Poll

Do we need aggressive climate change policy?

Absolutely!
Maybe something modest.
No clue.
Not yet. Let's wait and see for a bit.
Nope. This will be resolved on it's own through economic forces / This isn't an issue for humanity..

Author Topic: US Climate Change Policy  (Read 45944 times)

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #350 on: March 05, 2019, 03:11:42 PM »

I should have written that better.  Water is flat rate based on usage.  I don't pay peak.  I feel energy should generally be similar.  Internet/Phone is fixed priced.

I don't know how to reconcile your statements.
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.

I said I agree with regulation and that it's necessary.  I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting now.  I think we are talking about the type of regulation, not whether we should regulate at all.  I am very much happy with how it's regulated where I live.  We actually have a voluntary time of use rate.  If you want to save by using more energy during off-peak, you can sign up for it and do just that.  I like choices.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 03:15:58 PM by ChewMeUp »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #351 on: March 05, 2019, 03:14:19 PM »
Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods,
Yeah, and there is the main problem: Market price is seldom (or never) the price of all costs. Quite contrary markets tend to externalize as many costs as possible because that is the inherent logic.
And that leads directly to the problem of climate change.

It is often said that regenerative energies are more expensive than fossil fuels. But that is only because nobody produces fossil fuels (they are just there) or pays the full costs for them. Health costs? Climate costs? Sometimes we re-internalize those costs (acid rains), but it is always a big fight.

I agree 100%. I mentioned pricing externalities in a previous post, but in this post I wanted to highlight the negatives of arbitrary price controls (for the sake of constituent approval).

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #352 on: March 05, 2019, 03:21:02 PM »
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.

Isn't that exactly what is being suggested?  Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?

No, your cause-and-effect chain is not pointing in the right direction. Renewable energy supplies require that we charge peak times (or rather, we reduce the charge during off-peak times), which would in turn modify the behavior (at least those who are interested in saving money and/or the planet). Otherwise we will experience brown-outs and/or massive carbon pollution at night and/or overbuilding renewables to an absurd degree (which would make the flat rate price astronomical).

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #353 on: March 05, 2019, 03:48:28 PM »
This article from HCN discussion Wyoming's attempts to keep their coal-fired plants operating is pretty interesting.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/coal-wyoming-lawmakers-extend-lifeline-to-coal-power?fbclid=IwAR2-14Hf5QJwK4A-SrPOuLo03uP1-dybT84yC3orB4TpLwpFlEvYPq_MZTo

Wyoming is a major coal producer accounting for 41% of US production, and coal isn't even economic there. Similar stories are playing out in Kentucky, etc. Heck, the coal museum even has solar power. Even in the absence of climate-based policy, coal is on the way out. Now do we put our dollars into continued subsidies for coal, or do we move towards programs that can help those communities adapt?

Kentucky coal plant closures:
https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article223197205.html

Coal museum to solar:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/science/environment/2017/04/07/kentucky-coal-museum-shifts-solar-power/100137898/

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #354 on: March 05, 2019, 03:52:06 PM »

Isn't that exactly what is being suggested?  Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?

NOOOOOO!!!  No no no!
My original question was whether allowing more rate pricing would have a potential secondary behavioral benefit.  I was not suggesting we raise rates for the sole purpose of changing people's behavior. The entire comment was predicated on the understanding that energy does not cost the same amount to produce depending on the load, time of day and environmental conditions.

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3342
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #355 on: March 05, 2019, 03:55:52 PM »
that a decrease in solar panel cost somehow caused an increase in rate-payer electricity,
This actually could be true in some case due to net metering agreements. Under net metering, the power company is required to purchase all the power residential rooftop solar produces at full retail price. Declining costs of panels means more customers install rooftop solar. If a large percentage of the power during peak solar production is solar, then the power company cannot cover grid maintenance costs with the power it sells to other costumers during this time because there is no margin. Additionally the power company has to absorb the system losses incurred moving the power from the producers to the consumers. The power company would therefore have to raise rates to make up for the difference at other times of day. Of course this doesn't mean that we should abandon solar, just that we have to revise the business model to make it more fair.

I should have written that better.  Water is flat rate based on usage.  I don't pay peak.  I feel energy should generally be similar.  Internet/Phone is fixed priced.

I would be fine with a higher tier for those who use excessive energy.  However, it would need to be similar to cell phone plans where a vast majority of reasonable users wouldn't exceed it.
The costs of providing power are not flat. Utilities charge more at times when it is more expensive to provide it. There are lots of reasons it costs more to provide a different times. First, the grid is designed to deliver up to a certain amount of power at once. While flat rate phone plans throttle heavy users when the data bandwidth is overburdened, we don't expect the grid to brownout heavy users, so it is fair to charge those who use more a peak times more money. Second, different power plants have different costs to produce and have capacity limits. During times of light use, only the least expensive sources are utilized, as use goes up, more expensive sources are brought online. Therefore the average cost of energy increases during peak use and it is fair to charge more for that energy. (The sources with lower operating costs usually have higher fixed costs, so expanding those to meet peak load isn't feasible and it wouldn't be fair to pass that cost onto those who use less at peak times anyway.)

My power company moving to a weekday time of day rate by default (all weekend and holidays are billed at the off peak rate). In winter the rate is currently $0.0969/kWh off peak and $0.1338 peak 5 pm to 8 pm. Customers without solar can opt for a fixed rate instead $0.1032. Our summer (June - Sept) rates are higher $0.1166 midnight to noon, $0.1611 noon to 5 pm and 8 pm to midnight, $0.2835 5 pm to 8 pm; fixed rate option is $0.1649. The letter they sent me analyzed one year of use and found that we would save a few dollars a year on the time of date rate without changing our usage. I'm planning to make modest adjustments to usage to save a few more dollars (mostly turning my water heater off during peak times - we'll still have hot water, but wait to recover tank temperature until off peak). I'm happy that they're rolling out time of day billing to all customers.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #356 on: March 05, 2019, 03:56:52 PM »
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.

Isn't that exactly what is being suggested?  Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?

No, your cause-and-effect chain is not pointing in the right direction. Renewable energy supplies require that we charge peak times (or rather, we reduce the charge during off-peak times), which would in turn modify the behavior (at least those who are interested in saving money and/or the planet). Otherwise we will experience brown-outs and/or massive carbon pollution at night and/or overbuilding renewables to an absurd degree (which would make the flat rate price astronomical).


I thought I have been fairly consistent on suggesting that I feel we should be able to provide adequate electricity all times of day.  I support nuclear.

At the same time, I appreciate some fairly good arguments about renewables being made here.  I'd be more keen on a solution that uses more renewables during the day but can sustain peak usage in the evening.  Finding a balance and continuing to develop new technologies that can provide energy as needed.  Peak/Off-Peak, higher rates, because we can't maintain the energy needed in the evenings... just seems like a step backwards to me.  Surely we can do better.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #357 on: March 05, 2019, 04:00:29 PM »
The costs of providing power are not flat. Utilities charge more at times when it is more expensive to provide it. There are lots of reasons it costs more to provide a different times. First, the grid is designed to deliver up to a certain amount of power at once. While flat rate phone plans throttle heavy users when the data bandwidth is overburdened, we don't expect the grid to brownout heavy users, so it is fair to charge those who use more a peak times more money. Second, different power plants have different costs to produce and have capacity limits. During times of light use, only the least expensive sources are utilized, as use goes up, more expensive sources are brought online. Therefore the average cost of energy increases during peak use and it is fair to charge more for that energy. (The sources with lower operating costs usually have higher fixed costs, so expanding those to meet peak load isn't feasible and it wouldn't be fair to pass that cost onto those who use less at peak times anyway.)

My power company moving to a weekday time of day rate by default (all weekend and holidays are billed at the off peak rate). In winter the rate is currently $0.0969/kWh off peak and $0.1338 peak 5 pm to 8 pm. Customers without solar can opt for a fixed rate instead $0.1032. Our summer (June - Sept) rates are higher $0.1166 midnight to noon, $0.1611 noon to 5 pm and 8 pm to midnight, $0.2835 5 pm to 8 pm; fixed rate option is $0.1649. The letter they sent me analyzed one year of use and found that we would save a few dollars a year on the time of date rate without changing our usage. I'm planning to make modest adjustments to usage to save a few more dollars (mostly turning my water heater off during peak times - we'll still have hot water, but wait to recover tank temperature until off peak). I'm happy that they're rolling out time of day billing to all customers.

You are explaining exactly what I support.  Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate.  At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money.  Seems like it's working as it should, no?

Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3342
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #358 on: March 05, 2019, 05:39:44 PM »
You are explaining exactly what I support.  Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate.  At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money.  Seems like it's working as it should, no?

Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
Perhaps. You're not opposed to TOU billing options, but you want a flat rate option as well. I did crunch through the numbers, for a users that has a constant usage, the time of day rate is slightly cheaper (for a constant 1kW load the usage would cost 29 cents/week more on the fixed rate in winter and $1.97/week more on the fixed rate in summer). Seems to me that the fixed rate power should be priced a little higher. You did note that I said they do not allow net metered customers to opt for the fixed rate - if you have net metering you must accept time of use rates.

In the letter they suggested ways to save during peak hours. With winter peak rates only 38% higher than off-peak rates, I thought the suggestion of using a laptop on battery instead of on mains power isn't all that great - the round trip energy losses and extra wear on the battery probably aren't worth the price difference (though at 76% increase from mid-peak to peak in summer the difference is a bit more appreciable). Suggestions to schedule pool equipment and laundry away from peak hours made much more sense.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #359 on: March 05, 2019, 05:43:49 PM »

Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
It doesn't seem that way. 
A flat rate, which you keep saying you want, means you pay the same amount per kilowatt regardless of the time of day, grid load or externals. Or maybe you are using it to mean something completely different?

You say you want renewables 'during the day' (which I assume means solar only) and don't want regulation, but at the same time you don't want utilities to charge different rates because the power they produce costs differing amounts.

You keep saying you want nuclear but ignore the various commentary brought up about nuclear by Sol, Lennstar, myself and others.

Basically your positions seem divorced from reality.  No regulations on prices, yet constant prices.  More nuclear, but let's just skip over the cost and  timeframe constaints to build them.  You object to wind turbines where you can see them, but don't seem to care whether others might object to large scale reactors nearby. You claim to have PV panels of your own, but don't acknowledge that these create some of the very differences in pricing that you so vehemently object to.  Even if we waved a magic wand and had a grid supplied with 100% nuclear we would *still* have differences in the cost of electricity as the load would change while the cost of the plant is largely fixed (unlike, say, LNG)

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #360 on: March 05, 2019, 06:34:05 PM »
You are explaining exactly what I support.  Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate.  At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money.  Seems like it's working as it should, no?

Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
Perhaps. You're not opposed to TOU billing options, but you want a flat rate option as well. I did crunch through the numbers, for a users that has a constant usage, the time of day rate is slightly cheaper (for a constant 1kW load the usage would cost 29 cents/week more on the fixed rate in winter and $1.97/week more on the fixed rate in summer). Seems to me that the fixed rate power should be priced a little higher. You did note that I said they do not allow net metered customers to opt for the fixed rate - if you have net metering you must accept time of use rates.

In the letter they suggested ways to save during peak hours. With winter peak rates only 38% higher than off-peak rates, I thought the suggestion of using a laptop on battery instead of on mains power isn't all that great - the round trip energy losses and extra wear on the battery probably aren't worth the price difference (though at 76% increase from mid-peak to peak in summer the difference is a bit more appreciable). Suggestions to schedule pool equipment and laundry away from peak hours made much more sense.

I'm not sure how I'm billed at the house with the panels.  That one is net metered.  It's our second home.  But it's irrelevant.  Even running the pool heater for a week we only managed a $17 bill.  Those panels work their butts off.

But yeah, what is wrong with having flat rate and TOU options and giving the customer a choice?  If you want to manage your electricity usage based on peak/off-peak - then you can save some money doing so.  Seems like a win/win to me.  I imagine giving bigger discounts for TOU would encourage more people to do it.  But you have to start somewhere.  As for using a laptop on battery during peak, I can't think of anything more silly.  Is that marketing nonsense or are they genuinely trying to make this suggestion?  How much energy does a laptop even use?  Goodness.  Save you 4 cents on the month?

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #361 on: March 05, 2019, 06:40:37 PM »

Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
It doesn't seem that way. 
A flat rate, which you keep saying you want, means you pay the same amount per kilowatt regardless of the time of day, grid load or externals. Or maybe you are using it to mean something completely different?

You say you want renewables 'during the day' (which I assume means solar only) and don't want regulation, but at the same time you don't want utilities to charge different rates because the power they produce costs differing amounts.

You keep saying you want nuclear but ignore the various commentary brought up about nuclear by Sol, Lennstar, myself and others.

Basically your positions seem divorced from reality.  No regulations on prices, yet constant prices.  More nuclear, but let's just skip over the cost and  timeframe constaints to build them.  You object to wind turbines where you can see them, but don't seem to care whether others might object to large scale reactors nearby. You claim to have PV panels of your own, but don't acknowledge that these create some of the very differences in pricing that you so vehemently object to.  Even if we waved a magic wand and had a grid supplied with 100% nuclear we would *still* have differences in the cost of electricity as the load would change while the cost of the plant is largely fixed (unlike, say, LNG)

You keep making up this position of mine.  What is this no regulation?  I've said over and over I'm pro-regulation.  I don't share your views on nuclear.  Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity.  We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible, I'm for it.  I don't see the massive issue that you do and I see energy companies going in a more sustainable direction. I support constant pricing with a TOU option, just as my provider offers.  I don't "want renewables during the day" - it just seems like wind/sun don't work 24/7, but if we can find a balanced mix of renewables and energy like nuclear, lng, even coal, that is what I'm going to support.

You keep getting caught up on differences in cost to provide electricity.  I never said there was no difference.  I said the opposite.  So you seem dead set on building these strawmans just so you have something to argue.  I don't know why, but that's what you do and by all means, keep at it.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 06:42:38 PM by ChewMeUp »

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #362 on: March 05, 2019, 07:51:44 PM »
Before they found all this cheap natural gas, nuclear was getting to be the cheapest option.  The high construction costs and what I perceive as over-regulation is damaging it.  I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.  It is still a relatively new technology that has been prevented from giving us its true potential.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #363 on: March 06, 2019, 12:35:17 AM »
I don't share your views on nuclear.  Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity.  We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,

Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?

And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.


Quote
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #364 on: March 06, 2019, 05:02:29 AM »
This article from HCN discussion Wyoming's attempts to keep their coal-fired plants operating is pretty interesting.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/coal-wyoming-lawmakers-extend-lifeline-to-coal-power?fbclid=IwAR2-14Hf5QJwK4A-SrPOuLo03uP1-dybT84yC3orB4TpLwpFlEvYPq_MZTo

Wyoming is a major coal producer accounting for 41% of US production, and coal isn't even economic there. Similar stories are playing out in Kentucky, etc. Heck, the coal museum even has solar power. Even in the absence of climate-based policy, coal is on the way out. Now do we put our dollars into continued subsidies for coal, or do we move towards programs that can help those communities adapt?

The east-coast coal regions (eg WV, Pennsylvania) basically started suffering when coal mining started in Wyoming, as it was far cheaper to less labor intensive to dig coal there.  Most of what's left in the east is anthracite, which is the hardest form.  Then the fracking boom made coal in Wyoming less economical to extract.

ChewMeUp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #365 on: March 06, 2019, 06:09:52 AM »
I don't share your views on nuclear.  Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity.  We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,

Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?

And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.


Quote
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!

You could be spot on when it comes to nuclear, noted.  This is not in any way my expertise.  I know our most recent power plant near me is natural gas.  But we have a nuclear plant as well and even waste to energy plants.  I'll probably spend some free time reading a little more about the topic.  I appreciate the alternative opinions here.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #367 on: March 06, 2019, 07:04:03 AM »
Reactors have always had very stout containment walls.  They are not like coal plants or gas turbines where there is a sheet metal wall protecting you from the outside.

This may be interesting.

https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test

Newer types of nuclear plants may not require the very thick walls of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) or Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) due to different designs.  The containment may be built into the fuel itself or the fuel may be molten.

Few if any reactors are being completed in the United States.  The price of natural gas is down.  More money iis to be made from cogeneration gas plants.  The supply of natural gas should last for a generation.  At that time, you may expect to see more reactors built unless political pressure due to global warming concerns accelerate this action.

The technology will continue in other countries that are not blessed with natural gas and have a more favorable political climate towards nuclear.  When the US decides to once again build reactors, this technology can be imported into the states.

I guess as long as my beer is cold it doesn't matter too much to me except for the part about saving the planet.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #368 on: March 06, 2019, 07:09:20 AM »
I don't share your views on nuclear.  Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity.  We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,

Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?

And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.


Quote
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!
I can speak to this:  we haven't completed a nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years, and we've added just one new reactor to existing plants in the last two decades.  There's only one new plant in the planning stages (the Blue Castle project in Utah) with a rather optimistic operational target of 2030 (optimistic because they are still several years from breaking ground, and there's a whole host of obstacles in their way from doing that). 

At the same time we've decomissioned a number of smaller reactors that were no longer economically feasible, including two that I've worked on (Fort Calhoun & Yankee).  Almost all (>80%) of the reactors in the US went into service in the 70s and early 80s, and are towards the end of their planned service life.  There's about a half-dozen that are considering decommissioning in the next five years.  Bottom line is that our nuclear capacity is decreasing substantially. We have less nuclear capacity today than we did a decade ago, and that trend is set to continue for at least the next few decades. Also worth noting that at least two plants were partially constructed before being abandoned several billion dollars in - Bellefonte in Alabama and  and Marble Hill in Indiana.

The Fort Calhoun plant closed entirely due to economics - at 500MW in the plains it cost too much to continue running.  Interestingly, the power loss from Calhoun was offset by a 440MW wind farm (Grande Prairie wind farm) and numerous PV arrays also built by the regional utility, OPPD.  Yankee had better economic prospects but needed to have its operational lease extended, and that was blocked by voters.  There's a large an ongoing debate about whether that was a good or bad decision - my take after being in that s-storm for several years is that continued maintenance costs would have continued to rise and new sources of power were far more economical, though it sucks to take another reactor offline which could have continued to feed the grid for another two decades.  A ten year extension (vs the proposed 20y) would have made more sense but wasn't a regulatory or political option.

Beyond that we've got essentially nothing on the drawing board.  Few existing plants can take on new reactors now due to cooling restrictions, and the upfront costs and failure to get Bellefont off the ground have scared away most utilities.  As I've said before, no plant to my knowledge has ever gone from groundbreaking to operational in less than a decade, and all recent attempts have been scuttled before completion.

You can see the reactors currently under decommissioning here.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #369 on: March 06, 2019, 08:41:54 AM »
I didn't know that the US was so down on building nuclear reactors. I am actually very surprised.

One of the main reasons to have nuclear power (it was always expensive and needed additional money) was that you need them to build atomic bombs. That is why France and GB are relativly heavy on nuclear power - they have the bombs.
I am not into that topic, but I don't think you can use the warheads you already have forever. So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
Not that I want ANY atomic bomb to exist, but I would have bet that the mighty US military is more concerned about that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #370 on: March 06, 2019, 08:58:39 AM »
I didn't know that the US was so down on building nuclear reactors. I am actually very surprised.

One of the main reasons to have nuclear power (it was always expensive and needed additional money) was that you need them to build atomic bombs. That is why France and GB are relativly heavy on nuclear power - they have the bombs.
I am not into that topic, but I don't think you can use the warheads you already have forever. So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
Not that I want ANY atomic bomb to exist, but I would have bet that the mighty US military is more concerned about that.
Nuclear (breeder) reactors are very useful to generate the fissile material necessary for  building nuclear warheads, but strictly speaking they aren't necessary.  At present the US has somewhere north of 6,000 warheads, though about 2k are in various stages of decommissioning. The half-life of plutonium and uranium are such that we don't really need more material - it's the actual missiles that need updating.

On a related subject, one unintended shortfall we are facing is spent plutonium that's so useful for deep space probes. Once we get past abuot Mars solar panels aren't veyr useful for powering our probes, and until now we've relied on 'power orbs' to keep craft like the two Voyagers and New Horizons operational. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #371 on: March 06, 2019, 09:33:22 AM »
So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.

The US military don't giveashit about commercial power plants.  They have their own pipeline for nuclear fuels.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 09:42:38 AM by sol »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #372 on: March 06, 2019, 09:37:45 AM »
Peak/Off-Peak, higher rates, because we can't maintain the energy needed in the evenings... just seems like a step backwards to me.  Surely we can do better.

Let me just point out that time-of-use metering has been a huge technological step forward. Prior to the technology being developed, power companies had to charge a flat rate because they only checked the meters once a month. This has allowed power companies to better price energy for all consumers (those that prefer time-of-use and those that prefer flat rate) and, has been noted, reduce the instances of brownouts by smoothing demand (and, in the age of solar, matching demand to supply).

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #373 on: March 06, 2019, 10:14:17 AM »
So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.

The US military don't giveashit about commercial power plants.  They have their own pipeline for nuclear fuels.


Right - I believe Savannah River still produces heavy water.

Here's a link showing that nuclear power had some use lately in the Pacific Northwest as Columbia Station (WPPS-2) was on a no touch condition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf5jU8ttX58&vl=en

The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.

Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur.  There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.

You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #374 on: March 06, 2019, 01:07:29 PM »
The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.

Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur.  There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.

You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.

If the sun isn't shining, there should be less demand for air conditioning. Kind of works itself out. But regardless, that's where companies need a backup supply, such as LNG. I don't know how to get around this with the current state of energy storage technology.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #375 on: March 06, 2019, 01:16:31 PM »
The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.

Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur.  There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.

You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.

If the sun isn't shining, there should be less demand for air conditioning. Kind of works itself out. But regardless, that's where companies need a backup supply, such as LNG. I don't know how to get around this with the current state of energy storage technology.
worth noting that peak solar and peak wind are typically offset, so the two do compliment each other.  In most location peak wind occurs late in the day when solar is decreasing but energy use begins to rise. But yes, absent storage additional capacity is needed to level out these two sources.

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #376 on: March 06, 2019, 01:18:23 PM »
One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period.  Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.

This strikes as anologous to the Wizard vs Prophet debates: should we also consign ourselves to asceticism or are technological advancements going to make things better?  The answer is obviously a bit of both.  Unless everyone is willing to either go back to or, in the developing work, remain indefinitely in a pre-industrial lifestyle--which no one wants and (almost) no one is advocating for--we're going to need some remarkable technological advancements that reshape how we get our energy.  But energy consumers at all levels -- companies and governments down to individuals--should be willing to meet them halfway by reducing energy demand so we don't need so much technological wizardry to have a livable future.

So, yeah -- plenty of room for debate on nuclear and renewables and all that good stuff.  But regardless of what combination of sources we use, we need to be using a lot less of it. Among people who are serious about climate change, there should be near unanimous agreement on that.


Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #377 on: March 06, 2019, 01:48:54 PM »
One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period.  Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.

This strikes as anologous to the Wizard vs Prophet debates: should we also consign ourselves to asceticism or are technological advancements going to make things better?  The answer is obviously a bit of both.  Unless everyone is willing to either go back to or, in the developing work, remain indefinitely in a pre-industrial lifestyle--which no one wants and (almost) no one is advocating for--we're going to need some remarkable technological advancements that reshape how we get our energy.  But energy consumers at all levels -- companies and governments down to individuals--should be willing to meet them halfway by reducing energy demand so we don't need so much technological wizardry to have a livable future.

So, yeah -- plenty of room for debate on nuclear and renewables and all that good stuff.  But regardless of what combination of sources we use, we need to be using a lot less of it. Among people who are serious about climate change, there should be near unanimous agreement on that.

Agree 100%, but Pandora's box has already been opened: cheap energy and water are not going to go silently into the night. Basically, we would need to convince millions (billions?) of people that it is in their best interest to be inconvenienced by having to spend more on and think more about using these resources (otherwise tragedy of the commons is inevitable). I don't see this happening; even the Pope has made the call to be better environmental stewards, and I don't see the average Catholic following this advice (similar to abstinence (this is an attempt at a joke, my catholic friends)).

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #378 on: March 06, 2019, 03:48:38 PM »

Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?

Totally location and weather dependent.  This winter at my house the wind has howled many night, with major gusts. 

I know with many shore situations you get an on-shore wind, then a calm, then an off-shore wind.

There are windmill farms in the passes leading into the Coachella valley, that I think run pretty consistently (anyone here more familiar with them?).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #379 on: March 06, 2019, 05:38:00 PM »

Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?
No.
Wind intensity varies based on location, but broadly speaking wind is strongest in the late afternoon and continues to be quite strong until after midnight.  Broadly speaking, wind intensity is lowest jwithin an hour or two of dawn.

source.

FreeFIRES

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #380 on: March 06, 2019, 06:18:59 PM »

Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?
No.
Wind intensity varies based on location, but broadly speaking wind is strongest in the late afternoon and continues to be quite strong until after midnight.  Broadly speaking, wind intensity is lowest jwithin an hour or two of dawn.

source.

That's interesting. I spend a lot of time in Denmark.  I don't really feel like it's some crazy windy place, yet there are windmills everywhere and they almost always seem to be spinning.  Science is funny like that :)

Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot.  It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me.  He really has no business in that position.  But oh well.  The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 06:20:50 PM by FreeFIRES »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #381 on: March 06, 2019, 06:24:35 PM »

Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot.  It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me.  He really has no business in that position.  But oh well.  The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
how many times did you vote?

FreeFIRES

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #382 on: March 06, 2019, 06:26:04 PM »

Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot.  It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me.  He really has no business in that position.  But oh well.  The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
how many times did you vote?

You are sharp!  Lol.  I don't know, probably 3 times.  However, it might surprise you that every vote wasn't the same.  As I said, I'm learning more.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 06:28:38 PM by FreeFIRES »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #383 on: March 08, 2019, 12:03:18 PM »
another interesting aspect of the wind-data linked above is how - averaged over a year of course - wind energy is remarkably consistent.  While we solar goes towards near-zero every night and has reduced production when it is rainy or foggy, turbines spin much more consistently, and even the 'worst' times of day still produce ~80% of the max. Newer turbines have blades that are so large they overcome ground-level friction.

One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period.  Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.

I brought this up a while ago but unfortunately was met with resistance.  I believe the exact words were "a step backwards".  As long as we think we can solve our energy problems by creating ever larger amounts of energy we're are unlikely to make real change.  The irritating thing is that there are horrible inefficiencies everywhere you look.  ~40% of our total energy use goes towards building heating/cooling, and a majority of homes are poorly insulated, poorly designed and/or use inefficient heating sources like fuel-oil (we're guilty of this in our latest rental). 'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #384 on: March 08, 2019, 01:07:27 PM »
'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".

Yes to this. Especially true in the rental market where residents are paying the bills but owners get to make the decisions on construction and updating inefficiencies. It's very difficult for renters to adequately factor in what their utilities will cost when choosing an apartment so there's little incentive for owners to pay for improvements. Even if renters knew what their power bill would be in each unit they're considering, it's hard to not choose the lowest sticker price.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #385 on: March 08, 2019, 01:40:44 PM »
'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".

Yes to this. Especially true in the rental market where residents are paying the bills but owners get to make the decisions on construction and updating inefficiencies. It's very difficult for renters to adequately factor in what their utilities will cost when choosing an apartment so there's little incentive for owners to pay for improvements. Even if renters knew what their power bill would be in each unit they're considering, it's hard to not choose the lowest sticker price.

This is so true.  I was at a presentation years ago when David Miller (then mayor of Toronto, so you know it is a long time ago) pointed out that a lot of Toronto's government low-income housing built in the 50s was terribly energy inefficient, and if those buildings were brought up to code there would be huge savings.  But there was no legislative or economic pressure to do so.

Similarly a few years ago I heard a radio interview of a builder of a development outside Ottawa.  For about  $6000 more people could buy a house that would be much more energy efficient, but people were not willing to fork out that extra money.  Sort of like buying a car based on monthly payments instead of total cost, or the cheap refrigerator that will be long term expensive based on its electricity use.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #386 on: March 08, 2019, 02:20:21 PM »
Currently we are renting a home that is horribly energy-inefficient, and it's been a kick-in-the-teeth to go from a well insulated smaller apartment in Quebec to a much older, draftier, bigger single family home a bit to the south heated by fuel-oil.  I cringe each time we have to place another fuel delivery, both because of the upfront cost but also because of all the carbon cost. We will burn more fuel oil heating our home than gasoline in our vehicles this year by a wide margin.


RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #387 on: March 08, 2019, 03:14:33 PM »
Currently we are renting a home that is horribly energy-inefficient, and it's been a kick-in-the-teeth to go from a well insulated smaller apartment in Quebec to a much older, draftier, bigger single family home a bit to the south heated by fuel-oil.  I cringe each time we have to place another fuel delivery, both because of the upfront cost but also because of all the carbon cost. We will burn more fuel oil heating our home than gasoline in our vehicles this year by a wide margin.

That is an interesting comparison.

This house has a forced-air oil furnace.  I know how many liters I have bought so far this year.*  I also keep a record of all my car gas purchases.*  Come summer I could take a date, say June 1, and look at all my liters of gas and all my liters of fuel oil.  I could actually do this for a few years, to even out blips in usage for each.

This house isn't actually too bad.  When we have power failures in winter it cools off quite slowly.  The end that a lot of storms come from has no windows - this is good and bad, because it also hinders cross-ventilation in summer.  Right now with the stronger March sun the furnace does not come on at all on sunny days.  At just after 5PM the house is at a tropical 21C.  No, that is not the thermostat setting.   ;-)

Does anyone else keep a car book?  I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.

Headings are:
Date     odometer reading     price/litre     amount paid    # litres     Location

It was more useful back in the days of non-electronic cars.  We caught a bad butterfly valve (back in the early 70s, I said I've kept one for decades) when our mileage suddenly dropped.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #388 on: March 09, 2019, 05:02:10 AM »

Does anyone else keep a car book?  I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.

Headings are:
Date     odometer reading     price/litre     amount paid    # litres     Location


I do, and there have been a couple times over the last decade when I noticed something was wrong because of it.  My parents always made me divide the miles driven (not km) by the gallons taken.  Seemed some sort or torture at the time. 
While we're at it, I can convert km/miles or C/F or cm/feet in my head just fine, but hte one skill i never mastered was the fuel efficiency numbers in Canada.  with MGP you want a big number - but liters per 100km driven you want the opposite, and I can't convert between the two easily.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #389 on: March 09, 2019, 05:06:17 AM »
Op-Ed by Sens Murkowski (R-AK) and Manchin (D-WV) on the need to address climate change, and how they propose we go about it in the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lisa-murkowski-and-joe-manchin-its-time-to-act-on-climate-change--responsibly/2019/03/08/2c4025f2-41d1-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.89bef0adc2b0

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3311
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #390 on: March 09, 2019, 05:36:59 AM »
What are your thoughts on dairy and its role in global warming?

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #391 on: March 09, 2019, 08:10:08 AM »

Have you seen this article yet?  It's notable because of who wrote it.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/


What are you trying to say here, @CheezM?  That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
 

This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%)  can easily beat.


RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #392 on: March 09, 2019, 08:47:45 AM »

Have you seen this article yet?  It's notable because of who wrote it.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/


What are you trying to say here, @CheezM?  That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
 

This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%)  can easily beat.

I wonder if the author is thinking of renewable other than hydro?  Because Canada has a lot of hydro electricity, but we are not any great shakes at wind and solar. Doing them yes, but not a lot.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #393 on: March 09, 2019, 08:51:07 AM »

Does anyone else keep a car book?  I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.

Headings are:
Date     odometer reading     price/litre     amount paid    # litres     Location


I do, and there have been a couple times over the last decade when I noticed something was wrong because of it.  My parents always made me divide the miles driven (not km) by the gallons taken.  Seemed some sort or torture at the time. 
While we're at it, I can convert km/miles or C/F or cm/feet in my head just fine, but hte one skill i never mastered was the fuel efficiency numbers in Canada.  with MGP you want a big number - but liters per 100km driven you want the opposite, and I can't convert between the two easily.

My little secret - I grew up Imperial, converted to metric as an adult.  I can do all the conversions too.  I used to have a little thingamajiggy that calculated l/100k.  When I lost it, I went to k/l, equivalent of mpg.  Just easier.  It`s for my own information, I can do it however I please.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #394 on: March 11, 2019, 10:54:53 PM »

Have you seen this article yet?  It's notable because of who wrote it.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/


What are you trying to say here, @CheezM?  That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
 

This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%)  can easily beat.

I wonder if the author is thinking of renewable other than hydro?  Because Canada has a lot of hydro electricity, but we are not any great shakes at wind and solar. Doing them yes, but not a lot.

He was recently interviewed on WBUR, along with a former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jaczko. Both raised valid points, but Dr Jaczko's points against nuclear appeared more cohesive, well-researched and practical (nuclear power would be a valid baseline energy source if we were better at constructing plants, storing the waste safely, and developed better contingency plans for natural disasters near nuclear reactors - none of which could be accomplished in the US over the last 50 years and are unlikely to be accomplished in the next few decades). He also noted that the capital costs and time to just replace plants that will be decommissioned in the next few years are enormous, much less make additional plants to replace fossil fuels in a reasonable period to meet climate mitigation timelines. Mr Shillenberger basically argued that all of the above could be done if we had better regulators (took some potshots at Dr Jaczko and took some of his statements regarding Fukishima out of context and underestimated the effects of Chernobyl), but didn't have any real concrete ideas of how to do accomplish these goals. The debate definitely gave me pause regarding the logistical difficulties surrounding nuclear plants' normal operation, much less mitigation of potential complications.

To nereo and gaja's points: Though I agree in theory that nuclear could be a viable energy source, I am not impressed with Mr Shillenberger's writing,  debating or critical thinking skills. His argument is essentially that we need to make nuclear power cheap, and everything will be fine because of uranium's energy density. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years.  Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.

Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 11:14:04 PM by Abe »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17496
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #395 on: March 12, 2019, 06:22:51 AM »
To nereo and gaja's points: Though I agree in theory that nuclear could be a viable energy source, I am not impressed with Mr Shillenberger's writing,  debating or critical thinking skills. His argument is essentially that we need to make nuclear power cheap, and everything will be fine because of uranium's energy density. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years.  Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.

Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power

I'm obviously not a fan of Michael Shellenberger, for all the reasons I've listed above and more.  Suffice to say he's a pro-nuclear crusader that doesn't fairly address its cons and incorrectly disparages other energy generation types. In particular his statements about the economic and ecological effects of wind turbines and PV panels are based on previous generation tech and pessimistic assumptions.

From a practical standpoint our nuclear capacity is diminishing, and this trend will continue for a decade or more regardless of our future policies; too many reactors are being decommissioned and/or are towards the end of their service life, and only one new plant is on the drawing board.

So regardless of ones position on nuclear, the question becomes 'how do we handle our electricity needs over the next quarter-century, knowing we'll see more and more older nuclear plants decommissioned." Sol made a good point - wind and solar is still such a minor portion that we could continue to have 20% growth for a decade and we'd still not hit the practical limits of space and capacity.  Unlike nuclear, LNG plants can be built much more quickly and can be throttled back more rapidly when grid-demand is low than either coal or nuclear. Ultimately more mechanical storage capacity is needed, but is costly.

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #396 on: March 12, 2019, 11:29:21 AM »
- SNIP -

. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years.  Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.

Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power

I will say I didn't read the article.  The reality over the last 50-60 years is that nuclear grew from nothing to a significant power source.  Wind and solar are also growing to be significant power sources.  Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors.  Cell phones have taken over the minds of most teenagers.  I would not have had a personal computer in front of me 50 years ago.

George Santayana - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

To deny that technology can and will change for the better if it is not stifled is to not remember the past and how technology can transform our lives for the better.  Thinking that traps nuclear power into the designs of the 1950s and 1960s would have us running around with horses.

Nereo:

"Unlike nuclear, LNG plants can be built much more quickly and can be throttled back more rapidly when grid-demand is low than either coal or nuclear. Ultimately more mechanical storage capacity is needed, but is costly."

True - Hard to argue with the reality of what is before your eyes.  The municipal plant in the town I live in has been replaced by two cogeneration plants.   The trend has been to either close coal plants or modify their heat source to be natural gas for a number of years now.  It will continue.  I worked a t a nuke plant that had a 1000 employees.  A friend of mine worked at a natural gas plant with similar output.  There were 34 employees.  Fuel is very cheap for nuclear plants, but the availability of cheap natural gas is forcing them to close.

Nuke plants can be built to throttle back.

Just as subsidies have driven the construction of wind farms, cheap natural gas will drive the construction of more gas plants.

Greenpeace funded by Natural Gas?  Could be.  I didn't look very hard and found this article with the Sierra Club receiving similar type funding:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/questionable-funding-for-environmental-groups-and-what-they-do-with-it

If I was running a gas company, I'd have layers shielding me from our donations to environmental groups.  It would be like the Koch boys.

From the article:

"But then something happened. Natural gas reserves boomed and electric utilities began converting some coal-fired plants to natural gas, prompting the Sierra Club to launch a sister campaign called “Beyond Natural Gas.” Just two years removed from accepting millions from a natural gas company, the group was opposed to natural gas as an energy source in principle. It wasn’t a change of heart, but a re-evaluation of strategy."

Natural gas will warm your home, produce your electricity and melt a few glaciers.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #397 on: March 12, 2019, 10:30:01 PM »
- SNIP -

. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years.  Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.

Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power

I will say I didn't read the article.  The reality over the last 50-60 years is that nuclear grew from nothing to a significant power source.  Wind and solar are also growing to be significant power sources.  Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors.  Cell phones have taken over the minds of most teenagers.  I would not have had a personal computer in front of me 50 years ago.

To deny that technology can and will change for the better if it is not stifled is to not remember the past and how technology can transform our lives for the better.  Thinking that traps nuclear power into the designs of the 1950s and 1960s would have us running around with horses.



Nuclear power construction has really tapered off since the 1980s (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/10/global-nuclear-power-five-years-after-fukushima).  There was a slight uptick from 2005 until the Fukushima disaster, but that put a big damper.

I agree that technology constantly improves and there is some stagnation for non-technical reason in nuclear plant development. But do you with the current public opinion we can build enough nuclear power, assuming some level of deregulation, to come online within the IPCC target timeline? I have no knowledge about the processes involved, but it seemed from the interview that it takes years from planning (i.e. now) to building, and another several years to completing a plant. In theory it is possible and probably good if we can figure out the storage situation long-term. I don't deny that technology can improve with newer designs. In fact my whole point is that technology isn't the issue, but limited political and economic will is, and no one has been able to fix that.

This article notes that most plants can be built in less than 10 years (average 7.5 years). However, there is no data on time to approve plans, etc.
http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/

I find it interesting that China, which has a totalitarian government with significant engineering talent at its disposal, has decided to pursue solar rather than nuclear plants. They are fairly immune from the repercussions of any major complications resulting in massive death or injury, can approve with minimal regulatory hurdles, and yet are not doing so.

I stand corrected about natural gas companies funding Sierra Club- looks like it happened in the 2010-2012 fiscal years, with the donations compromising 10% of each annual budget!  That’s a major mistake on their part and seriously hurts their overall credibility!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2019, 10:54:19 PM by Abe »

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #398 on: March 12, 2019, 10:58:58 PM »
What do you all think about the improving home energy efficiencies thorough ramped-up tax incentives for insulation, etc? It seems to make sense and would be hard to argue against tax cuts that also save money for consumers in the long term. Passive Houses can be heated with very little energy (not sure about cooling given the insolation from passive solar design elements sometimes used). Mandating new building codes probably would never fly nationally and wouldn’t alter existing housing stock. A mandate with tax cut/credit?

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: US Climate Change Policy
« Reply #399 on: March 13, 2019, 05:19:23 AM »

- SNIP -

I find it interesting that China, which has a totalitarian government with significant engineering talent at its disposal, has decided to pursue solar rather than nuclear plants. They are fairly immune from the repercussions of any major complications resulting in massive death or injury, can approve with minimal regulatory hurdles, and yet are not doing so.

I stand corrected about natural gas companies funding Sierra Club- looks like it happened in the 2010-2012 fiscal years, with the donations compromising 10% of each annual budget!  That’s a major mistake on their part and seriously hurts their overall credibility!

From Wikipedia:

First paragraph:

"As of March 2019, China has 46 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 42.8 GW and 11 under construction with a capacity of 10.8 GW.[2] Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW. China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

The Chinese are wise.  Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy.  They have done a lot to help their people in the last 30 years whilst the US has stagnated.

It looks like the Chinese do not see this as an either - or situation.  Their people have to wear masks because the air is so bad.  They are not pampered.  I remember seeing pictures of Chinese farming when I was a kid.  It was not mechanized.  Change and growth have been amazing.  They do not choose between the differing forms of energy production.  They try them all.  This "Cut and Try" approach is making them a world leader.

Instead of arguing whether global warming is a reality or not, our leaders should be turning our young minds loose to solve this problem.  Like the Space Program of the past, there would be technological spinoffs we cannot imagine.  There would be new technologies discovered to make our lives better. 

Instead we stagnate.  As the great American John Glenn once said, "We are eating our own seed corn."

To me it seems like we could devote a small fraction of our resources to at least build one of these new reactor types, but the special interests do not even allow that.