HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Nuclear Revival is Ruinin...

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 06:17 PM

Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers

A News Release by NC WARN intended for distribution

October 5th, 2011
Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers, says Watchdog Group


See the report, New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCW-NuclearClimate_web.pdf

Listen to the audio from the press conference
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCWARN-Conference-Call-10-5-11.mp3

Read Clinging to Dirty Energy in the South – a by-the-numbers look from the Institute of Southern Studies
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/institute-index-clinging-to-dirty-energy-in-the-south.html

Report shows Southeast utilities plan not to replace coal-fired power, but to add nuclear capacity despite falling demand – while jacking up rates and blocking clean energy advances



DURHAM, NC – Despite a six-year public relations blitz touting nuclear power as essential for a low carbon future, five southeastern utilities trying to license and build reactors have no intention of using them to replace coal-fired power plants. Instead, because captive state governments have forced financial risks onto customers, the “Southeast Five” are pursuing costly and unneeded nuclear and natural gas projects while blocking the measures that could retire coal – energy efficiency programs along with solar and wind power.

That’s according to watchdog group NC WARN, which today released an unprecedented analysis of utility practices in the Southeast. The Durham-based group also called on the CEOs of the Southeast Five to shift their enormous resources toward clean-energy measures. Such a transition, NC WARN says, would allow the phase-out of coal units, a move that is critically needed to help avert runaway climate disruption. The shift is also essential because of a regional economic triple-threat posed by worsening climate disasters, eye-watering rate hikes caused by massive expansion of generation capacity, and the high risk of nuclear project failures.

“For years the nuclear industry has told the public that, despite financial and safety hazards, new nuclear plants are needed so coal plants can be replaced,” said the report’s author, Jim Warren, during a press conference today. “The reality is that the Southeast Five CEOs have no intention of phasing out coal – even though accelerating climate changes are already hammering our national, state and local economies, while harming people and our environment. Skyrocketing power bills are an added assault on businesses and the public.”

The group analyzed data filed with regulators in a region where most of the remaining U.S. nuclear projects are being pursued. They found that despite CEO Jim Rogers’ purported green credentials, Duke Energy Carolinas plans to reduce coal-fired generation by less than 4% by 2030, while expanding generating capacity by a net 36%. Rogers has boasted of plans to retire coal units, but the report shows that all of those are old, small boilers, and some aren’t used at all. Warren says Duke is on track to double customers’ rates; a current request would bring residential rates to 25% higher than 2009 levels.

In total, the Southeast Five plan to retire only 16% of their coal capacity over the long term, mostly by closing older plants that have been fully depreciated and are little-used.

Dr. William Schlesinger, President of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and former Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, said during today’s teleconference: “The overwhelming majority of the world’s climate change scientists have shown that rapid global warming is real, and it’s because of humans. It is dangerous to our health, our food supply, our cities and our national security – in short, our future. NC WARN’s report reaffirms that the United States should be leading in the pursuit of energy sources that do not release fossil carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, focusing on solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal powers.”

Other Southeast Five utilities are also pursuing growth strategies despite national trends of declining long-term electricity usage due to economic restructuring and energy-saving practices. The report shows that some intend to expand sales outside their regions. Also that Southeast Five are not only ignoring – but actively blocking – the advances in solar and wind power, along with efficiency programs that would speed the phase-out of coal plants while reducing the need for new nuclear units. Duke Energy and Progress Energy plan to cease development of energy efficiency and renewable power after meeting the small amounts required by 2007 legislation in North Carolina.

Some of the Southeast Five claim that new natural gas units are cleaner than coal. But Cornell researchers have concluded that the “fracking” fuel cycle could create worse carbon releases than those from coal. NC WARN also notes that Progress Energy CEO Bill Johnson plans to put gas units into the rate base but keep burning coal whenever that fuel is cheaper in the marketplace.

Some leading climatologists warn that if annual greenhouse emissions continue rising worldwide beyond 2015, global warming is likely to move past irreversible tipping points due to various feedback mechanisms that are well underway. The NC WARN report emphasizes that even if the global community quickly begins reducing emissions, climate conditions will continue worsening for decades due to past greenhouse gas pollution. That period of time, Warren added, “will fully challenge our economic and social systems with chaotic weather and wildfires, and impaired water and food supplies, all of which amplify global conflicts and suffering.”

Warren added, “We are calling on the heads of these five corporations in the Southeast to use this window of opportunity – which is closing rapidly – to help avert runaway climate change and to join the public in a clean energy revolution that creates jobs and protects power bills. CEOs Jim Rogers and Bill Johnson hope to soon lead one of the world’s largest electric utilities, the merged Duke and Progress Energy. They are in position to provide a positive “tipping point” toward stabilization of our global climate and southeastern economies – without adding more nuclear power – instead of continuing to block the very path that can phase out electricity generation from carbon-based fuels.”

“On their current path,” he said, “they will face a public revolt over climate change and soaring power bills. There is no time left to pretend that nuclear power can help with the climate crisis.”

NC WARN attorney John Runkle punctuated the point today, “These utilities’ business model has taken the Southeast directly away from climate protection and economic stability. We know how to close coal plants without adding more nuclear plants – by steadily increasing energy-saving programs and by bringing in solar and wind power and cogeneration. It’s time to change course.”



*The Southeast Five are Duke Energy Carolinas, Florida Power & Light, Georgia Power (a subsidiary of Southern Company), South Carolina Electric & Gas, and Progress Energy, which maintains two separate service areas in Florida and the Carolinas.


http://www.ncwarn.org/2011/10/nuclear-revival-is-ruining-climate-protection-efforts-and-harming-customers-says-watchdog-group-a-news-release-by-nc-warn/

37 replies, 4464 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers (Original post)
kristopher Apr 2012 OP
bananas Apr 2012 #1
kristopher Apr 2012 #2
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #3
kristopher Apr 2012 #4
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #5
XemaSab Apr 2012 #6
kristopher Apr 2012 #7
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #8
kristopher Apr 2012 #9
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #10
kristopher Apr 2012 #11
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #12
kristopher Apr 2012 #13
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #15
kristopher Apr 2012 #14
XemaSab Apr 2012 #16
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #17
kristopher Apr 2012 #18
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #19
kristopher Apr 2012 #20
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #22
kristopher Apr 2012 #24
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #26
kristopher Apr 2012 #28
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #29
kristopher Apr 2012 #30
Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #31
kristopher Apr 2012 #32
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #21
kristopher Apr 2012 #23
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #25
kristopher Apr 2012 #27
AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #33
kristopher Apr 2012 #34
kristopher Apr 2012 #35
FBaggins Apr 2012 #36
kristopher Apr 2012 #37

Response to kristopher (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:12 PM

1. k&r - It's a bait-and-switch that should be strongly opposed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:08 PM

2. In the face of the documentation on the way nuclear will work into the mix

...it is hard to believe anyone interested in action on climate change could not now understand how nuclear and coal are inseparable parts of the system that is responsible for the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 03:40 AM

3. That's a lie.

We have a reactor in WA. We have one last coal plant in the process of being phased out. The two are not linked in any way.

They are not inseperable by any means. We stripped that fucking coal plant of it's 4 million in tax breaks two years ago, and its boilers are slated for shutdown in 7 and 11 years respectively. And, we're forcing them to install a bunch of nitrogen oxide scrubbers next year too. Plus they are kicking back 55 million in urban development. It is now a done deal, set in law, and signed by our Governor, that plant will not be using any coal at all no later than 2025, and our state will be completely coal free.

There's no reason we can't separate coal and nuclear power. We're in the process of completing that, right here in WA. Whether various utilities around the nation DESIRE to or not, is a different question.

At 2573 MW, our state is in the top 5 for wind power generating capacity. Something is wrong with your theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 12:23 PM

4. It isn't a lie and there is nothing wrong with the "theory".

If you have a large scale thermal plant, either coal or nuclear, then one of two things is happening; either the thermal plant is obstructing the development of renewables or renewables are in the process of putting the thermal plant out of business.

The fact that you think you've found an exception speaks far more to your knowledge base than the economic principles and realities that are involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:57 PM

5. So are geothermal and concentrating solar (also thermal) obstructing the development of renewables?

I'm thinking you are using over-broad absolutes.

Your 'revision' does not prove coal and nuclear are inextricably linked. Whether the two (renewables and nuclear) are COMPETING, and one suppressing the other, or one putting the other out of business, are completely separate issues from whether nuclear and coal are inextricably linked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 07:23 PM

6. Certain people here

claim to be in favor of a distributed power system, but their definition of "distributed" involves "distributing" large industrial plants and machinery into our forests and deserts, far from any population centers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 08:52 PM

7. You really don't understand that we are dealing with economics based on...

...the natural characteristics of the generating sources, do you?

Each generating system has a set of operational and performance characteristics that determine both the way it meshes technologically with the entire energy system and the way that meshing is valued economically. Coal and nuclear are nearly identical in this regard except that coal is actually superior in the economic realm. Whether you like it or not, the world is committed to a market based system of *operating* our energy systems. We can tweak this system to change it, but you have to bear in mind the system you hope to end up with when you do your tweaking. That means that isolating coal from nuclear with market distorting policies might in short term look like it works if you don't understand the nature of the least cost, most sustainable end form of your energy system - which could explain your perceptions. However when you understand the path to long term cost reduction and maximization of carbon reductions for money spent, you will inevitably have to favor policies that will shut down nuclear as well as coal.

Finally, are you seriously making the absurd claim that a solar thermal plant or a geothermal plant is like a nuclear plant or a coal plant? Perhaps you could share with us 3 or 4 ways they are all similar and 3 or 4 ways they are different so that we can look at those characteristics and explore how they either accord with what I say or refute what I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:13 PM

8. Criticizing his grasp on economics?...

That's pretty fucking funny coming from a guy who thinks German electricity is cheaper now than it was in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:21 PM

9. Still can't contribute anything without building a strawman?

Well, maybe someday...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:39 PM

10. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:45 PM

11. What do you call your false claims about what the article said?

It is explicit and clear. You were wrongly portraying the discussion then and you are wrong now.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=11729

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

12. A false claim? how remiss of me.

What was that, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 10:25 PM

13. I've posted several threads about the merit order effect.

They all confirm the premise of the OP which you are attempting to discredit with your strawman. If anyone gives a hoot about the specifics of your claim they are free to research it themselves.

The question I offer is this: "Would money spent on adding nuclear generation result in any downward pressure on prices such as is proven to occur with the addition of zero-fuel cost renewables?

Why generators are terrified of solar
By Giles Parkinson on 26 March 2012

Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to reign in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country.

The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators – as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV – it is in fact eating their entire cake.






Both graphs were published last week on the website Renewables International, and were sourced from EPEX, the European power price exchange. The first graph, from 2008, shows peaking power prices rising to around €60/MWh and staying there for most of the day, with some visible peaks around noon and the early evening – the size of which would depend on the temperature and the usage.

The second graph shows a brief leap to €65/MWh around 9am, before the impact of solar PV takes hold – erasing the midday peak entirely and leaving only a smaller one in the evening. The huge bite out of day-prices is also a bite out of fossil fuel generators’ earnings and profits. Note that the average peak price in the second graph is barely higher than the baseload price.

Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40 per cent ...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar-44279


The "merit-order effect"
Electricity produced under a FIT law can help to reduce the average cost of electricity by affecting the wholesale price. Because renewable electricity must be purchased before other sources, the size of the remaining demand to be purchased on the spot market is reduced. Under the "merit order" principle, plants with the lowest costs are used first to meet demand, with more costly plants being brought on line later if needed. The most expensive conventional power plants are therefore no longer needed to meet demand. If the FIT tariff (or price) is lower than the price from the most expensive conventional plants, then the average cost of electricity decreases, and this is called the ‘merit-order effect’. This decrease was estimated to be about € 5 billion in Germany in 2006.

http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/index.php?id=425


Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 3086–3094
The merit-order effect: A detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany

Frank Sensfußa, , , Mario Ragwitza, Massimo Genoeseb, 1,
a Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Breslauer Str. 48, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b Institute for Industrial Production, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Hertzstr. 16, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
Received 18 January 2008. Accepted 25 March 2008.


Abstract
The German feed-in support of electricity generation from renewable energy sources has led to high growth rates of the supported technologies. Critics state that the costs for consumers are too high. An important aspect to be considered in the discussion is the price effect created by renewable electricity generation. This paper seeks to analyse the impact of privileged renewable electricity generation on the electricity market in Germany. The central aspect to be analysed is the impact of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices. The results generated by an agent-based simulation platform indicate that the financial volume of the price reduction is considerable. In the short run, this gives rise to a distributional effect which creates savings for the demand side by reducing generator profits. In the case of the year 2006, the volume of the merit-order effect exceeds the volume of the net support payments for renewable electricity generation which have to be paid by consumers.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001717



Irish wind generation costs analysed
25 February 2011

Wind generation in Ireland does not increase wholesale electricity prices and in fact, the trend is that it lowers them.
This is according to a study by Eirgird, the Irish grid operator and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI).
Eirgrid used detailed modelling tools to look in detail at the wholesale prices in the Irish electricity system in 2011.
The analysis showed that wind generation lowers wholesale prices by over Euro 70 million.
This almost exactly offsets the costs of the Public Service Obligation (PSO) levy
...


http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=19468

"The Merit Order Effect"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 10:38 PM

15. Indeed. I recall I called it a neat trick, and that it hid the surcharge

I then pointed out that the retail price including the surcharge had increased ~70%
Also, that hundreds of thousands were unable to pay and were being disconected.

Which of these is a false claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 10:35 PM

14. What I'd like to see is a mechanism that proves HOW nuclear shuts down less expensive fossil plants.

The OP shows that those who are committed to building nuclear plants are also committed to continuing to burn coal. There is absolutely no path with nuclear (other than by government mandate) whereby these property owners are forced to change their plans.

Show me the economic mechanism that will come into play after these proposed nuclear plants are built that will shut down the coal plants. I don't see one, so make a believer out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 11:13 PM

16. How do wind and solar shut down fossil plants?

How many coal and natural gas plants have gone offline in the last few years with the buildout of wind and solar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:12 AM

17. Wow. I am genuinely in awe.

You produce dozens of posts, and several OPs, on how buying electricity based on fuel cost steers generation from sources with high fuel-cost.

You then sit there, nonplussed, wondering how a source with fuel cost of under a cent per KWh might possibly replace sources with a fuel cost of 5-10c (gas) or 3-5c (coal).

Congratulations! You taken nuclear exceptionalism to a whole new level.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:30 AM

18. On other words you can't answer the question.

You could have just said so.

I notice you forgot to use the term "zero-fuel cost" in your non-answer, as in "zero-fuel cost renewables".

The path for zero fuel cost renewables is very clear, where is the path for nuclear with it's fuel cost, AND it very, very, very high captal cost that has to be amortized over a 60 year payback?

The question isn't complicated, what mechanism in nuclear pricing shuts a coal plant down when the utility builds nuclear plants? You claim nuclear is the way to address climate change, explain in detail what this oh-so-critical path to carbon reduction looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:49 AM

19. If you want me to explain the answer using smaller words, you need to say 'please'.

Shall I assume the lack of answer to #15 is an admission that there were no false claims, but that you haven't got the decency to apologize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 12:52 AM

20. You can't explain an answer you haven't given.

But that's ok. The OP makes perfectly clear that there is no answer - not from you nor any other nuclear booster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:03 AM

22. lol. suit yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:13 AM

24. What is the mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:22 AM

26. Kris, the wording you used in #18 shows you understand perfectly well...

You just don't like it. Which is, basically, tough shit.



Try insulting me - that's what you usually do at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:33 AM

28. I'm just waiting for you to explain the mechanism behind nuclear shutting down coal

You don't need snark or diversion or implications or evasions - just explain it.

The fact that you can't provide an answer really shouts out the fact that you don't have an answer. If you think merit order pricing is the answer, then explain how that works to shut down coal. We've seen how it works when renewables are able to ALWAYS be first in line because of zero fuel costs, but how can that happen with nuclear? Why isn't it going to happen in those states which the OP discusses that are trying to build nuclear plants. If you pumped 20 TWh of renewable electricity into that same region it would have a profound impact on the fossil generation there.

Why is it that nuclear will not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 02:29 AM

29. Really, kris?

You really can't make the logical jump from zero-fuel-cost to low-fuel-cost merit order without a copy of "See Spot Generate" and a box of crayons?

If you really can't, I'll get the crayons - and you know I'm not bluffing - and start laying out step by step.

Just let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:14 AM

30. I've already asked 6 times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:21 AM

31. Then I'll line up a lesson for you



Edit: Here's some background material to keep you busy in the meantime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dead_Parrot (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 03:34 AM

32. IOW you haven't got a clue and you need time to work up something that doesn't sound foolish.

If you want me to click through on a link then make it plain where it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:01 AM

21. Oh come off it.

I am not talking 'perceptions', I am talking reality, on the ground, in this state. The last coal plant is on life support. Our nuclear plant is not. Wind is making incredible in-roads on generating capacity, despite the market presence of big bad old nuclear power.

Nuclear and Coal are identical to other centralized thermal generating stations like geothermal in the only way that matters; the context in which you placed them.

"If you have a large scale thermal plant, either coal or nuclear, then one of two things is happening; either the thermal plant is obstructing the development of renewables or renewables are in the process of putting the thermal plant out of business."

You seem to have trouble keeping in mind that there are large scale thermal plants that are also renewables. Though, for the purposes of reducing CO2, concentrating solar is far superior to geothermal, which 'leaks' all sorts of pertinent gasses. A fraction of a coal plant, but orders of magnitude more than a C-solar plant. If nuclear is, by itself, a barrier to renewables (I presume you primarily mean wind, since you harp on "large scale thermal", but probably also PV) then so is geothermal and concentrating solar. Because these large scale thermal plants all tie into the grid in similar capacities, and in the same manner, they differ only in the source of the input thermal energy that drives the turbines.

You have yet to establish that nuclear is inextricably linked to coal. As I stated when I originally objected, there may be utilities around the country where they DESIRE to keep them both online and they may perceive them as linked, but they need not be. Unless, you believe that Washington State won't actually take that coal plant offline (they plan to fire it with gas, which is also used as a backstop for wind, if I recall correctly, in a favorable light by you) AND retain the nuclear power plant at the CGS.

Since the plan to remove that coal boiler is already set in law, I would argue that your original premise is invalid on its face, but it will most certainly become factually untrue the moment those coal boilers go offline forever, and the CGS keeps humming happily along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:08 AM

23. Since I never intimated that it was about "perceptions" I don't know who you are responding to.

But apparently you aren't willing to patiently discuss the way this is all put together and would rather try to bluff your way through it in a manner that doesn't open your arguments up.

A reminder of what I DID post:

7. You really don't understand that we are dealing with economics based on the natural characteristics of the generating sources, do you?

Each generating system has a set of operational and performance characteristics that determine both the way it meshes technologically with the entire energy system and the way that meshing is valued economically. Coal and nuclear are nearly identical in this regard except that coal is actually superior in the economic realm. Whether you like it or not, the world is committed to a market based system of *operating* our energy systems. We can tweak this system to change it, but you have to bear in mind the system you hope to end up with when you do your tweaking. That means that isolating coal from nuclear with market distorting policies might in short term look like it works if you don't understand the nature of the least cost, most sustainable end form of your energy system - which could explain your perceptions. However when you understand the path to long term cost reduction and maximization of carbon reductions for money spent, you will inevitably have to favor policies that will shut down nuclear as well as coal.

Finally, are you seriously making the absurd claim that a solar thermal plant or a geothermal plant is like a nuclear plant or a coal plant? Perhaps you could share with us 3 or 4 ways they are all similar and 3 or 4 ways they are different so that we can look at those characteristics and explore how they either accord with what I say or refute what I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:15 AM

25. Really?

"That means that isolating coal from nuclear with market distorting policies might in short term look like it works if you don't understand the nature of the least cost, most sustainable end form of your energy system - which could explain your perceptions."

Allow me to re-iterate now that that is settled.

"I am not talking 'perceptions', I am talking reality, on the ground, in this state. The last coal plant is on life support. Our nuclear plant is not. Wind is making incredible in-roads on generating capacity, despite the market presence of big bad old nuclear power."

If it helps you, I will accept a simple acknowledgment that "there are exceptions to my statement". As I stated earlier, there are certainly utlities that desire to behave in the manner you have described, around the country. It is not an absolute, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:25 AM

27. The reality is not in accord with *your* perceptions which are drawn from...

a single example that is a small slice in a decades long process. "It", which is the process within these systems itself, has absolutely nothing to do with how you are perceiving "it".

You are making a claim about renewable plants that you are calling "large scale" and I asked you a simple thing, list the characteristics each of the large scale technologies you say are the same bring to the table. You either are reluctant to provide such a list or I'm not making clear what I mean about the way technological characteristics lead to economic characteristics.

Assuming the latter, let me provide an example: nuclear shut down periods are not like the shut down periods of any of the other technologies. Could you compare and contrast it's characteristic manner of shutting down with the other technologies and then give an opinion on how that affects its economics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 09:31 AM

33. As I asked, you can simply admit there are exceptions.

Around the nation, there are certainly utilities that do not desire to let go of coal or nuclear, but to state they are inextricably linked ignores at least some segments of that national market, where they are no longer linked in any technical or market manner, and in fact, won't co-exist at all in a few years. Reality is reality, not just my perception of it. It only takes one exception to your statement to prove the statement unsound.


Concentrating Solar and Nuclear Power shutdown periods are pretty much incomparable, due to the nature of the technology. However, geothermal is actually quite similar. Maintenence windows, induced earthquakes and studies, lead The Geysers project to about a 63% utilization over a period of years. TEPCO was hitting 67% at the end of 2010 for most of its holdings. (bad for nuclear power overall, but not bad for aging nuclear power plants) Here in the US, some plants faired better or worse, depending mostly on age, and both technologies are subject to political limitations, via short term regulations (Geothermal plants can cause earthquakes like a natural gas fracking site, so can produce earthquakes that lead to shutdowns).

Also, about 20% of geothermal plants never go live, which unfortunately, we see a lot of in nuclear power as well.

I'll do a larger comparison of the three at a later date. I do understand what you are asking for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 12:50 PM

34. Or you could admit that you aren't really interested in what I'm writing about

Nuclear and coal are both operated under the same set of economic rules and because of that both are either a obstacle to renewable development or are in the process of being put out of business by renewables. They operate under those economic rules because of what they are technologically. That is the way they are inextricably linked whether you accept it or not.

Remember that is the point of the comparison I asked you to think about - how the suite of technological characteristics of each generating sources works with all the other generating sources to form a system that reliably delivers needed power to end users, AND how that technical relationship determines economic value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 04:29 PM

35. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 18, 2012, 05:44 AM

36. This can't possibly be true.

I have it on good authority that there is no nuclear revival.

It therefore can't be "ruining" anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:05 PM

37. Funny. Haha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread