The Iowa Stored Energy Park will provide needed electricity for our state, and also be environmentally friendly. We all want to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. ISEP helps us accomplish that as well," said John Bilsten, general manager for the Algona Municipal Utilities.

<more>

try again

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060822/datu011.html?.v=65

AUSTIN, Texas, Aug. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Active Power, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACPW - News), manufacturer and distributor of the most reliable backup power solutions available in the industry today, announced that one of the world's largest sugar refiners will be purchasing seven of the company's 1000 kVA CleanSource® UPS systems for deployment in its operations in Northern Africa. This customer currently processes over 600,000 tons of sugar per year and is planning for an expansion of its capacity to 1.6 million tons per year, which would make it the largest sugar refining complex in the world.

The systems, to be delivered in the 4th quarter of this year, will be utilized to eliminate the micro interruptions and reverse power conditions on several of the customer's refining lines. By reducing or eliminating these power interruptions, the plant will achieve greater energy efficiency, down time will be reduced or eliminated, and production will improve significantly.

<snip>

Active Power has accumulated over 32 million run time hours representing over 350 megawatts deployed in over 40 countries around the globe. Systems are manufactured in Active Power's 127,000 square foot manufacturing and operations facility located in Austin, Texas. Products are sold worldwide through Active Power partners, representatives and direct sales teams. This win continues Active Power's aggressive expansion into international markets.

<snip>

Active Power, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets battery-free power quality products that provide the consistent, reliable electric power required by today's digital economy. An ISO 9001- registered company, Active Power is the first to commercialize a flywheel energy storage system, CleanSource®, that provides a highly reliable, low- cost and non-toxic replacement for lead-acid batteries used in conventional power quality installations. Active Power has also recently developed a new battery-free extended runtime product line (CoolAir(TM)) based on its proprietary thermal and compressed air storage technology.

<more>

try again

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2009/02/23/daily5-Beacon-Power-deal-to-help-stabilize-Ohio-grid.html

Tyngsborough-based Beacon Power Corp., which makes flywheel-based power storage systems, has signed a new contract with American Electric Power Co. Inc., a large utility based in Ohio.

Under terms of the deal, Beacon Power (Nasdaq: BCON) will build and deploy a 1-megawatt Smart Energy Matrix regulation facility at an American Electric Power (AEP) facility in Groveport, Ohio, operated by AEP operating subsidiary, Columbus Southern Power Co. The construction of the device will be done at Beacon Power’s expense, while AEP will provide and install the interconnection infrastructure.

AEP has already completed the necessary system impact study and executed an interconnection agreement, according to a company statement. Installation of the Smart Energy Matrix is scheduled to begin in the middle of this year.

The system is expected to provide flywheel-based frequency regulation services for the local grid. Once installed, Beacon Power will earn commercial revenue from the system. Financial terms of the deal were not provided.

<more>

try again

are talking about LOWERING the energy requirement...

www.transitionus.org

California alone needs over 600 megawatts of additional electrical energy every year just to keep up with demand.

Who does this guy think he is fooling

the MASSIVE increase in electrical energy needs that will result from the inevitable move away from fossil-fueled automobiles. That will send our energy requirements skyrocketing.

http://www.philly.com/philly/classifieds/cars/green_cars/20090202_Electric_car_returns_energy_to_the_grid.html

Willett Kempton drives an uncommon car.

The body is a Toyota Scion. The innards have been stripped of their "greasy parts," and replaced by massive batteries and other electrical components.

The resulting vehicle, developed by Kempton, a renewable-energy professor at the University of Delaware, can hit 95 miles an hour and go 120 miles before charging.

<snip>

The battery in this new breed of electric car can both give and receive, taking a charge and then, through the same electrical cord, sending some of its stored energy back to a hungry electricity grid, as needed.

Bwaaahahhahahah! Maybe it'll send enough back to power my laptop for ten minutes.

and Bwahahahahaha...Smart Electric Car Grid...HUGE....

Bwahahahahahaa!!1111

:rofl:

waaaaaaaaaayyyyy more energy than they'll ever return to your smart grid. Where will all that energy come from?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/offshore-wind-power-could_n_183593.html

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — If wind power were fully developed off the East Coast, windmills could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday.

But those numbers were challenged as "overly optimistic" by a coal industry group, which noted that half the nation's electricity currently comes from coal-fired power plants.

The secretary spoke at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how the nation's offshore areas can be tapped to meet America's energy needs.

"The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility," he said. "It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now."

<more>

add on-shore wind, PV, solar thermal electric, tidal, in-stream hydro, geothermal and biomass...

...and problem solved.

the end

You didn't ask for the links, of course, but I thought I'd share them again, regardless. :)

Wind Power BLOWS.

See the following:
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/
http://www.epaw.org/

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

You get the idea...

:rofl:

:dem:

-Laelth

http://www.physorg.com/news159033399.html

Can you imagine an electric car that stores power and, depending on variable utility rates, returns it to the power grid over the course of a day? Fraunhofer researchers are exploring this visionary idea. At the Hannover Messe tradeshow from April 20 to 24, interested visitors can view a model presentation to gain an understanding of this concept and the latest research in this field.

It’s midnight: Powerful wind gusts drive turbines, which produce more energy than is needed. Energy prices go down. The electric car in the garage automatically begins to recharge its battery, and to benefit from the favorable energy prices. Nine o’clock: The car is parked in the underground parking garage at the office; the battery charge has declined slightly on the way to work. By this time, wind strength has waned, yet power needs have risen due to the time of day. So prices go up. The car feeds a certain portion of its stored power back into the network, and the owner gets a monetary offset in exchange. Enough energy remains in the battery so that the owner can make a few stops as needed - like going to the supermarket - on the way back home.

The electric or hybrid car as a storage battery for regenerative power: Researchers at the Fraunhofer Energy Alliance are examining ways to make this vision a reality. Scientists are continuing work on a software program that intelligently controls the charge and discharge process. When energy prices are low, it charges the battery. If prices become high again, it returns energy to the network. At the same time, researchers are also accounting for the habits of the driver. How far is it to the office? Does the driver always drive directly to work, or does he or she typically run a few errands? To what extent is the driver willing to discharge the battery if the compensation is high enough? The system is also to incorporate spontaneous needs: If there is a long distance trip ahead - such as a vacation trip - then the battery is not discharged, even at high energy prices. The battery has to be full when the vacation starts. Fraunhofer Institutes are also participating as subproject partners in studies on vehicle fleets.

There are various approaches to billing: A meter in the car could record the power flow, and send the data at specified intervals to the utility supplier. These meters could also take over the identification and authentication functions by transmitting the vehicle owner’s customer number and the details regarding the network connection point.

<more>

Nice Dream but we are not there yet and to prevent the USA from becoming a 3rd world country we need to be realistic about energy demands

someone is fooling you into thinking that there's no limit to energy production on a finite Earth.

The latest inconvenient truth ranges from the view that we MUST cut down GHG production to 80% of 1990 levels by 2030 to the pessimist's view that it's already too late...

We MUST severely decrease demand or Mother Nature will do it for us.

I'm afraid, given the collective stupidity and venality of the human animal, the obvious lack of viability of the big brained biped for long term survival, that Mom Nature will kick our asses.

www.transitionus.org

Nuclear power is green, despite what the idiots will tell you.

advocate will be happy (sad?) to inform you that nuclear cannot replace coal and oil either...

Power down...

Through the use of advanced technologies in conservation and the production of clean, renewable energy, we can solve our problem and help reduce Global Warming.

We need to reduce our carbon pollution and transition to clean energy. More power plants using dirty fossil fuels can be replaced through research and development. But the R&D effort will take money. It will take lots of money which can readily be had by killing useless defense programs like the F-22, DDG-1000 Zumwalt Destroyers, Strategic Missile Defense, and the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

The best and brightest engineers and scientists in the defense industry can come work on renewable energy.

:shrug:


www.transitionus.org

The world's energy demands are increasing, not decreasing. The party in power will get kicked out of power if they rely on conservation to solve our energy problems. Do you want to be the party of conservation, or wouldn't you rather find a way to provide Americans with the power they want?

Personally, I want power, but I also want to eliminate (or reduce by 90%) our use of fossil fuels. Conservation, while it may be a good idea, isn't winning any elections, and it can not be the answer.

:dem:

-Laelth

at the quantities you seem to desire.

"Personally, I want power, but I also want to eliminate (or reduce by 90%) our use of fossil fuels"

It's severe power-down with huge doses of conservation or total collapse.

That's your final choice...I'm waiting for your final answer.

We're not going to be saved by any techno-fantasies this time...

It provides large amounts of electricity and doesn't produce GHGs.

and the US is more dependent on imported uranium (%) than we are on imported oil.

US uranium mines produce ~2 million pounds of yellowcake per year - US nucular reactors use 62 million ponds per year.

Do the math...

I am quite interested to hear whether you have some kind of proof for this assertion:

"Using low grade ore, nuclear power plants produce as much CO2 as a gas-fired plant."

If you do, please provide it.

:dem:

-Laelth

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1955/nuclear-energy-becoming-less-sustainable

SYDNEY: The case for nuclear power as a sustainable alternative energy source is challenged by new evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining are increasing. An Australian report, detailed this week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology argues that the availability of high-grade uranium ore will deplete over time making the fuel more environmentally and economically expensive to extract.

<snip>

For the study, Mudd and co-author Mark Diesendorf, an environmental scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, reviewed existing data on uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacture from across the world. This included historical figures showing when most mining had occurred, contemporary financial and technical reports, and CO2 emissions reports.

<snip>

"The amount of uranium which can be utilised without creating excessive greenhouse gas emissions – and using excessive water – may be rather more limited than has been suggested," said Falk, who was not one of the study's authors. "The potential role of nuclear power, is likely to be also limited by such considerations."

Nevertheless, Falk noted that while critics argue that nuclear energy industry generates large quantities of CO2 (sometimes calculated to be as much for a nuclear power station as an equivalent gas power station) it still generates much less than a coal-burning power plant.

<more>

Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf (2008) Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling: Toward Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (7), pp 2624–2630

http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference%20./2007/papers/MUDD-Uranium-Mining.pdf

Abstract
The mining of uranium has long been a controversial public issue, and a renewed debate has emerged on the potential for nuclear power to help mitigate against climate change. The central thesis of pro-nuclear advocates is the lower carbon intensity of nuclear energy compared to fossil fuels, although there remains very little detailed analysis of the true carbon costs of nuclear energy. In this paper, we compile and analyze a range of data on uranium mining and milling, including uranium resources as well as sustainability metrics such as energy and water consumption and carbon emissions with respect to uranium productionarguably the first time for modern projects. The extent of economically recoverable uranium resources is clearly linked to exploration, technology, and economics but also inextricably to environmental costs such as energy/water/chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and social issues. Overall, the data clearly show the sensitivity of sustainability assessments to the ore grade of the uranium deposit being mined and that significant gaps remain in complete sustainability reporting and accounting. This paper is a case study of the energy, water, and carbon costs of uranium mining and milling within the context of the nuclear energy chain.

Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

<snip>

Below 50 parts per million, the energy extracted is no better than mining coal, assuming that the uranium is used in a once-through fuel cycle, and is not reprocessed, but is dumped in some long-term repository. Apart from the self-evident dangers of dissolving spent fuel in acid and keeping the bulk of radioactive waste in stainless steel tanks until a final disposal is found, reprocessing offers very little if at all in terms of energy gained through the extraction and re-use of uranium and plutonium in mixed oxide fuel (MOX) <7>.

To date, nuclear power has been built and subsidised through the use of fossil fuels, which have provided the energy for mining, extraction, enrichment and construction. Hence, nuclear power cannot be considered to be free of greenhouse gas emissions. Use of the next grade down could lead to a greenhouse gas inventory every bit as bad as for a gas-fired electricity generation plant, and considerably worse than for a gas-fired co-generation plant, in which both electricity and end-use heating are produced.

As Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith point out in their document <6>, the cumulative energy produced by a nuclear plant compared with the energy expenditure shows a relatively small net gain over the course of 100 years, which incorporates the time needed to get a handle on the costs of final disposal of the radioactive waste, including the radioactively contaminated structural materials of the reactor. Poor grade uranium will result in a net deficit of energy. Hence a massive worldwide nuclear programme, based on the use of poor grade uranium ores, will add cumulatively to energy demands, rather than resolving them.

Gas-fired plants better than nuclear plants

On that basis, comparisons between the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the full once-through cycle of a nuclear plant and an equivalently sized gas-burning plant, indicates that with the poorer uranium ores, below 0.02 per cent, the gas-fired plant comes out better, with lower overall carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, the efficiency of a combined-cycle gas plant can now achieve efficiencies of 56 per cent, more than double that achieved for nuclear power. With gas, the costs of electricity generation have therefore reduced in real terms.

<more>

Again - you are wrong wrong wrong.

McCain, Palin and lthe pronucular anti-renewable anti-conservation GOP - LOST - no nukes for you.

That's obviously what the shill who wrote this paper wants. Is that what you're advocating? Natural gas?

:rofl:

-Laelth

YOU want nuclear and coal and natural gas

and YOU are opposed to conservation.

and....

:rofl:

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Dick Cheney 2001

McCain Lost - Bush and Cheney are GONE - Dems rule.

Too Freaking Bad

Your post is a violation of DU rules. You've done it before, but I'm a big person, and I haven't felt the need to call you on it. If it happens again, I will call you on it.

I am a taxpayer, and I dislike government waste. I also think CO2 emissions create global warming and are a threat to life on this planet. Other than those two factors, I have no financial or other interest in this discussion (unlike others who are posting here).

I am a liberal, and I have plenty of liberal cred. on this board. Feel free to look at my journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth

On this particular issue however, and presuming your quote is accurate, I agree with Darth Cheney on this point. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

We need a lot more electricity, and we need it soon, if we're going to move from gas-powered cars to electric cars. Simply conserving will not do it.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.

Yup

in a 2400 square foot well-insulated house. Our electric bills were $300-$600 per month, depending on the season (we live in west Texas, where summer temps are 100+; heck, yesterday was 97). We installed 6 windmills, with our parallel meter hookup to TXU. Our net bill to TXU last YEAR was $178.

Cost to set up the system before tax credits: $11,000 give or take. System has already paid for itself, has an expected life of 15-20 years. We couldn't be happier. No idea what the theory is. It works.

Just my 2 cents worth.

The increased cost (wind power is very expensive) is passed on to other TXU customers. They're paying for your windmills. If you ask the engineers who run TXU whether they want your wind power, they would say no. It's unreliable and it creates surges that have to be regulated within the grid. They buy it only because they have to.

It's a bad idea.

Wind Power BLOWS.

See the following:
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/
http://www.epaw.org/

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317

Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485

Looks like you and your stupid strawman are wrong again.

Or was it a simple mistake?

The 2007 California report says that simple cycle natural gas-generated electricity costs 15.71 cents/kWh. And you know why I suspect you left that off the list? This is why. You and I both know that you have to have a natural gas-powered plant running in spinning reserve to replace lost wind energy if the wind stops blowing. Add the cost of very expensive (and wasted) natural gas to the price of wind, and it doesn't look so cheap any more.

In fact, it's not cheap at all, and we wouldn't have any wind turbines at all if they were not government subsidized. They do not reduce carbon emissions one bit because, as you know, a natural gas plant always has to be running in spinning reserve when the wind is blowing so that, in case the wind stops, there won't be a brown-out. That makes wind power very, very expensive. What's worse, it doesn't help the environment one bit.

But thanks for giving me the opportunity to share the truth with those who may be interested in hearing it.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

It was easy...

Of course, not. You have no answer. You intentionally misrepresented the cost of wind power, because you know that wind power is very expensive given that a natural gas-powered plant must always be running in spinning reserve to make up for the lost wind power when the wind stops blowing.

You have little or no credibility left as far as I am concerned.

:dem:

-Laelth

Virtually all operating base- and intermediate-load gas-fired power plants in the US are combined cycle - because they are the most efficient and lowest cost.

Simple cycle gas fired plants are PEAKING PLANTS THAT PRODUCE THE MOST EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY ON THE GRID!!!11111

"You have little or no credibility left as far as I am concerned."

:rofl:

because it supplied 95% of their home power use, reducing their cost from $3600/yr minimum to $178/yr.

btw, there's small wind too - not all wind installations are the giant ones. i'm guessing the poster got the small ones.

I was just pointing out that all the other TXU ratepayers had to pick up the tab for the useless energy that the poster produced with machines that did nothing to help the environment (because a gas-fired power plant has to always be running in spinning reserve to replace lost power if and when the wind stops blowing). TXU would never have let the poster even hook up those windmills to the grid unless they were forced to do so.

:dem:

-Laelth

what your point is about the grid.

power can be stored, you know. the windmill doesn't have to spin 24-7.

I don't know how much more. I've heard ~$30k for a house-sized off-the-grid system, but I don't know how accurate that price is. You need space for the batteries, too (or any other storage system, like pumped storage).

can be $30-$40K.

system cost depends on how much kW. right now lots of incentives.

I forgot about that.

You yourself said the windmills replaced 95% of their power needs and they are in a windy area. I guess you are alright with having no lights, laptop, tv, a/c, etc. 5% of the time?

& getting the cost of investment back within minimal # of years - i.e. more or less "free" power thereafter - i.e. 10-20 years.

personally, i'd trade a 5% power loss for 10-20 years of essentially free power.

95% of your power needs equals about 1.2 hours a day of no power. That could be when you are trying to get your kids to school in the morning. It could be while you are taking a shower. Could be while you are trying to post on DU. Heck, it could be while you are watching the 4th quarter of the Superbowl. More likely it would vary, with full power for a windy month and no power for a whole day. It would be interesting if that said day was 18 below or 110 degrees. Few would be alright with that.

we stayed on for emergency purposes, and we do use a small amount yet, as you can see from our bill.

I probably should have put on one more and disconnected, but we're very happy with what we're doing.

Thanks for your positive support - I've been surprised how many think what we're doing won't or can't work.

Ignore the naysayers, obviously what you're doing works well for your family. Even with subsidizing it's a good idea--the more people who do it the better because the demand will drive the costs down and benefit everyone. New technology is always more expensive at first but goes down as the demand goes up.

I'm glad for you. Wish I could do the same in Dallas, but it would be difficult :).

averages, they're about 7.8 mph.

recommended average minimum for small wind installation = 10-12.

not quite a fair test, is it?

even so, the two best systems produced 775-1160 kWh of power at cost of < .40/kWh over 4-5 mo.

I'm not sure which one you're referring to, but at the cost you list in your post, I am certain that the cost of the gas-powered plant running in spinning reserve to make up for lost power in the event that the wind stops blowing has not been factored in. Ultimately, wind power is very expensive, and it doesn't curb CO2 emissions because that gas-powered plant must always be running as a back-up.

:dem:

-Laelth

you also ignored the point that the average wind speed was 2-4 mph less than the *minimum* recommended.

:shrug:

Please, point out which cite you're referring to, and I will take a look (I listed a lot of cites).

And I am aware that the wind energy companies regularly over-estimate average wind speed. I wouldn't deny that for a second.

:dem:

-Laelth

i believe it was the first one, but i'm not going to go back & check.

the case i'm referring to wasn't one of *wind companies* overestimating speed, it was of a supposedly neutral test of wind v. solar, in which the test wind installations were run in wind speeds below *minimum*.

:dem:

-Laelth

Wow, how innovative. :sarcasm: That's right, let the public deal with the radioactive waste, global warming, air and water pollution, and environmental degradation from these industries by paying to clean it up, or leaving it to impact people's health and the environment. That way the corporate greedmongers can reap evermore profits while it's on the taxpayers' backs to clean up the tons of shit the greedy bastards leave behind. :grr:

But I am a taxpayer, and I care about the ecological health of the planet, so I have researched this matter, and I do have some opinions on it. Your description of what you think my opinions are is completely inaccurate.

Global warming needs to be curbed. I'd like to see a 90% reduction in our use of fossil fuels. I don't believe there's such a thing as "clean coal." It's always going to produce CO2, and it needs to be eliminated as a source of power. But I also know that wind power can not curb global warming at all because gas-powered plants have to always be running in spinning reserve to compensate for lost power when the wind stops blowing. I know that we'd have to cover the entire state of Nevada with solar panels in order to meet our current electricity consumption, and if we wanted to switch to electric-powered cars, we'd have to cover the entire state of California too.

I have no problem with dumping a lot of money into solar R&D so that we might come up with a battery that can make solar power feasible. However, I also know that, given our current technology, we are wasting money (and a lot of it) by building windmills and solar power generators. Geo-thermal energy has its own problems. Tidal energy will destroy our seashores and marine estuaries. Bio-fuels cause massive, global food shortages. Alternative energies, as we now are capable of utilizing them, simply can not meet our current energy demands, much less the demands of a society that uses electricity for transportation (electric cars and trains).

I hear your anger and your frustration. I think it is misplaced. I want a real-world solution to a real-world problem. From what I can tell, alternative and renewable sources simply can not do the job.

:dem:

-Laelth

Also, I like the graphic in your signature line. It makes me chuckle.

It sucks electricity to itself (as you can see by watching any lightning storm). While I think it's a noble cause to try to find a way to store electrical energy, I have serious doubts that we can overcome the natural, electrical, grounding capacity of the Earth. This, of course, is why batteries run out. The Earth sucks the power out of them.

I think we are much better off trying to find ways to constantly produce electricity (because I don't think we'll ever be able to efficiently store it). Not unless we migrate away from the Earth, and I have no desire to do that. I like it here.

Glad you like the graphic. :)

:dem:

-Laelth

It has been varying each week, but it is lower in most weeks -- by quite a lot some weeks.

The combination of energy efficiency improvements, such as use of florescent lighting and LED lighting, as well as the declining economy, may obviate the need for new electrical generation for several years.

But if you want to see widespread use of electric cars and trains (which I do), then we need to ramp up our production of electricity quickly and dramatically.

:dem:

-Laelth

A lot of commercial and industrial use has disappeared, and the industrial use may have permanently shifted to China and some of the dirtiest generating plants on earth.

If you can still post a 2% drop year over year over a course of at least a few years once our economy has recovered (if it does) AND adjusting for loss of manufacturing and computing sent beyond our borders, THEN you will have a good argument.

& didn't go back to baseline until years later. people had to be coerced to resume their wasteful habits again, i.e. in the reagan "more! bigger! spend!" culture.

i'm pretty well convinced we could save 5% of consumer consumption with very minimal adjustments, 10% or more with more major assists (e.g. completely free weatherizing, replacement windows, etc,)

We will have to make that switch soon and it will create a need for ENORMOUS amounts of new power generation. Cutesy little windmills and solar panel silliness aren't going to produce the levels of energy we'll require.

While this would increase demand in KWatt-hours of energy, it wouldn't necessarily require additional power plants.

the amount of energy that electric cars would require.

200 * 10^9 (miles/month) * 250 (Watt-hours/mile) = 50,000 * 10^9 (Watt-hours/month).

50,000 * 10^9 (Watt-hours/month) / 250 (hours/month for off peak charging) = 200 * 10^9 (Watts).

The installed capacity of electrical generation is somewhat over 1000 * 10^9 Watts.

So converting the whole fleet to off-peak plug-in charging would use about 20% of the US electrical generating capacity during the off-peak hours.

While I have no financial interest in this debate at all (other than my interest as a taxpayer who dislikes government waste), I suspect several posters in this thread have financial interests in alternative energy. They don't care whether these technologies can save the planet or even aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They're just spewing the alternative energy companies' propaganda to a market that they believe is receptive to their arguments.

Consider, if you will, this exchange, following th main essay:

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=166

:dem:

-Laelth

these initiatives, too.

T. Boone Pickens (a definite conservative) plans to make a mint on alternative energy, as Republicans usually do, by feeding at the public trough. Pickens doesn't give a rat's that wind power is a boondoggle and doesn't cut down on CO2 emissions one bit. He's still going to make a lot of money by selling it to taxpayers, just as Big Ag did when Bush was pushing bio-fuels and giving out taxpayer money to companies that produced it.

Republicans love alternative energy.

:dem:

-Laelth

What we need to do however is a decentralized model of energy production, where every house, apartment, commercial building and factory become energy generators. We need to incorporate technologies that cut down on our energy requirements, such as earth air tubes which will cool any building for the price of a fan and a UV filter.

Your typical single family house can become a net energy producer with the addition of 19m2 of solar panels and a new wind energy tech called Windbelts. Using conservation measures like passive solar water heating, central lighting combined with Himawaris, and other such innovative off the shelf technologies, a typical house can generate an average of 5,300 kWh's or more a year, in addition to fully powering the house itself.

You want gas, then instead of flushing our waste down the toilet, start building manure digesters. Not only will we be retrieving methane gas for energy usage, but we'll also be producing low cost, high quality fertilizer for our farmers, thus further reducing our need for petroleum.

The list is endless, and it is only those who haven't done their research and who are still thinking inside the box that are convinced that we need nuclear and/or coal. What these people fail to take into consideration is the long term costs of these traditional polluters. The claim that there can be "clean coal" is plain wrong. The claim that nuclear is green arises out of ignorance.

We can power our grid, cleanly and completely with clean renewable energy. All it takes is some outside the box thinking and the national will to do so.

This is precisely what we're hoping to do with our next home. We have to move and wherever we go we are hoping to get a place with a little bit of land so that we can put up a wind tower and some solar panels, grow veggies, do some serious composting, collect rainwater, etc. It's not easy finding a place which will make the cut with those needs, but it's the first time we've had a list like this in the 20 years we've been married. One of our prime target areas is the greater Bloomington, IN area where this would be easily doable. It's not that we want to be completely 'off the grid', but pretty darn close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Groves_Wind_Farm

We need more places like these to sustain us!

See here:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/life-with-industrial-wind-turbines-in-wisconsin-part-10/

And how can you justify building expensive wind turbines knowing that they do nothing to stop greenhouse gas emissions (because a gas-powered power plant must always be running in spinning reserve to make up for the lost power in the event that the wind stops blowing)?

Wind power can't now, and won't ever, be able to "sustain" us.

:dem:

-Laelth

Wind power is clean and renewable. Now a group of utilities in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas has a plan to make it reliable.

Using existing technology, backers plan to spend $200 million for a "wind storage" project that would be under construction in 2009 and in service in 2011.

<snip>

While Xcel Energy and the federal government also are experimenting with ways to "store" wind power in the form of hydrogen, the Iowa Stored Energy Park would employ a far simpler strategy. Wind parks in Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas would ship energy over the power grid to a rural site outside Des Moines, about 230 miles south of the Twin Cities.

Three thousand feet below the surface outside Des Moines, a sandstone aquifer (caverns that now hold water) will be injected with pressurized air, with the air temporarily displacing some of the water. The electricity from wind turbines will power the compressors. A pipe will deliver underground air compressed to 900 to 1,000 pounds per square inch. The compression of millions of cubic feet of air will be scheduled for nights and weekends, when wind power often sells for next to nothing.

<more>
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1073916.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3844917&mesg_id=3846007

That's just silly. It's also a massive waste of public money. In that sense, it's not silly at all.

:dem:

-Laelth