BLOG.ENERGYECONOMYONLINE.COM
World Has Much at Stake in Nuclear Power Decision
Photo: View from site of Potsdam nuclear conference
March 7, 2010
by Craig severance
At a quiet lakeside retreat house in Potsdam, Germany, 35 people met this past week to discuss the future of nuclear power. Among us were representatives from governments, academia, think tanks, the nuclear power and utility industries, and independent writers and researchers. We came to talk, and not necessarily to agree. Nevertheless, the discussions were brisk and a wealth of valuable information was shared. The Brookings Institution and the Global Public Policy Institute with support from the European Commission sponsored the conference, entitled "Towards a Nuclear Power Renaissance? Challenges for Global Energy Governance". (The insights I share below are my own perspective. The conference followed rules where each of us is free to publish our own talk and perspectives but cannot report on what others said, so as to promote the free exchange of ideas.)
Potsdam Historically Significant. Potsdam seemed particularly appropriate for such an important conference. Though it is a relatively small community 24 km southwest of Berlin, it has served an important role in history. It was the home of the Prussian kings until 1918, a place where decisions could be made in an idyllic setting. These same qualities attracted the Allies after WWII to meet in Potsdam to determine the future of Germany and postwar Europe. Today, it has become an important scientific and research center.
Nuclear Power Decisions Will Determine Much. Though nuclear power may seem a limited issue -- related only to energy, and only one of several energy sources at that -- the decision whether to pursue nuclear power may prove to be the most important decision now before world leaders. Consider the following:
- Capital Needs. Expanding nuclear power requires enormous amounts of capital, For instance, some members of the U.S. Congress have said the U.S. should build 100 more new nuclear power plants. Yet, building 100 new nuclear power plants would require a capital investment of at least one trillion dollars, and this would still meet only only a fraction of U.S. energy requirements. In the throes of a world financial crisis, will economies have the resources to devote such enormous resources to just one industry? Where will the funds come from? Will other energy priorities such as energy efficiency, the Smart Grid, and expansion of renewables be eclipsed by nuclear power's needs? Even more broadly, is it ethical or wise to devote so much of an economy's total resources to just electricity production? For instance, do we really want the elderly who now struggle to pay $100/month electric bills to now have to find a way to pay $200/month? Or, would it be better to limit the share of resources devoted to electricity by helping electric customers cut their usage? Also, on the societal level, capital is limited. In many developed countries key needs such as roads and bridges, public water and sewer systems, basic scientific research and development, and schools are all falling into decay because of a lack of capital investment. In developing countries, these key infrastructures are not yet even in place.
- Climate Change. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has said for many years that the pursuit of nuclear power will make climate change worse -- because adopting it as a climate protection strategy simply won't work. It will be too expensive and too slow to get the job done. This would not be such a disaster (many things don't work) if nuclear power didn't take all the money away from doing the things that actually do work. Also, as Dr. Benjamin Sovacool of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy published here in 2008, nuclear power "is in no way carbon free or emissions free" even though it is better than coal, oil, or natural gas. Because of carbon emissions needed for uranium mining and milling, uranium enrichment etc., Dr. Sovacool concluded after reviewng 103 studies on the topic, that nuclear power produces significantly more emissions than renewable energy technologies. Putting most of your money into a technology that is more costly, slower, and less effective is a strategy for failure -- and climate change is an issue where the world cannot afford to fail.
- Employment. Finding a solution to crippling unemployment is now an urgent matter for many countries. We cannot "stimulate" forever -- it is crucial that limited capital resources are invested most effectively. Investments in efficiency and renewables will create more jobs than investing in new nuclear power plants. The jobs created in new nuclear power are so highly technical there may not even be a trained nuclear work force available to fill those jobs. As reported by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009, the nuclear industry is already facing critical shortages of the nuclear engineers needed to keep today's existing fleets of nuclear power plants operating safely, let alone having the added staff needed to expand. It is not nuclear engineers who are out of work -- there aren't even enough ot them -- but the construction workers we all know in our own families and communities. Jobs are needed in every community, not just a few concentrated locations where a massive new power plant may be built. Efficiency and distributed power sources spread more new jobs, to those who need them, in more places.
- Economic Dependence . America, most of Europe except Russia, and in fact most countries of the world other than oil exporting nations are all suffering from a major drain on their economies due to the need to pay for imported energy. Nuclear power won't help most countries become energy independent, because only a handful of nations in the world possess significant uranium resources. Nuclear power is actually just another form of imported energy. Is it wise for a country to invest tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in new power plants that depend on fuel imports from often unstable countries, and countries within the former Soviet sphere of influence? Efficiency and renewables (and for some nations natural gas) utilize a country's own resources. Keeping dollars from leaving a country can create just as much economic activity as bringing new dollars in.
- Military Security. America and the EU nations have invested major military resources to protect access to imported oil. Nuclear power does little or nothing to reduce oil dependence to lessen the need for the military resources devoted to oil. Far worse, however, is that nuclear power creates stark new military security threats of its own that may require investment of major military resources to keep terrorists and weapons-intent countries from building nuclear weapons. Nuclear power grew out of the nuclear weapons program, and the nuclear fuel cycle still produces the elements -- uranium and plutonium -- which can be used to make nuclear weapons or radioactive "dirty bombs". The nuclear industry argues that any nation or terrorist does not need a nuclear power plant to make a bomb, they just need uranium enrichment. This is true. However, the only "legitimate" reason to enrich uranium is to use it in a nuclear power plant. The continued promotion and sale worldwide of "civilian" nuclear reactors thus gives nations the excuse to operate uranium enrichment programs, as we have seen in Iran. In addition to this looming threat of new nuclear states, an even more frightening prospect is that weapons grade material will fall into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists are not deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction as are nuclear states. Some nations are separating out the plutonium from spent nuclear fuel and mixing it into new fuel, and also stockpiling huge quantities of plutonium. The unused fuel containing plutonium is shipped to nuclear plants, making it vulnerable to attack in transport. The large plutonium stockpiles may also be attacked with the purpose of either seizing the material for bomb making or contamination of populations with radiation. Western nuclear plants cannot explode with an atomic Hiroshima-style blast. However, the continued sale and use of nuclear power plants may allow those intent on creating such horrendous destruction to gain access to exactly the materials they need..
Nuclear Power Makes No Business Sense. The above problems are very serious in nature. To address them however may require some simple common sense. What is the purpose of nuclear power: simply to boil water to make kWh's. It is not the only way to make kWh''s. Thus, if nuclear power makes no business sense, and there are alternatives to nuclear power, the problems noted above can be avoided except for existing plants. We won't need to make things worse by builiding new nuclear power plants.
Click here to read entire article.
Job Losses Push Need for Energy Bill
For instance, an investment now into energy efficient buildings would create desperately needed construction jobs, but pay for itself with increased energy savings. 
February 10, 2010
by Craig Severance
America's urgent need for new job creation may be the driver that pushes the Senate to pass a jobs & energy bill this year. After the loss of 8.4 million jobs in the current Great Recession, Congress is searching desperately for any means to create new jobs.
Unemployment vs. Deficit "Conundrum". As former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Saturday on National Public Radio, "we as a nation save too little and we borrow too much, both individually and the government." In Paulson's new book On the Brink, he argues that Americans' relative lack of savings helped to propel the financial crisis. 
Paulson: "Conundrum"
However, Paulson acknowledged to NPR host Scott Simon, the "conundrum" is that to spur the economy, we now need to spend more and create more jobs. Paulson did not offer a solution to this impasse.
Indeed, this contradiction is now paralyzing the nation's political life, as Americans are worried about both high unemployment and record deficits. The Obama Administration and Congress are now walking a tightrope between these anxieties.
Investment as Solution. The solution to this jobs vs. savings conundrum is to invest money now, into projects that when completed will help us individually and as a nation to save more.
Investments in an advanced electric grid using renewable energy will create the engine to power the economy, without skyrocketing fuel costs.
Investments to wean our cars and trucks off imported oil can stop the transfer of wealth of trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy that is now building the economies of oil exporting nations, many of them hostile. These dollars can instead remain in the U.S. to build our own economy.
Measures which spur investments that help us to save thus meet both the urgent need for more jobs and make structural changes to help America thrive through thrift.
Click here to read the full article.
Tax Policies to Help Climate Action, Create Jobs
November 11, 2009
by Craig Severance, CPA
The Senate Finance Committee, Chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), held a Hearing Tuesday over the "future of jobs" in the context of the proposed energy and climate bill. The strange list of witnesses -- including polluter industries who hold few prospects for job creation in a new energy economy -- seemed to only distract the Committee from its primary responsibility, which is to use the powers under its jurisdiction to contribute real solutions.
Will Finance Committee Senators use the power of their Committee over Federal tax policy to actually do something about climate change, and America's 10.2% and climbing jobless rate?
Or, will the Committee be pushed to give more breaks to the very polluters who are causing the climate catastrophe?
Tax a Powerful Tool. The ability to tax -- or to give tax breaks -- is one of the most powerful tools of the Federal government. It is discouraging the tax committees of Congress-- Baucus' Senate Finance Committee and Rep. Charles Rangel's House Ways & Means Committee -- have done little to examine how the Federal Tax Code is actually encouraging energy waste. While other Committees have led the way on energy and climate legislation, the tax committees have been sitting on the sidelines for most of this year.
by Craig Severance, CPA
The Senate Finance Committee, Chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), held a Hearing Tuesday over the "future of jobs" in the context of the proposed energy and climate bill. The strange list of witnesses -- including polluter industries who hold few prospects for job creation in a new energy economy -- seemed to only distract the Committee from its primary responsibility, which is to use the powers under its jurisdiction to contribute real solutions.
Will Finance Committee Senators use the power of their Committee over Federal tax policy to actually do something about climate change, and America's 10.2% and climbing jobless rate?
Or, will the Committee be pushed to give more breaks to the very polluters who are causing the climate catastrophe?
Tax a Powerful Tool. The ability to tax -- or to give tax breaks -- is one of the most powerful tools of the Federal government. It is discouraging the tax committees of Congress-- Baucus' Senate Finance Committee and Rep. Charles Rangel's House Ways & Means Committee -- have done little to examine how the Federal Tax Code is actually encouraging energy waste. While other Committees have led the way on energy and climate legislation, the tax committees have been sitting on the sidelines for most of this year.
How could tax laws now help create jobs and curb climate catastrophe? ''
Building Industry in Crisis. We can start with the industry most seriously affected with job losses right now -- and which is also responsible for almost half of U.S. energy use: the building industry. 
Source: Architecture 2030
Idea: Long Term Extension of Homebuyer Tax Credit -- Targeted for Energy Efficient Homes. The construction industry has led this recession, and is still suffering from over 20% unemployment. When the Stimulus Bill passed in February, a separate bill for the housing sector was promised -- yet never materialized.
Click here to read entire article.
San Antonio: New Economy Leader or Nuclear Guinea Pig?
Photo: Mural at Construction site in beautiful downtown San Antonio, TX
September 19, 2009
by Craig Severance
SAN ANTONIO, TX -- San Antonio's new Mayor Julian Castro, in office just three months, has inherited a dilemma. The nation's 7th largest city is suffering from almost 8% unemployment. With limited resources, the Mayor and City Council are searching for ways to create local jobs. At the same time, the City, through its municipal utility City Public Service (CPS), is burning through hundreds of millions of dollars on just paperwork, to prepare to spend billions on a new nuclear power plant project some 200 miles away at Bay City, TX.
Should the Mayor and the City Council question the wisdom of rushing ahead with the nuclear project, or approve CPS continuing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to prepare applications for CPS to buy a 40% share of two new reactors proposed for the South Texas Project? CPS says the two new reactors, to be co-owned with NRG Inc., would help the utility meet power demands projected for 2020 and beyond -- over 10 years away.
$400 Million Bond Issue. The issue comes to a head next month, when the City Council must approve or disapprove CPS issuing $400 million in bonds to continue its spending on the project. The monies will not be used to actually begin construction --- that would be years away -- but to prepare the enormously complex engineering, design, and environmental applications required for a new nuclear power project.
Local citizen groups, however, say a far better use of such monies would be to help CPS fund aggressive energy conservation, Smart Grid, and solar energy programs to help citizens cut utility bills. Such programs would immediately create local jobs -- and cut electric growth so the nuclear projects would not be needed.
"First in U.S." CPS and NRG, Inc. are rushing the proposal, as they say the South Texas Project expansion will be the first new nuclear plants to be built in the U.S. in over 30 years. They hope to be first in line to receive Federal Nuclear Loan Guarantees under an $18.5 Billion program authorized by Congress.
Many San Antonions question the wisdom of rushing to be the guinea pig for the nuclear industry, which has a history of massive cost overruns. They challenge whether it is even a good idea to be first. Why not let someone else find out whether the nuclear industry has learned how to build plants on-budget?
Nuclear Debate Held Wednesday, September 16th. With so much at stake, San Antonio civic leaders have taken extraordinary measures to open up the process to public scrutiny. The San Antonio News Express , led by Editor Robert Rivard, has for months run articles on the nuclear proposal. Open meetings have been sponsored by the utility in many neighborhoods.
As a peak event in this public discussion, The San Antonio Clean Technology Forum, led by civic leader Michael Burke, organized a sold-out luncheon debate this past Wednesday, attended by 400 of San Antonio's leading citizens. Tables were sold to major companies and organizations, and all news media were invited.
The Clean Technology Forum invited myself and Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, to debate the wisdom of the new nuclear project. Supporting the project were Steve Bartley, CPS Interim General Manager, and Patrick Moore, who is a paid spokesperson for the nuclear power industry. Mayor Julian Castro keynoted the event, which was gracefully moderated by Bob Rivard, Express-News Editor.
View the Actual Debate. The video of the full debate can be viewed here:
Click HERE to go to TexasVox site with Videos of Debate.
I encourage readers to view the full debate to hear the exchange for themselves, as it was quite lively. Each speaker had only 12 minutes, followed by audience Q&A and a 2 minute close, so it's not too long.
Click here to read entire article. 
Enabling Wind, Sun to Be Our Main Power Supplies
Quest for Storage -- "Holy Grail" of New Energy Economy -- Nears Goal
August 29, 2009
By Craig Severance
As the world meets this December to set plans to halt global warming, it is expected America and other industrial nations will commit to a daunting task: reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. In just 40 years, a complete revolution in how we use and supply our power must happen, or the world will face catastrophic effects of runaway climate changes.
As a new power plant typically lasts 40-50 years, many scientists are now arguing we must simply stop building new power systems that use significant amounts of fossil fuels. They argue we must move to a high reliance on the wind and the sun for our electricity.
Abundant Power. The U.S. has enormous wind resources, capable of generating over 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The sunlight falling on our deserts, parking lots, and rooftops has even more power -- enough to supply 69% of U.S. electricity by 2050 according to published studies.
Other renewable power sources -- such as geothermal energy, municipal waste-to-energy, and biomass -- will also play a role, but they pale in size compared to the gargantuan resources of wind and sunlight.
How We Use Energy vs. How Nature Provides. Though nature provides all the energy we may need, there is a problem. We demand power literally "at the flick of a switch", not just when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
This basic fact about how we use power versus how nature supplies clean energy has caused many to discount the idea that wind or solar power can ever supply more than a small fraction of our electricity. Critics of renewable electricity call it "intermittent" and "unreliable". They say we can't "catch the wind", nor can we command the sun to always shine.
These critics see two possible choices for the future. We can develop more stable supplies of renewable energy by coupling wind and solar projects with storage. Failing that, they argue we should give up on renewables as a primary source of electricity, and instead build more nuclear power.
The flaw in the nuclear path, beyond its tremendous cost, long lead times, and imported fuel, is that nuclear is not actually "dispatchable" power. Nuclear plants are designed to run all the time at fairly steady output -- meaning nuclear power cannot provide the "peaking power" now provided by gas turbines. Thus, a nuclear path would still rely heavily on fossil fuel power plants to "ramp up" on a daily basis to provide the power needed during these daily swings.
A truly dispatchable system providing over 80% reductions in carbon emissions, therefore, must rely on some form of energy storage. The energy storage can allow us to fully utilize wind and sunlight as our main power sources -- supplying both "base load" power and dispatchable daily peaking power with energy from these inexhaustible supplies.
Click here to read entire article.
August 29, 2009
By Craig Severance
As the world meets this December to set plans to halt global warming, it is expected America and other industrial nations will commit to a daunting task: reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. In just 40 years, a complete revolution in how we use and supply our power must happen, or the world will face catastrophic effects of runaway climate changes.
As a new power plant typically lasts 40-50 years, many scientists are now arguing we must simply stop building new power systems that use significant amounts of fossil fuels. They argue we must move to a high reliance on the wind and the sun for our electricity.
Abundant Power. The U.S. has enormous wind resources, capable of generating over 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The sunlight falling on our deserts, parking lots, and rooftops has even more power -- enough to supply 69% of U.S. electricity by 2050 according to published studies.
Other renewable power sources -- such as geothermal energy, municipal waste-to-energy, and biomass -- will also play a role, but they pale in size compared to the gargantuan resources of wind and sunlight.
How We Use Energy vs. How Nature Provides. Though nature provides all the energy we may need, there is a problem. We demand power literally "at the flick of a switch", not just when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
This basic fact about how we use power versus how nature supplies clean energy has caused many to discount the idea that wind or solar power can ever supply more than a small fraction of our electricity. Critics of renewable electricity call it "intermittent" and "unreliable". They say we can't "catch the wind", nor can we command the sun to always shine.
These critics see two possible choices for the future. We can develop more stable supplies of renewable energy by coupling wind and solar projects with storage. Failing that, they argue we should give up on renewables as a primary source of electricity, and instead build more nuclear power.
The flaw in the nuclear path, beyond its tremendous cost, long lead times, and imported fuel, is that nuclear is not actually "dispatchable" power. Nuclear plants are designed to run all the time at fairly steady output -- meaning nuclear power cannot provide the "peaking power" now provided by gas turbines. Thus, a nuclear path would still rely heavily on fossil fuel power plants to "ramp up" on a daily basis to provide the power needed during these daily swings.
A truly dispatchable system providing over 80% reductions in carbon emissions, therefore, must rely on some form of energy storage. The energy storage can allow us to fully utilize wind and sunlight as our main power sources -- supplying both "base load" power and dispatchable daily peaking power with energy from these inexhaustible supplies.
Click here to read entire article.
Solar You Can Count On
Hybrid Solar/Natural Gas Plants Provide Power When Needed
Source: Skyfuel Source: BrightSource Energy
August 18, 2009
by Craig Severance
By far the largest source of safe, clean energy that will never run out (i.e. renewable energy) available in the United States is the sunlight falling on the unused deserts of the Southwest. This attractive source of energy produces no nuclear waste, no carbon dioxide or mercury emissions, and none is imported from foreign countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy enough sunlght falls in just the unused, nonsensitive areas of our SW deserts to generate over twice the total kWh's now consumed in the entire U.S..
SW Solar Now. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar opened up 24 of the SW's sunniest areas on Bureau of Land Management lands in six states to begin leasing for installation of up to 100,000 MW of solar power plants. (See here for article on the Interior Department announcement). The first plants could be operating within 3 to 4 years in these ideal locations, which were chosen for maximum clear sunny days and minimal impact on the environment or other land uses.
Sun Doesn't Shine All the Time. Although the SW sunshine resource is enormous and largely untapped, critics of solar energy routinely note the sun does not shine all the time. The implication is that power is needed all the time, and since the sun is not always available, solar opponents say it would be foolish to invest in generating electricity from the sun.
Grid Can Use Solar. Utilizing solar electricity when the sun does shine is not really a major problem for the electric grid, until the percentage of power generated by solar reaches high percentages. This is because roughly 50% of the electrical capacity on the grid consists of load-following power plants (chiefly natural gas and hydroelectric), which can quickly reduce power output when a renewable resource such as solar or wind is available, and increase output when needed. The ability of the grid to absorb a high percentage of power from renewables has been documented by the U.S. Department of Energy and was discussed in my article "The Wind does NOT Blow Only 1/3 of the Time" here.
The output from a solar power plant also fits very well with the times when power is most needed. Most utilities see increased demand for electricity during daylight hours, with peak demands occurring on hot sunny days when a solar power plant produces well. By the same token, less power is needed at night.
It is generally agreed, however, that extending the percentage of our electricity generated by renewable power sources above 20-30% will require means to better regulate the grid (see "Smart Grid" article here), more efficiently supplement renewable power, or store it for later use.
Solar Thermal Offers More Choices. Solar photovoltaics (PV) require storage of their electrical energy output to extend their use into evening and cloudy hours. Methods the electric grid can use to store electrical energy include batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage.
The "other" kind of solar power -- Solar Thermal power -- offers more choices to integrate with the grid to provide reliable power.
Instead of directly converting the sun's rays into electricity, Solar Thermal plants use mirrored surfaces to concentrate sunlight to produce high temperatures. This is why they are also called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plants.
The high temperatures are used to boil water to produce superheated steam to generate electricity. This different technology means there are now three different ways that Solar Thermal power plants can provide power when the sun is not shining:
1. Integrate a back-up source of heat (e.g. natural gas) to produce steam.
2. Produce excess solar heat during the day, and store that heat.
3. Grid storage of electrical energy (as with PV or wind).
This expansion of choices means that a Solar Thermal plant can function as a reliable source of "24/7" power to the electrical grid.
Click here to read entire article
Source: Skyfuel Source: BrightSource Energy
August 18, 2009
by Craig Severance
By far the largest source of safe, clean energy that will never run out (i.e. renewable energy) available in the United States is the sunlight falling on the unused deserts of the Southwest. This attractive source of energy produces no nuclear waste, no carbon dioxide or mercury emissions, and none is imported from foreign countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy enough sunlght falls in just the unused, nonsensitive areas of our SW deserts to generate over twice the total kWh's now consumed in the entire U.S..
SW Solar Now. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar opened up 24 of the SW's sunniest areas on Bureau of Land Management lands in six states to begin leasing for installation of up to 100,000 MW of solar power plants. (See here for article on the Interior Department announcement). The first plants could be operating within 3 to 4 years in these ideal locations, which were chosen for maximum clear sunny days and minimal impact on the environment or other land uses.
Sun Doesn't Shine All the Time. Although the SW sunshine resource is enormous and largely untapped, critics of solar energy routinely note the sun does not shine all the time. The implication is that power is needed all the time, and since the sun is not always available, solar opponents say it would be foolish to invest in generating electricity from the sun.
Grid Can Use Solar. Utilizing solar electricity when the sun does shine is not really a major problem for the electric grid, until the percentage of power generated by solar reaches high percentages. This is because roughly 50% of the electrical capacity on the grid consists of load-following power plants (chiefly natural gas and hydroelectric), which can quickly reduce power output when a renewable resource such as solar or wind is available, and increase output when needed. The ability of the grid to absorb a high percentage of power from renewables has been documented by the U.S. Department of Energy and was discussed in my article "The Wind does NOT Blow Only 1/3 of the Time" here.
The output from a solar power plant also fits very well with the times when power is most needed. Most utilities see increased demand for electricity during daylight hours, with peak demands occurring on hot sunny days when a solar power plant produces well. By the same token, less power is needed at night.
It is generally agreed, however, that extending the percentage of our electricity generated by renewable power sources above 20-30% will require means to better regulate the grid (see "Smart Grid" article here), more efficiently supplement renewable power, or store it for later use.
Solar Thermal Offers More Choices. Solar photovoltaics (PV) require storage of their electrical energy output to extend their use into evening and cloudy hours. Methods the electric grid can use to store electrical energy include batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage.
The "other" kind of solar power -- Solar Thermal power -- offers more choices to integrate with the grid to provide reliable power.
Instead of directly converting the sun's rays into electricity, Solar Thermal plants use mirrored surfaces to concentrate sunlight to produce high temperatures. This is why they are also called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plants.
The high temperatures are used to boil water to produce superheated steam to generate electricity. This different technology means there are now three different ways that Solar Thermal power plants can provide power when the sun is not shining:
1. Integrate a back-up source of heat (e.g. natural gas) to produce steam.
2. Produce excess solar heat during the day, and store that heat.
3. Grid storage of electrical energy (as with PV or wind).
This expansion of choices means that a Solar Thermal plant can function as a reliable source of "24/7" power to the electrical grid.
Click here to read entire article
Solar You Can Count On
Hybrid Solar/Natural Gas Plants Provide Power When Needed
Source: Skyfuel Source: BrightSource Energy
August 18, 2009
by Craig Severance
By far the largest source of safe, clean energy that will never run out (i.e. renewable energy) available in the United States is the sunlight falling on the unused deserts of the Southwest. This attractive source of energy produces no nuclear waste, no carbon dioxide or mercury emissions, and none is imported from foreign countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy enough sunlght falls in just the unused, nonsensitive areas of our SW deserts to generate over twice the total kWh's now consumed in the entire U.S..
SW Solar Now. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar opened up 24 of the SW's sunniest areas on Bureau of Land Management lands in six states to begin leasing for installation of up to 100,000 MW of solar power plants. (See here for article on the Interior Department announcement). The first plants could be operating within 3 to 4 years in these ideal locations, which were chosen for maximum clear sunny days and minimal impact on the environment or other land uses.
Sun Doesn't Shine All the Time. Although the SW sunshine resource is enormous and largely untapped, critics of solar energy routinely note the sun does not shine all the time. The implication is that power is needed all the time, and since the sun is not always available, solar opponents say it would be foolish to invest in generating electricity from the sun.
Grid Can Use Solar. Utilizing solar electricity when the sun does shine is not really a major problem for the electric grid, until the percentage of power generated by solar reaches high percentages. This is because roughly 50% of the electrical capacity on the grid consists of load-following power plants (chiefly natural gas and hydroelectric), which can quickly reduce power output when a renewable resource such as solar or wind is available, and increase output when needed. The ability of the grid to absorb a high percentage of power from renewables has been documented by the U.S. Department of Energy and was discussed in my article "The Wind does NOT Blow Only 1/3 of the Time" here.
The output from a solar power plant also fits very well with the times when power is most needed. Most utilities see increased demand for electricity during daylight hours, with peak demands occurring on hot sunny days when a solar power plant produces well. By the same token, less power is needed at night.
It is generally agreed, however, that extending the percentage of our electricity generated by renewable power sources above 20-30% will require means to better regulate the grid (see "Smart Grid" article here), more efficiently supplement renewable power, or store it for later use.
Solar Thermal Offers More Choices. Solar photovoltaics (PV) require storage of their electrical energy output to extend their use into evening and cloudy hours. Methods the electric grid can use to store electrical energy include batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage.
The "other" kind of solar power -- Solar Thermal power -- offers more choices to integrate with the grid to provide reliable power.
Instead of directly converting the sun's rays into electricity, Solar Thermal plants use mirrored surfaces to concentrate sunlight to produce high temperatures. This is why they are also called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plants.
The high temperatures are used to boil water to produce superheated steam to generate electricity. This different technology means there are now three different ways that Solar Thermal power plants can provide power when the sun is not shining:
1. Integrate a back-up source of heat (e.g. natural gas) to produce steam.
2. Produce excess solar heat during the day, and store that heat.
3. Grid storage of electrical energy (as with PV or wind).
This expansion of choices means that a Solar Thermal plant can function as a reliable source of "24/7" power to the electrical grid.
Click here to read entire article
Source: Skyfuel Source: BrightSource Energy
August 18, 2009
by Craig Severance
By far the largest source of safe, clean energy that will never run out (i.e. renewable energy) available in the United States is the sunlight falling on the unused deserts of the Southwest. This attractive source of energy produces no nuclear waste, no carbon dioxide or mercury emissions, and none is imported from foreign countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy enough sunlght falls in just the unused, nonsensitive areas of our SW deserts to generate over twice the total kWh's now consumed in the entire U.S..
SW Solar Now. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar opened up 24 of the SW's sunniest areas on Bureau of Land Management lands in six states to begin leasing for installation of up to 100,000 MW of solar power plants. (See here for article on the Interior Department announcement). The first plants could be operating within 3 to 4 years in these ideal locations, which were chosen for maximum clear sunny days and minimal impact on the environment or other land uses.
Sun Doesn't Shine All the Time. Although the SW sunshine resource is enormous and largely untapped, critics of solar energy routinely note the sun does not shine all the time. The implication is that power is needed all the time, and since the sun is not always available, solar opponents say it would be foolish to invest in generating electricity from the sun.
Grid Can Use Solar. Utilizing solar electricity when the sun does shine is not really a major problem for the electric grid, until the percentage of power generated by solar reaches high percentages. This is because roughly 50% of the electrical capacity on the grid consists of load-following power plants (chiefly natural gas and hydroelectric), which can quickly reduce power output when a renewable resource such as solar or wind is available, and increase output when needed. The ability of the grid to absorb a high percentage of power from renewables has been documented by the U.S. Department of Energy and was discussed in my article "The Wind does NOT Blow Only 1/3 of the Time" here.
The output from a solar power plant also fits very well with the times when power is most needed. Most utilities see increased demand for electricity during daylight hours, with peak demands occurring on hot sunny days when a solar power plant produces well. By the same token, less power is needed at night.
It is generally agreed, however, that extending the percentage of our electricity generated by renewable power sources above 20-30% will require means to better regulate the grid (see "Smart Grid" article here), more efficiently supplement renewable power, or store it for later use.
Solar Thermal Offers More Choices. Solar photovoltaics (PV) require storage of their electrical energy output to extend their use into evening and cloudy hours. Methods the electric grid can use to store electrical energy include batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage.
The "other" kind of solar power -- Solar Thermal power -- offers more choices to integrate with the grid to provide reliable power.
Instead of directly converting the sun's rays into electricity, Solar Thermal plants use mirrored surfaces to concentrate sunlight to produce high temperatures. This is why they are also called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plants.
The high temperatures are used to boil water to produce superheated steam to generate electricity. This different technology means there are now three different ways that Solar Thermal power plants can provide power when the sun is not shining:
1. Integrate a back-up source of heat (e.g. natural gas) to produce steam.
2. Produce excess solar heat during the day, and store that heat.
3. Grid storage of electrical energy (as with PV or wind).
This expansion of choices means that a Solar Thermal plant can function as a reliable source of "24/7" power to the electrical grid.
Click here to read entire article
Nuclear Costs: Who Has "Better Numbers"?
Who Pays if Things Go Wrong?
July 31, 2009
by Craig Severance
On July 10th I debated the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a head-to-head discussion in Washington. (See here for article on the "lively discussion".)
This week NEI published on its blog site NEI Nuclear Notes a very spirited critique (here) of my debate presentation. (My presentation was based upon my detailed study "Business RIsks and Costs of New Nuclear Power", published in January 2009 here.)
Now We're Talking. The NEI fight-back response is welcome in that we are blowing open the "Black Box" of hidden assumptions about the costs of new nuclear power. It is NOT a cordial discussion when one side won't disclose its numbers. I wrote about this in January:
It has unfortunately been the case over the last couple of years that some utilities have begun to claim that even rudimentary basics of their nuclear cost estimates must be hidden from the public as 'trade secrets". For instance, in the South Carolina Electric & Gas proposal to build two reactors now under consideration by the South Carolina PSC, there is literally a large "box" obscuring the bulk of the calculations....In a different case, Duke Energy claimed that it does not even have to disclose its new cost estimates for a proposed nuclear facility in Cherokee County, S.C. In the Duke case, C.Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate... noted, "If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?"
We've come a long way since then, as we are now "duking it out" in a much healthier fashion.
Click here to read full Article.
July 31, 2009
by Craig Severance
On July 10th I debated the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a head-to-head discussion in Washington. (See here for article on the "lively discussion".)
This week NEI published on its blog site NEI Nuclear Notes a very spirited critique (here) of my debate presentation. (My presentation was based upon my detailed study "Business RIsks and Costs of New Nuclear Power", published in January 2009 here.)
Now We're Talking. The NEI fight-back response is welcome in that we are blowing open the "Black Box" of hidden assumptions about the costs of new nuclear power. It is NOT a cordial discussion when one side won't disclose its numbers. I wrote about this in January:
It has unfortunately been the case over the last couple of years that some utilities have begun to claim that even rudimentary basics of their nuclear cost estimates must be hidden from the public as 'trade secrets". For instance, in the South Carolina Electric & Gas proposal to build two reactors now under consideration by the South Carolina PSC, there is literally a large "box" obscuring the bulk of the calculations....In a different case, Duke Energy claimed that it does not even have to disclose its new cost estimates for a proposed nuclear facility in Cherokee County, S.C. In the Duke case, C.Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate... noted, "If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?"
We've come a long way since then, as we are now "duking it out" in a much healthier fashion.
Click here to read full Article.
Boiling The Frog
Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late
Image: purpleslog
July 24, 2009
by Craig Severance
There is a well-known story about how to boil a frog. If you try to throw a frog into a pot already boiling, he'll jump out. However, put a frog into a pot and slowly raise the temperature -- and you get frog legs for dinner.
The nuclear power industry seems to be pursuing this strategy, slowly releasing ever higher cost estimates for new nuclear power plants. If the public does not realize the true costs of a new nuclear plant, the industry can obtain political support for the Federal loan guarantees it needs. After the taxpayers are on the hook and a nuclear project is already underway, the full costs will become clear.
At that point, however, it may be too late for taxpayers and utility ratepayers to jump out.
The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW. (If this sounds familiar, recall my January 2009 study estimated a new nuclear project would most likely cost approximately $10,500/kW).
"It's shockingly high," the Star quoted Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto regarding the nuclear bid.
Image: purpleslog
July 24, 2009
by Craig Severance
There is a well-known story about how to boil a frog. If you try to throw a frog into a pot already boiling, he'll jump out. However, put a frog into a pot and slowly raise the temperature -- and you get frog legs for dinner.
The nuclear power industry seems to be pursuing this strategy, slowly releasing ever higher cost estimates for new nuclear power plants. If the public does not realize the true costs of a new nuclear plant, the industry can obtain political support for the Federal loan guarantees it needs. After the taxpayers are on the hook and a nuclear project is already underway, the full costs will become clear.
At that point, however, it may be too late for taxpayers and utility ratepayers to jump out.
The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW. (If this sounds familiar, recall my January 2009 study estimated a new nuclear project would most likely cost approximately $10,500/kW).
"It's shockingly high," the Star quoted Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto regarding the nuclear bid.
The Province had originally thought the two reactors would cost a total of only about $7 billion, which works out to about $2,900 per kW, according to 2007 estimates. The Star reports "During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas."
Rather than blindly accepting these estimates, however, Ontario authorities were wise enough to require nuclear vendors to submit bids accepting the risk of cost overruns. Once the suppliers were on the hook -- rather than ratepayers and taxpayers -- the true costs of new nuclear power became apparent.
Click here to read full story.
"Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute
\July 23, 2009
by Craig Severance
On July 10th, I participated in a "Lively Discussion" with the Nuclear Energy Institute, represented by Leslie Kass, NEI Director of Business Policy and Program.
The Event, sponsored by the Foundation for Nuclear Studies, was structured as a luncheon in the House Rayburn Office Building, with the primary audience being Congressional staff members. The room was full, with perhaps 70-80 attendees.
It was a very cordial disussion and afterward we all shook hands and posed for pictures. Yet, the differences were sharp.
Is New Nuclear Power Competitive? The Foundation called me to Washington, to discuss the Question of the Day -- Is New Nuclear Power Competitive?
My full Power Point Presentation is here. Some highlights:
Not Competitive if Begging for Subsidies from Taxpayers
The reason we were before Congressional staff in the first place is that the nuclear industry is asking for even more subsidies from taxpayers, in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal Loan Guarantees.
Wall Street rejected any thought of financing new nuclear power plants in 2007, when investment banks wrote the Department of Energy they will not fund any nuclear plants without full Federal Loan Guarantees. The private sector simply regards nuclear power as too expensive and hence too risky.
Four Choices if Your Industry is Not Competitive. The U.S. nuclear industry hasn't had a new order in over 30 years, because utilities have had more economical choices. There are four choices if your industry is not competitive:
1. Go Out of Business (which the new nuclear industry effectively did)
2. Change So You Are More Competitive
3. Become the Only Choice (Monopoly); OR
4. Ask for Taxpayer Dollars for Support
Click here to read full article.
