DrumBeat: September 5, 2007
Posted by Leanan on September 5, 2007 - 8:59am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Technical issues stall hydrogen vehicles
A few years ago, it looked like we would all be driving pollution-free hydrogen-powered vehicles someday very soon. The signs, after all, were everywhere.Automakers debuted concept vehicles with fuel cells under the hood. Investors poured money into hydrogen startups. News stories abounded about the new "hydrogen economy." Even President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union message, said babies born in 2003 should be in hydrogen cars by the time they hit driving age.
But today, four years after that prediction, big technical challenges remain in using hydrogen to power passenger vehicles on a wide scale. These range from storing it safely aboard a car to producing it from something other than the fossil fuels it is supposed to replace.
Price Gouging? Speculation? Analysts Explain Why Oil Prices are up Over 100% In Last Four Years
Every year since 2003, crude oil prices have hit new highs. Topping out in the mid-$30 range back in 2003, this year spot crude reached almost $80 a barrel during the peak U.S. summer driving season. That’s an increase of over 100% in just four years.
John Deere's renewable energy harvest
For Steve Tiedeman, a farmer in Woodstock, Minn., it hasn't been all that great of a year. The weather's been dry, and he's lost about a third of the corn on his 1,000 acre farm.But Tiedeman, along with a growing number of farmers across the Midwest, can now rely on another, more stable crop: wind power.
WHILE THE nation's attention was focused on the nine lives lost in the deep coal mine of Crandall Canyon in Utah, the Bush administration has been busy pushing a form of strip mining in Appalachia that is lethal to land itself. It has proposed a rule that would explicitly allow mining companies to blast and bulldoze the tops of mountains and dump rock and dirt debris into streams and hollows. While this has been going on under existing rules and laws, critics of the dumping had fought it in courts. With the new rule, mine owners expect the legal fights to end.
Coal Rush Reverses, Power Firms Follow
The mayor of Missoula, Mont., is the latest person to discover just how unpopular coal plants have become.In early August, Mayor John Engen (D) won city council support to buy electricity from a new coal-fired plant scheduled to begin operation in 2011. He said the city government would save money on its electric bills.
But three weeks later, Engen pulled out of the deal after receiving hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from constituents upset that Missoula would contribute to the creation of a coal plant and concerned about what the town would do if the plant never got built.
WWF says Asia-Pacific coal rush worsens global warming
Growing dependence on cheap coal to power rapid economic growth in the Asia-Pacific could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is blamed for harmful changes in the world's climate, experts said on Tuesday.
Canada must lead by example in claiming Arctic
It's generally assumed that one-quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas lies waiting beneath Arctic ice and rock.In fact, while this estimate is usually attributed to the US Geological Survey, the United States has done no systematic study of the region. The actual extent of the potential reserves will be clarified by surveys now under way.
Dams 'contributing to global warming'
The world's dams are contributing millions of tonnes of harmful greenhouse gases and spurring on global warming, according to a US environmental agency.International Rivers Network executive director Patrick McCully told Brisbane's Riversymposium rotting vegetation and fish found in dams produced surprising amounts of methane - 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide.
Energy Market Consolidation Versus Foreign State Takeovers in Central Europe
In common with the Baltic states and Poland, which face the risk of being caught between Russian and German energy policies, Hungary is facing a similar two-front problem, albeit with country-specific differences. In Hungary’s case, Russia and Austria (with Germany in a lesser role) seem to be reaching out toward each other over Hungary, targeting parts of Hungary’s energy systems.
Richardson calls for transportation alternatives
The United States’ transportation system is “fixated on highways” and should include more emphasis on energy-efficient modes of travel with planning to ensure preservation of open spaces, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said here today.
Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay in Finland
lawed welds for the reactor's steel liner, unusable water- coolant pipes and suspect concrete in the foundation already have pushed back the delivery date of the Olkiluoto-3 unit by at least two years."Substantial delays, I think you can use that word, yes," the 54-year-old Landtman says.
Japan, Australia working on bilateral nuclear energy deal
Japan and Australia plan to strengthen bilateral cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear power, with Tokyo poised to secure a stable supply of uranium from the world's biggest uranium reserves holder, Japanese sources said Tuesday.
Canada to reprocess other nations' nuclear waste
Canada will eventually get into the business of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said yesterday as the government considers an invitation to join a major international effort to promote nuclear technology worldwide.
Global growing problem of wheat production
With 3 billion new consumers starting to emulate Western lifestyles, it is not surprising that in six of the past seven years consumption of grains has exceeded production.The second major driver of demand is the ongoing battle for crops between a billion car drivers and the twice as many still struggling for enough to eat.
Chicago: Nation's Largest School Bus Company Switches Entire Fleet To Bio-Fuel
The company, Cook Illinois Corporation, last year reduced nearly 1,000 tons of toxic emissions in Chicago by switching to a biodiesel fuel in many of its buses.
Marina gas seller on a hunger strike to stop high fuel prices
Shahbazi's predicament began in November 2005, when he put up a sign at his Marina Shell station that read: "Consumers' pain is Big Oil's unearned profit! To oppose it see cashier."Inside, he handed out fliers accusing oil companies of manipulating gas prices and trying to drive franchise owners like himself out of business by selling gas for less at company-owned stations. He says that the goal of Big Oil is to control the market and raise prices ever higher.
Shell boss stumps for off-shore drilling
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister says it is possible for this country to approach energy independence but to do so it must embrace new fuel technologies and rethink existing policies preventing additional oil and gas development.
Yacht sellers see smooth sailing
Real estate prices are falling, because of tightening credit. Auto sales are slumping, as consumers feel less wealthy. Sales of small boats have suffered from high fuel prices and pinched pocketbooks.But the boats sold to the rich are different.
The creeping advance of state corporatism continues, slipping tentacles into energy in France, stock markets in Sweden, oil reserves in Alberta and auto parts in Canada. On the great playing field of global business and finance, the rise of government-run corporations remains a small trend. But it is growing, ultimately threatening the market-based economic principles that drive modern capitalism.
Argentina: Cold Season for Investors
Fernandez' first crisis may turn out to be the exit of Shell and ExxonMobil (Esso) from Argentina. "Price controls and the government's approach to fuel supply are likely to force Shell and Esso to leave the country," UK-based risk consultancy Exclusive Analysis said last week.Shell officials are now under threat with imprisonment and the company faces fines for what the government claims are violations of a little-used 1974 law. Shell denies any wrongdoing.
Gas Natural, Repsol Shares Hit by Algerian Production Setback
Shares of Gas Natural SDG SA (GAS.MC) and Repsol YPF SA (REP) were hit Tuesday by the Algerian government's decision to take full control of the Gassi Touil gas exploration project it had been running with the two Spanish companies.
Nicaragua and Esso: What Will Happen?
Nicaragua's government will likely reach an agreement with Esso over its confiscated terminal, experts predict.
Nigeria: 4000 Workers Protest Power Outage in Onitsha
Their protest followed the total disconnection of their light after an alleged attempt by PHCN, Onitsha Business Unit to allegedly trick them into signing an agreement to pay estimated bill of 2003 they claimed they did not incur and N5000 reconnection fee for each of the companies operating in the industrial cluster.
Growth of Automobiles and Oil Industry – A Forecast
The industry is confident there are new sources of supply, but some analysts say the world may be close to "peak oil," the moment when supply starts to dwindle. Now, there are around 500 cars for every 1,000 people in the U.S., 8 for every 1,000 in India, 15 for every 1,000 in China, and 137 for every 1,000 in Brazil. By 2050, penetration in the U.S. will have risen to 555 per 1,000; in India it will be 382, in China 363, and in Brazil 645. Probably based on the present trend China and India together have about 2.5 billion people throw in the rest and that adds up to a lot of greenhouse gas. Surprisingly, all these forecast terrified us, if not the present generation, but for the future generations.
Pipe dream of infinite fuel is a costly myth
The logic of peak oil is simple. Oil is a finite resource: the quicker you consume it, the faster it depletes. Production must peak before diminishing towards zero, no matter how high the price or how fancy the technology becomes.
Burmese Vessel Suspected of Smuggling Diesel Fuel from Malaysia
Eleven Burmese nationals were arrested by Malaysian authorities on Tuesday in Butterworth after anti-smuggling officers inspected a vessel they said was loading subsidized diesel fuel to be taken to Burma, where fuel prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks.
Mexico's Pemex, Statoil renew cooperation agreement
Pemex lacks the experience and technology needed to develop oil and natural gas reserves in deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and the country's constitution bars it from forming joint-venture agreements with outside companies to develop these reserves.
Despite EPR claiming credit for the gas pipeline and Sears store, there are suspicions the drug cartels were involved. "Such tactics would mirror those of the Colombian drug cartels in the 1980s," Exclusive Analysis says. "Security forces, police stations, the oil and gas industry and foreign banks are now at heightened risk from both the guerrilla groups and cartels."
Another Domino Falls as US Electric Power Deregulation Roll Back Continues
When California passed its long awaited electricity deregulation law in 1996, it was supposed to signal the start of a revolution.Proponents had argued for years that breaking up utility monopolies would trigger an explosion in generating capacity.
That, in turn, would create cheap power, spurring economic growth and prosperity. Utilities and their investors were to be the big losers, and a new generation of feisty upstarts was to take their place.
Global Warning: The Last Chance for Change, by Paul Brown
Brown reveals the truth behind the political rhetoric, China and peak oil. He addresses how energy security and supply will alter the economic outlook of the world. He clarifies that new technologies to replace fossil fuels is the greatest business opportunity of the 21st century, creating massive local/global opportunities for jobs in sunrise industries.
Energy poverty and political vision
Around 2.64 billion people, 40% of the world’s population, lack modern fuels for cooking and heating. 1.6 billion have no access to electricity, three-quarters of them living in rural areas. As decision-makers in Europe and north America wonder how to reduce energy consumption, massive regions of the developing world remain literally in the dark. Populations in the energy-poverty trap - covering vast areas of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa - are nowhere likely to influence the accountability of the energy policies of their governments.
What's the Real Story Behind the Power Outages in Southern California?
I pay my bills every month, I'm not an energy glutton, and I don't live in Baghdad. I live in Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, and while the TV weatherschmucks loves to talk about the "record heat," the truth is that triple-digit temperatures in southern California happen every single year and no matter how many breathless adjectives they come up with, nothing has changed since the invention of air conditioning. So why are 57,000 people without power today? New York City is hotter than us and they have power. How about Miami? Atlanta? Birmingham? I've been in Vegas in 120 degree weather and those casinos were lit up like...er, a slot machine. So what the hell is wrong with California? And why is nobody reporting it?
Higher oil company taxes hurt consumers
At a time when almost every presidential candidate is talking about "energy independence," it seems strange that Congress is moving in the opposite direction with the energy bill being considered by the Senate.
Raymond J. Learsy - Our Energy Crisis: America's Town Meetings Act While Washington Fiddles
While Washington fiddles, towns across Connecticut are staring to act. Spurred on, first and foremost by the realization that something must be done in their own interest and that of the nation. That if they don't act by deed and example, nothing of significance on this core issue will come to pass. With an encouraging State government, and with the help of national non profit organizations such as SmartPower, a town like Sharon Connecticut is aiming to source 20% of its municipal power needs from alternative means (wind, sun and water) by 2010.
N. Bay Researchers Hope To Turn Algae Into Fuel (video)
Bright green globs of ordinary algae may someday help solve America's energy crisis, even if they are grown atop stinky treated sewage water.
India: Efficient firewood stoves to be on show
Even though the shortage of firewood and its spiralling price are some of the problems affecting the conventional energy sector, when compared to fast depleting petroleum-based fuels such as kerosene or LPG, firewood is still one of the dependable sources of cooking fuel.But ordinary firewood stoves are not energy-efficient and a lot of firewood goes waste.
Qatar LPG production to touch 14mtpa
Referring to future projects, Al Attiyah said that several key projects are under advanced stages of development which will further boost Qatar's energy and petroleum product exports.He said that RasGas and Qatargas both have significant expansion projects under way that will bring LNG exports to 77 million tonnes per year.
Critics say a power plant designed to reduce carbon emissions could be a cancer-causing boondoggle.
Bank-Led Satellite Imagery Sheds More Light on Gas Flaring Pollution
From more than 400 miles in space, the World Bank is pinpointing the true extent of one of the planet’s major environmental problems - gas flaring.
Meeting the Challenge: Matt Simmons Calls for Hard Look at ‘Conservation Production’ - (Part 1 of 6)
There’s been a lot of talk recently about whether the slowing U.S. economy will have a hard or soft landing. Matthew Simmons, the noted investment banker who has gained a global reputation on the basis of his clarion call that global oil production is showing signs that a steep decline is just around the corner, doesn’t think a soft energy landing is possible.But he does hold out hope for a bumpy landing.
Pump price highest in month: government
U.S. retail gasoline prices jumped almost a nickel over the last week to the highest level in a month as tight motor fuel supplies threatened to send pump costs higher, the government said on Tuesday.
Libya, Other OPEC States Adding Oil to Market
Libya's top oil official said Tuesday that some OPEC countries, including Libya, have been pumping more oil compared with recent past months as customers ask for additional supplies."We in Libya have increased our production because some customers have asked for more oil. And I know some other OPEC countries are doing this as well," Shokri Ghanem, head of Libya's state-run National Oil Co. told Dow Jones Newswires by telephone from Tripoli.
Saudi hikes October crude prices
Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia has raised October official selling prices (OSPs) for its crude for Asian buyers and its lightest grades to Europe, but mostly lowered prices to the US.State-owned Saudi Aramco set its flagship Arab Light crude to Asian buyers at its highest premium in more than four years, with the price hike for lighter grades beating expectations and likely to support demand for rival crudes traded on the spot market.
High Costs, Taxes Hitting UK Oil, Gas Developments - Execs
High costs and taxes could prevent development of some of the U.K.'s remaining oil and gas resources, even in areas where significant new discoveries are still being made, senior oil industry executives said Tuesday."We are heading in a direction that will see sub-optimal development of gas our country desperately needs," said Frank Chapman, Chief Executive of U.K.-based BG Group PLC (BRG) at an industry conference in Aberdeen, Scotland.
Iran: An oil industry that lost its head
Iran's key oil industry could plunge into crisis, oil experts have warned, if President Mahmud Ahmadinejad does not urgently appoint a replacement for Seyed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, who was sacked as oil minister two weeks ago in a major cabinet reshuffle.
Shakeup in Nigerian Oil Sector Not a Simple Matter
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua's plans to break up the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. and restructure the state energy sector has prompted largely positive reactions, but it's also left analysts with more questions than answers."This is a serious proposal, to allow it (NNPC) to become a serious player along the Saudi Arabia Oil Company model, but my only critique is that there is no policy platform with details and analysis," said Sebastian Spio-Garbrah, Africa and Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group.
Iraqi crude oil flowing through Turkey
Iraq's oil minister said Tuesday that crude oil began to flow from his country's northern oil-rich Kirkuk to a Turkish export terminal last week — for the first time since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003."We're pumping between 300,000 to 400,000 barrels a day of Kirkuk crude to the Turkish export terminal of Ceyhan," Hussain al-Shahristani told Dow Jones Newswires in a telephone interview from Baghdad.
DNV Sees Need for Industry Arctic Pipeline Standards
As oil and gas operations move into the Arctic, a number of new challenges are arising due to ice interaction with surface and subsea offshore installations. In relation to pipelines, existing design approaches may be too expensive, technologically limited or uncertain to acceptably manage the increased risk to safety and the environment. DNV is therefore inviting the industry to a Joint Industry Project, which will establish a common practice to address these challenges.
Analysis: Iraq oil law (still) coming soon
The question is simple on the third and final day of a major Iraqi energy conference where hundreds of hungry oil men and women broke bread with Iraq’s industry chiefs, politicians and technocrats: When will Baghdad set the ground rules for the international oil community’s long-awaited venture into the largest oil prize on Earth?
U.S. oil engineers in short supply
Bustling oilfield activity and retiring baby boomers, among other factors, have petroleum outfits large and small trying to hire thousands of engineers, and experts say the trend is expected to extend into the next decade as worldwide energy demand grows.
Car makers focus on fuel efficiency at autoshow
Car makers will show off their latest efforts to fight pollution at Frankfurt's autoshow next week by unveiling models with improvements rather than substitutes to the standard internal combustion engine.Under pressure to reduce harmful emissions produced by their vehicles amid fears of global warming, they are keen to show the greenest of intentions with the latest line of engines that consume fuel more efficiently.
BNP: Britain on course for fusion future
Britain could take the lead, yet again, in a revolutionary technological development which could transform the way the world’s economies are powered.
Half-price Big Mac to fight global warming proves big hit in Japan
A Japanese government website crashed Wednesday as people raced to take up an offer of a half-price McDonald's hamburger in exchange for pledging to fight global warming.
Kyoto rebels pledge to work with UN on climate change
The United States and Australia, the only two countries to have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, pledged Wednesday to work within the UN system on a post-Kyoto treaty on climate change.
Faster Climate Change Means Bigger Problems
The debate about what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate” has almost exclusively focused on how much the temperature can be allowed to increase. But we have perhaps just as much reason to be concerned about how quickly these changes take place.
New Nuke held up by Financing, not Opposition
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR200709...
Nuclear power will take massive gov't support to build out. Given the decade long time to completion, is this the best use of limited gov't support ?
IMHO, yes, at a fast (but slow to supporters) rate of growth that the moribund restart of the industry can safely support. However, nuke should NOT be "first in line".
This should be, IMO, first in line with nukes about #8 in line.
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s....
Alan
Hi Alan,
The Province of Ontario will reportedly spend $27 billion dollars to refurbish its nuclear reactors and to add additional nuclear capacity -- and given Ontario's last nuclear facility, Darlington, went SIX times over budget, you might want to take that number and double or triple it. It seems "old school" thinking is alive and well up north.
Source: http://www.thestar.com/article/251289
For more related coverage see:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94629
On a more positive note, Tyler Hamilton's most recent column (http://www.thestar.com/article/252551) discusses a new technology that has the potential to dramatically reduce peak power demand.
Let's hope for more fresh ideas.
Cheers,
Paul
If refitting the trains to electric and the nuclear build up were to have occurred at the same time, the train would be done many many years before the power plant produced even a single watt of power.
Thus the two can be conducted in parallel.
(even using a 5-10 year time line for nuclear plant construction and a probable 5 year time line for new rail, the savings which the rail enjoys can finance the new nuclear plants)
Gilgamesh, 'refitting trains and nuclear build up' merely mean adding more fuel to the fire as long as the population keeps increasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population
Hi Crystal,
Time to put in a word for an approach:
"Seeking a stable future: perspectives on population policy. The legal approach: women's rights as human rights." by RN Pine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uid...
A loan guarantee is not a subsidy. It serves more like a guarantee for the financiers that the government will not change its policy the next time somebody different takes the office - easily scrapping a multi-billion investments with a twist of the pen.
Personally I don't know even a single case when the government had to actually kick in and repay the loan for a nuclear plant. The companies that build them are usually stable companies and I don't know a case of any of them going out of business because of nuclear cost overruns. Of course there might be cases I'm not aware of but feel welcome to correct me...
A loan guarantee *IS* a subsidy !
It takes a sub-prime risk (a VERY bad risk BTW, see dozens of started but never finished nukes !) and with a promise of gov't $, makes it prime.
Personally I don't know even a single case when the government had to actually kick in and repay the loan for a nuclear plant
TVA is an arm of the government and they have paid the bonds for long delayed and never finished nuclear power plants ($6 billion of 1980s $ for Bellafonte (which, after 32 years, had it's construction permit canceled), Browns Ferry 1, Watts Bar I & II (those 30 year bonds are almost paid off), Yellow Creek I & II, Hartsville I, II, III & IV, Phipps Bend I & II.
That is eleven nuclear reactors and two of them have produced minimal amounts of power since they started construction in 1974 and 1979. The rest are like WHOOPS I, III, IV & V, writeoffs !
The gov't has not guaranteed commercially owned reactors before, so they were not stuck with River Bend #2, Ft. St. Vrain, Zimmer, et al.
The risk is *NOT* a "political" risk, the risk is the nuclear power building industry having massive cost over-runs and lengthy delays. My guess is that less than half of US nuclear reactors were within 25% of budget and within 1 year of scheduled completion.
I am willing to give this non-economic technology subsidies, but they are not my first priority for subsidies.
New nuclear reactors are simply NOT commercial today in the USA, and the fault lies with the industry building them and the technology. See the quote from the Constellation exec at top.
I have not followed Finland closely, but I understand that they are running into delays and cost overruns already, whilst they are still less than half complete.
Alan
Part of the problem is our absolutely mindless, knee-jerk adherence to hypercapitalist ideology. Had we settled on a national standardized set of siting, design & construction specifications, all of these facilities could have been built and put online on a reasonably fast track. That's how the French did it. But we are SO superior to those "cheese eating surrender monkeys", right? That's why they're only producing something like 70% of their power from operating nukes, while we've got all of these unbuilt and unpaid for ground disturbances as symbols of our mighty national technical prowess.
That's how the French did it.
Yea, so much faith that plants were cited along the German border
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF8&q=french+reactors+border+germany
No anti-German siting issues that I can see. Two plants, 6 reactors, next to Germany. Germany placed two experimental reactors next to France, and one two reactor plant. The Rhine River is a good source of cooling water.
The next reactor will be built at Flamanville.
Alan
You are right that the risk is high based on past experience. This does not change that there were no taxpayer money ever payed for that. True TVA probably covered the costs in their rates, but this is different - a bad management decision in bad time could result in losses. BTW TVA has a history of that not only in the nuclear sector, check out the Tellco Dam.
It is true that loan guarantees saves money to utilities by saving them the risk premium. But as far as it does not increase my tax bill I don't consider it a subsidy. Actually I consider it a positive and necessary step to help kick start a dormant or developing industry - including wind which is also provided loan guarantees. Which reminds me that loan guarantees are provided for renewable power projects. Why are the double standards?
Take a look here:
http://energy.gov/news/5045.htm
IMO what is outragious here is the 4bln.for biofuels but nobody is ranting about those.
The ratio of nuclear + clean coal vs renewables is 4 : 1. Compare that to the ration of energy produced by the two, which is something like 50 : 1.
"IMO what is outragious here is the 4bln.for biofuels but nobody is ranting about those."
Nobody is ranting about bio-fuels? Do you read anything not related to nuclear on this forum?
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Nobody is ranting specifically about the loan guarantees for biofuels. At least I haven't seen it, but I may be missing something.
Please don't misinterpret me.
I am NOT against loan guaranties for nukes, but I expect those guaranties to cost tax payers quite a few billion $ in the end for economically failed nukes (half of them ? fourth of them ?). And I do NOT want to see ethanol loans.
I did NOT see any loan guaranties for wind turbines (they do not need them and would provide very little benefit since WTs are so low risk), but sauce for the goose ...
Many other worthwhile programs (some more worthwhile than new nukes) could also benefit from federal loan guaranties.
Alan
Wind energy is present in the 2006 DOE loan guarantee program.
But I could not find any numbers of how much is applied for and how much is granted. Anyway it is pointless to continue arguing this since we largely agree.
TVA issues state income tax free bonds, so no state taxes are paid on the interest on $28.3 billion; much of which is a residue from the failed nuclear program.
Municipal electric utilities, rural electric cooperatives, the four PMAs, and the TVA are exempt from Federal income tax; this type of support is addressed, but only indirectly
from a GAO report.
So taxpayers have paid a heavy price for the failure of the TVA nuclear program. Figure lost taxes on the interest of $6 billion over the 30 year payout of those bonds just for Bellafonte.
Alan
Figure lost taxes on the interest of mortgage payments. Think we should be talking trillions. With "tr".
I think you are nitpicking here. This was money that was left to taxpayers, so effectively nobody "lost" them but the government coffers. TVA still payed it's bills it's just the govt that decided to yield part of them to taxpayers - which I can only applaud in principle.
Now after dicounting for 30 years etc. we should be talking maybe around hundred million... Hardly a lump change but obviously nothing of significance. The gov machine lost the chance to waste one more $100mln. in Iraq for a single day... I'm shocked, so shocked.
TVA decided to build those 23 nuclear plants based on the demand history it had at the time. Electricity use in its service area had grown steadily ever since TVA's inception and the board considered that this would continue just as many now assume that oil demand will continue to increase at the same rate in the future as it has for the past twenty or so years. They just didn't forecast the dislocations in the economy that happened due to oil peaking in the US and the oil embargo. The biggest factor in the cancellation of those plants was the sudden leveling off of electricity demand that occured then. True there were cost overruns and construction problems, but even without those TVA would have been in trouble because the demand for that much power just didn't materialize as expected.
TVA financed the debt incurred by this fiasco in the rates but also by issuing bonds. No 'taxpayer' bailout occured.
The Tellico dam is another matter since I grew up about ten miles from Fort Loudon and it is still a bitter topic in my home area. But to say that TVA is subject to lots of pressure from political entities is an understatement. One needs to look at TN politics, not TVA management, to determine how the Tellico Dam came to be.
I think this answer should be directed to Alan. He uses the failure of TVA plans as an argument that nuclear power is a risky investment and dismisses all political factors into play.
In fact both are equaly important factors that could fail any kind of investment, not only nuclear. You have to have both preconditions, only one will not work. With oil and NG obviously near peak and coal on the GHG crosshair I think the economics of nuclear power are covered. What is left is the political will to go for it and loan guarantees are... well guaranteeing for it.
IMO if we add to this electric rail, plug-in hybrids and some wind we will have PO and GW solved by the middle of the century. So... why is all this fuss about? :)
LevinK,
If it saves the financeir's money by keeping them from having to buy private insurance, it's a subsidy. And if its too risky to be affordable by the financeir because an insurance company won't take the risk for a reasonable amount, why should I do it? Insurance actuaries are a pretty saavy bunch with an excellent understanding of risks.
I am not opposed to nuclear power, I am opposed to dishonesty about it. It's the equivalent of free mortgage insurance. It would, I'm sure, reduce the cost of everyone's mortgage. But since it has risk,it has cost .
The real purpose is to manipulate future congresses by saying "you're going to pay for it any way" and that's B.S.
Bob Ebersole
Well, economically it functions like a subsidy, but it's unavoidable in the face of political risk. Political risk can't be quantified, can't be assigned a probability, can't be assigned a cost, can't be handled in any any manner known to actuaries. At best, the appropriate premium is a totally arbitrary random number. So no private company is likely to touch big political risk, or even capable of doing so.
Now, one way to manage - but not eliminate - political risk is to have stable, limited government. That may even be what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind, but it goes against the current politically-correct ideal of switching everything 180 degrees every time some corrupt politico or ivory-tower academic tells some tear-jerker of a tall tale to The Great Shiftless Moron Mass. Even wind power, which ought to be a no-brainer, has a tough time under that regime, never mind something complex and difficult like nuclear.
Up thread I'm arguing that if it saves money but does not cost taxpayer anything out of the pocket it should not be called subsidy. I'd rather call it good policy if it aims increasing the common good, which I think it does.
And PaulS is right - the biggest element remains the political risk. The financiers need to know that the government is commited to keep the regulatory framework intact, otherwise they will most likely refuse the loan. Best case the financing will be ridiculously expensive.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo...
The TVA Chairman at that time (when Bellefonte construction was halted) later stated that economic factors were the reason.
You are both simply wrong. The primary risk of building nuclear power plants is NOT "political" but economic. Massive cost over-runs and multi-years delays in construction are the major risk. "Politics" did not result in shutting down an 88% complete nuke !
The Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island NY is the only plant where politics can be said to have resulted in a half built nuke (technically, the utility could not evacuate Long Island in time was the reason).
With Rancho Seco and another nuke, the owners became disgusted with the very poor operating performance and massive repair bills and voted to close it.
I found a list of every announced nuke in the US and we could have had almost twice as many MW operating today were it not for massive screw-ups BY THE INDUSTRY !
Best Hopes for Avoiding Scapegoats,
Alan
Alan, Bellefonte was cancelled under the pressure of NRC right after Chernobyl and when oil was trading ~$10 and interest rates were high. Using it to prove anything is simply meaningless. Wind or solar projects at this time would have been laughed at.
In theory such risks exist today too, but sustained $70/oil are bringing them virtually to nil. If I were you I would pray that similar economic risks no longer are real; if the economy goes down again, wind and solar will be the first to follow, and the cheapest energy source - coal becomes the king.
In summary - your point might have had some validity in the 80s, but now the biggest problem is most definately unfavorable public opinion and the related govt policy. Like someone else pointed out - a single judge and a single small group of people can delay a project indefinately. In the same time interest rates would be piling up - we have a bunch of examples showing how you can ruin everything like that. Even a gold mine would be ruined.
Checkout Nuntucket Sound and the fuss around Cape Cod. That should ring some bells...
Ok, "you" have spent $6 billion (over $10 billion today $) towards building two plants; one 88% complete and the other 58% complete. Massive cost overruns and delays, but you "are getting there".
Some gov't bureaucracy says "You know, we would like for you to abandon these plants". So you say, OK ??
This makes no sense (especially for Bellefonte I, a number of nukes were abandoned half completed so scrapping Bellefonte II would not be so abnormal, but 88% complete ?) UNLESS Bellefonte was another Zimmer (abandoned when 99% complete because it was not built to nuke standards). Better to abandon at 88% than at 99% due to quality problems.
I noted that Watts Bar II (60% complete) will be completed by TVA ~2012 after a two decade halt, but Bellefonte I (88% complete) will be formally scrapped (BUT the non-safety related components like the turbines and cooling towers will be preserved for a future nuke). This supports the POV that Bellefonte was poorly built and would not have gotten an operating license. I do not know the specifics.
The formal letter to abandon Bellefonte was made by TVA in 2006, during the pro-nuke Bush Administration. Again, not a sign of political pressure.
You have this myth that "political" pressure killed nukes. Cost over-runs and lengthy delays and quality problems killed the industry. The TVA Chairman at the time has confirmed this.
Had all announced nukes been built, and none decommissioned early (Rancho Seco, Zion I & II, Trojan, Ft. St. Vrain, etc.), we would be producing close to 40% of our power from nuclear power today, not 20%. That is an amazing, and very sad failure.
If we make a Rush to Nuke, might not the same thing happen again ? All the chips on nukes as "the answer" seems quite risky to me.
I am willing to put a few chips on nukes for diversity, but my hopes for the future are certainly not centered on a Rush to Nuke.
Alan
The Cape Wind Project has wasted several million on preliminary engineering and applications, but nothing physical has been built. Very little comparison since that is 100% political and the amount wasted is 1/1000th as much as at Bellefonte.
But that's a strawman in the current context, as levin is specifically saying we need both nuclear and rail and other projects.
I think it has been a common failure of various groups advocating change that they argue down other groups proposals in the interest of getting their pet project to the front of the line. You may believe that a rail project should have #1 priority, and wind #2 and nukes #8 (or whatever), but the fact is, any of them getting any priority at all would be an improvement, and we ought to be cheering all three on, not bashing them for past difficulties.
If our next attempt at nuclear is 50% effective, that's infinitely more effective than war in Iraq and Iran, which really is the other option. It's also more effective than ethanol.
But that's a strawman in the current context, as levin is specifically saying we need both nuclear and rail and other projects
I do not think that it is a strawman. There has been a multi-week debate between LevinK and I over the speed of a nuclear plant build-out; specifically the speed with which our moribund nuke building industry can ramp up safely and economically. There has been some "coming together" of our positions over time.
We cannot do "crash everything" IMHO, Earlier I listed the various grades of urgency for different mitigation strategies.
Crash (WW II effort to build munition plants as an example) - Electrify and expand a few key intercity freight RRs, make transportation bicycling easier (If someone bombs Iran, we will need these badly & quickly).
Maximum Commercial Urgency (Canadian Tar Sands are an example) - Urban Rail, Rest of Intercity RRs with regional pax service, Wind Turbines, Neighborhood electric vehicles
Urgent (post WW II changeover to civilian production, dot.com frenzy)- PHEVs, HV DC transmission lines, Pumped Storage, EVs, geothermal power production, solar hot water heaters
Secondary Urgency (Peak Interstate Highway building boom as an example) - New Nukes, sidewalks, ground loop (geothermal) heat pumps, solar power production
All good, all worth doing ! But, as I said earlier, we cannot "crash everything" IMHO.
Saying something is "better than the Iraq War" is true of 99.8% of reality. An in-grown toenail combined with a root canal is better than the Iraq War :-P
Geaux Saints !
Alan
Some gov't bureaucracy says "You know, we would like for you to abandon these plants". So you say, OK ??
You can decide to do it if it turns out that your expectations did not materialize and the demand for these nukes was simply not there. See post from TNGranny. Govt pressure was simply the last straw.
I'll make a similar scenario for wind. You decide to build a 1000MWt offshore wind farm at the cost of $2-3bln. Then in the middle of the building process the economy goes belly up and NG prices go to $1/MMBTU. At the same time the govt decides to withdraw its support for wind (because it kills birds or whatever) and drops the 1.8c subsidy. Your project obviously has no future - what do you do? Accept the smaller loss or finish it and make your bad situation disastrous?
In the case of TVA I would suggest that if they finished it they would be at smaller loss (the nukes were almost done), but they decided that keeping their positions in front of NRC was worthed taking the sour pill. TVA is a big company and they could swallow it.
You are spinning a tale with minimal basis in fact. And not supported by later statements (made a decade later) by the then TVA chairman when he had left TVA and had no "axe to grind" AFAIK. The former TVA chairman said that TVA halted nuke construction for purely economic reasons.
TVA halted construction of a 58% & 88% finished Bellefonte I & II nuke plants, but they kept their construction permits open till early last year (over 20 years of dust).
A few months ago, TVA announced plans ($2.5 billion, 5 years) to finish Watts Bar II (60% complete). This shortly after rebuilding the fire damaged Browns Ferry I after a 24 year shutdown (no doubt transferring many of the people between those two projects).
If they had not sent a letter to the NRC a year before, they could have chosen to finish the 88% complete Bellefonte I instead of the 60% complete Watts Bar II (on paper, the logical choice was Bellefonte I first (88% complete), Bellefonte II second (58% complete, but more efficient to build side by side) and then Watts Bar II (60% complete).
Today's NRC is very pro-new nuke. So there was likely zero pressure to abandon Bellefonte as TVA did in 2006.
TVA expressly requested to preserve the containment dome and all non-safety related functions at the site (cooling towers, water intake & discharge, turbines, switchyard, administration buildings, etc.) Other internet quotes indicate that they plan to scrap the existing reactor and controls and build two AP-1000s on the site and use all the leftover non-safety items (plus the containment dome).
My hypothesis is that Bellefonte was another Zimmer. Quality controls were so poor in that earlier "Rush to Nuke" that the NRC would have denied them an operating license had they finished construction. My hypothesis does fit the observed facts.
Alan