« "And justice for all..." Not so fast, Palestinians! | Main | SF Summary of Syria situation »

19 November 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

charly

All big electricity production is "subsidized" in one way or the other.

Gas is a strategic good and should not be wasted on regular electricity
Hydro uses land on a massive scale
Coal pollution is not accounted for

Big advantage for wind is that it creates very low priced energy for industry to use. Which means if you want to be industrialized you probably need to have wind turbines.

outthere

In USA there would no nuclear powerplants at all if it were not for government guarantees of debt and insurance. Wall St knows how dangerous nuclear power is, and will not finance any nuclear powerplant. The two new plants being built are not finished and electricity users in their areas are already being billed an increased rate to cover their construction.
Read this:
SUBSIDY TO NUCLEAR POWER THROUGH PRICE-ANDERSON LIABILITY LIMIT
Authors JEFFREY A. DUBIN, etc
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1990.tb00645.x/abstract;jsessionid=9CF2A3CF44C359A8B1F387C8ABB07C1E.f03t03

Fred

Ulenspiegel,

What is the cost per turbine, currently sized at ~8MW (siemens)? How much to install on the sea floor? How much to connect the power output to the shore? How much for the step up transformers? How much for the electrical switchyard? How many of each, turbines, transformers, switchyards, are needed? How much to connect to the existing transmission grid? How much for all the design work? What weather conditions would prevent utilization of any or all of the off-shore turbines? In the event that happens what replaces that power, how reliable is it and how much does it cost? What is the probability of an underwater cable failure and what is the replacement cost as well as replacement energy cost?
(I think it cost New Zealand a bundle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis )

outthere

also read this
Billions of Dollars in Subsidies for
the Nuclear Power Industry Will Shift
Financial Risks to Taxpayers
ISSUE BRIEF
Nuclear Subsidies in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA)
The Nuclear Power Industry Should Not Receive Tens of Billions of Dollars in New Subsidies
The Clean Energy Bank Must Have Clear and Effective Limits
The Title XVII DOE Loan Guarantee Program For New Reactors Should Not Expanded.
The Accelerated Depreciation Period for New
Reactors Should Not Be Further Reduced.
New Reactors Should Not Receive a 10 Percent
Investment Tax Credit (ITC).
The Production Tax Credit for New Reactors Should Not be Expanded
Tax Exempt Bonds Should Not Be Used for Public-Private Partnerships for New Reactors
Federal Regulatory Risk Insurance for Nuclear Plants Should Not Be Expanded.
New Nuclear Reactors Already Benefit From Generous Taxpayer Subsidies
www.ucsusa.org/assets/.../nuclear_power/Nuclear-Subsidies-in-APA-and-ACELA.pdf

robt willmann

Generating electricity by a nuclear power plant is a very expensive and extremely dangerous way to boil water or an appropriate liquid. The boiling liquid creates steam which turns a turbine which spins a shaft that turns a generator. After you start your car, a shaft spins and runs a generator (in the old days) and an alternator (today). A brief description of nuclear power to generate electricity is here--

http://www.fairewinds.org/what-is-nuclear-power/

On a boat trip on the Danube River in Austria quite a few years ago, I heard the announcement that a partially completed nuclear power plant was by the river, and a referendum had stopped nuclear power generation in that country. A description of the history of the attempt to establish nuclear power plants in Austria and the vote that stopped it is in a paper by Dr. Peter Weish of the University of Vienna which was presented in Japan in 1988--

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/peter.weish/schriften/austrias_no_to_nuclear_power.pdf

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/peter.weish/

A Big Euphemism in the nuclear power industry is the term "spent fuel rods", which, of course, are not "spent". They require constant cooling, usually in circulating water, or else....

The problem of toxic nuclear waste has not been solved, and is continuing in an unrelenting way in the ongoing tragedy at the nuclear power facility in Fukushima, Japan, which began in 2011. To make it worse, radioactive waste has been washing into the ocean.

Nikola Tesla, an extraordinarily creative and inventive person, had a different approach about electricity. He produced alternating electrical current, different from direct current, and numerous other ideas--

https://www.energy.gov/articles/top-11-things-you-didnt-know-about-nikola-tesla

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nikola-Tesla

https://www.energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power

Tesla had a concept of free energy, something that the U.S. government and utilities will not touch with a 10-foot pole, but I think he was on to something. The idea of free energy means just that (the first two citations are the same article)--

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/tesfreee.htm

http://www.t0.or.at/tesla/tesfreee.htm

https://www.nuenergy.org/nikola-tesla-radiant-energy-system/

Babak Makkinejad

Yes, but the question is the ratio of these subsidied to one another.

uak

Both the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party and Tokyo Electric are corrupt, and proper oversight of planning and maintenance at the Fukushima and other Japanese nuclear power plants has not been carried out. Japan has many more powerful earthquakes than France has, yet when the Fukushima plant was being built, the plans completely ignored the possibility of a 9.0 earthquake and/or a large-scale tsunami. Moreover, no contingency plans or emergency procedure practices for a large tsunami were ever carried out at either of the plants. Tokyo Electric is said to have paid off government regulators and assured them that no big tsunami would ever occur in the area. Moreover, the air intake vents were built low down on the sea side of the shoreline plants, so tsunami damage to them was much greater and in fact fatal, since all electrical equipment, including cooling equipment, was disabled in several of the generators, thus causing meltdowns. The Fukushima meltdowns were a human-made, politically-caused disaster. Hopefully there is less corruption and stricter government oversight in France.

ToivoS

No typhoon, just one humongous earthquake followed by a resulting tsunami. Even California isn't facing that danger of a double whamy.

charly

For most states it is the cheapest, most economical, locally produced electricity if you include the next 40 years in your decision and it has the bonus that it is a fantastic way to support heavy industry with cheap electricity. Besides subsidies don't matter that much if they don't leave the country.


ps. Solar has a totally different profile, Hydro is already build out, gas is import if you look at a 40 year horizon, coal is import and dirty, oil is too expensive, nuclear is way too expensive and other (hydrothermal, tidal, wave, osmotic power, OTEC) are to local or not developed enough.

Babak Makkinejad

May be for US prairie states, where a constant surface wind speed of 8 to 9 milred an hour is common.

outthere

quote
Coal is generally estimated to generate electricity for 5 cents a kilowatt hour, so it is now 3 times as expensive as the cheaper solar, and it is headed toward being 5 times as expensive by the time Trump is running for reelection. Nuclear costs 12 cents a kilowatt hour. Of course those prices don’t count externalities. If you count the damage coal does to the environment, from producing pollution that causes heart attacks to producing heat trapping gases that cause global heating and hurricanes, then coal is more like a dollar per kilowatt hour. It isn’t even remotely in the same league with solar.
endquote
World’s Cheapest Solar Power in Mexico a Coal-Killer
By Juan Cole
https://www.juancole.com/2017/11/internet-online-liberty.html

charly

Wave/Tidal is still in the prototype stage. Wind and solar cells aren't. Cost and production are reasonable predictable.

charly

I was talking about heavy industry. The 40% times of plenty, 60% of hunger is ideal for heavy users off electricity. They just operate in the 40% of plenty time and get their power for peanuts.

GeneO

Citroen DS back in the 50s was light years ahead of Detroit technology.

outthere

A Troubling Look at the Human Toll of Mountaintop Removal Mining

For years, the coal industry has dismissed the idea that mountaintop mining adversely affects people living nearby. But research by Indiana University’s Michael Hendryx provides stark evidence that this widespread mining practice is leading to increases in disease and deaths in Appalachia.

quote
e360: Birth defects?

Hendryx: We looked at birth certificate data over a six- to seven-year period, over a million births, again controlling for other risk factors, like smoking or drinking during pregnancy, and other medical conditions, and we found a striking pattern. Not only were the birth defects significantly elevated in the MTR areas. Heart defects were the most common – the risk for these was 181 percent higher in mining areas. Compare that to mothers who smoke during pregnancy, which is a well-established risk factor for birth defects, which [elevates the risk by] 30 percent. So the effect of mothers living in a mining area was six times higher than the effect for mothers who smoke. It’s incredible.
. . .
e360: But MTR does create some jobs, doesn’t it?

Hendryx: Blowing up mountains, deforesting large tracts of land, polluting streams, destroying roads from all the trucks going by, coating the landscape in dust, making people sick — what other employers are going to move into that area? If you aren’t lucky enough to have one of those jobs, you’ve probably got nothing, you’ve got maybe a part-time job at the Dollar Store. Because there aren’t other opportunities, the economic base has been destroyed.

The perception that people have is that this is kind of a trade-off between the environment and jobs, and it’s really not — it’s a trade-off between the environment and the profits of a few people.
endquote

http://e360.yale.edu/features/a-troubling-look-at-the-human-toll-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

English Outsider

Tidal messes up coastal ecologies. The energy source is us rotating. All seven billion of us plus the rocks. Tidal movement causes friction so there must be some underlying energy loss. Is that increased or decreased by temporary retention? Will our days be longer or shorter? Wind power on a vast scale would disturb the global wind flow low down and could lead to climate change. This is "studies have shown" territory. We environmentalists don't read our doom porn for nothing.

Wave power? Exhausting the energy of the waves before they hit the disappearing cliffs of England looks to be a thoroughly good move. Particularly for those of us who live close to the edge. As for nuclear power, I was once told pityingly by a hotshot physicist doing statistical work on failure rates of components that the things were now so safe that we could expect a major incident only once in ten thousand years. So don't worry your head about such things. How does that work out if you had, say, a thousand of them, I asked. We broke off the discussion at that point and never resumed it.

There's always walking and cold baths. They go together very well, once you get used to it. My fellow environmentalists don't seem to be that keen on getting used to it, I find.

outthere

Fukushima Darkness

by Robert Hunziker

> According to Dr. Shuzo Takemoto, professor, Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University: “The problem of Unit 2… If it should encounter a big earth tremor, it will be destroyed and scatter the remaining nuclear fuel and its debris, making the Tokyo metropolitan area uninhabitable. The Tokyo Olympics in 2020 will then be utterly out of the question,” (Shuzo Takemoto, Potential Global Catastrophe of the Reactor No. 2 at Fukushima Daiichi, February 11, 2017).

> Dr. Broinowski’s research is detailed, thorough, and complex. His study begins by delving into the impact of neoliberal capitalism, bringing to the fore an equivalence of slave labor to the Japanese economy, especially in regards to what he references as “informal labour.” He preeminently describes the onslaught of supply side/neoliberal tendencies throughout the economy of Japan. The Fukushima nuke meltdowns simply bring to surface all of the warts and blemishes endemic to the neoliberal brand of capitalism.
>
> According to Professor Broinowski: “The ongoing disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station (FDNPS), operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), since 11 March 2011 can be recognised as part of a global phenomenon that has been in development over some time. This disaster occurred within a social and political shift that began in the mid-1970s (ed. supply-side economics, which is strongly reflected in America’s current tax bill under consideration) and that became more acute in the early 1990s in Japan with the downturn of economic growth and greater deregulation and financialisation in the global economy. After 40 years of corporate fealty in return for lifetime contracts guaranteed by corporate unions, as tariff protections were lifted further and the workforce was increasingly casualised, those most acutely affected by a weakening welfare regime were irregular day labourers, or what we might call ‘informal labour.”
>
> In short, the 45,000-60,000 workers recruited to deconstruct decontaminate Fukushima Daiichi and the surrounding prefecture mostly came off the streets, castoffs of neoliberalism’s impact on “… independent unions, rendered powerless, growing numbers of unemployed, unskilled and precarious youths (freeters) alongside older, vulnerable and homeless day labourers (these groups together comprising roughly 38 per cent of the workforce in 2015) found themselves not only (a) lacking insurance or (b) industrial protection but also in many cases (c) basic living needs. With increasing deindustrialisation and capital flight, regular public outbursts of frustration and anger from these groups have manifested since the Osaka riots of 1992.” (Broinowski)
>
> Indeed, Japan is a totalitarian corporate state where corporate interests are protected from liability by layers of subcontractors and by vested interests of powerful political bodies and extremely harsh state secrecy laws. As such, it is believed that nuclear safety and health issues, including deaths, are underreported and likely not reported at all in most cases. Therefore, the worldview of nuclear power, as represented in Japan at Fukushima Daiichi, is horribly distorted in favor of nuclear power advocacy.


https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/22/fukushima-darkness/

charly

No electricity source is a solution for all demand so why demand it from a solar/wind combination.

charly

Wave & tidal is still in the prototype phase. Would love for it to be successful and there should be a lot of money invested in it for R&D and trails but they aren't yet ready for a build-out.

charly

Wave is a form of wind energy and Tidal is only useful where the ocean meats land. The total energy in tidal is also small compared to solar irradiation.

charly

I don't work in a troll farm "Pacifica Advocate" nor can i see any of the wind farm/solar cell makers having a monopoly.

outthere

Coal in Germany - still going, still growing, like Appalachia, devouring towns and forests
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/energy-transition-blocked-by-brown-coal-a-1179537.html

charly

How is that entirely false? Explain to me how to capture tidal energy without using the ocean.The tide in even big none ocean waters like the Mediterranean is very small.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad