![]() | The Finance Round-Up: September 7th 2007 | The Oil Drum: Canada | Tar Sands: The Oil Junkie's Last Fix, Part 2 | ![]() |
11 comments on The Energy and Environment Round-Up: September 7th 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
11 comments on The Energy and Environment Round-Up: September 7th 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- 321 Energy
- The Archdruid Report
- ASPO Canada
- Ali Samsam Bakhtiari
- The Sir Robert Bond Papers
- Briarpatch Magazine
- Chatham House
- Paul Chefurka
- The Council of Canadians
- The Daily Canuck
- The Daily Reckoning
- The Dominion
- Energy and Capital
- Energy Bulletin
- Feasta
- Financial Sense
- Global Public Media
- Graphoilogy
- The Garret Hardin Society
- Richard Heinberg
- Thomas Homer-Dixon
- The Housing Bubble Blog
- iTulip
- James Kunstler
- LATOC
- Darryl McMahon
- George Monbiot
- Murky View
- Dmitri Orlov
- Plants for a Future
- Raise the Hammer
- Ramsay House Project
- Rigzone Canada
- R-Squared
- Nouriel Roubini
- Safe Haven
- Shack in the Middle
- Michael Shedlock
- Treehugger
- The Tyee
- Jeff Vail
- Vive le Canada
- John Warnock
- Whiskey and Gunpowder
User login
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
"The 2005 energy bill provided loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance against regulatory delays and other incentives to help lower borrowing costs for nuclear developers.
Loan guarantees alone would reduce nuclear construction costs by a quarter, the Energy Information Administration said in its annual energy outlook. With the guarantee in place, it estimates that a new nuclear plant could generate electricity at 4.78 cents per kilowatt hour."
Help me out here please.
Is this not VooDoo Economics 2007?
Is not this "loan guarantee" stuff simply a tax payer provided insurance program for nuclear companies? Are we taxpayers not co-signing the loan for our not so trustworthy "relatives" in order for them to get a lower rate?
If so, how can we realistically talk about "4.78 per kilowatt hour" without including our tax money?
And is that "4.78" with or without tax breaks, etc.?
I'd like some legitimate figures please.
Question 2: is the 4.66c for coal gasification with carbon capture or with carbon tax added?
The thing nuclear developers most have to fear is government's going back on permits it has issued because natural gas brings in so much more tax. If the people's representatives make it give loan guarantees, then the loans it must pay off if it sabotages nuclear projects cut into the extra natgas income that sabotage wins for it, reducing or eliminating its conflict of interest.
So no, it's not a tax unless the projects are derailed, and its existence makes that derailing much less likely.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Sorry, I don't understand your post.
That the government might decide to back natural gas over nuclear in order to collect more tax I understand. (But have no knowledge along the relative revenue lines.)
What I don't see an answer to is my question of whether the "loan guarantees" are not, in fact, a governmental "gift" to the nuclear developers and should not be included in the price of electricity of nuclear.
It's like if the government were to give huge tracts of land to solar developers for their installations and the wind people were to be required to purchase theirs.
If solar and wind produced electricity prices were then reported based on only what the producers spent it would be false data. Solar would appear much less expensive than what it actually cost.
I find that a hard question because of the complex way the risk to government varies with the amount of borrowing it backs up. If it guaranteed only the first dollar, it would probably end up having to pay that dollar. If it guarantees the first several tens of billions, its likeliest payout is zero dollars, exactly because of the effect the guarantees will have on its own behaviour.
It's definitely a loss to government but doesn't seem to be one to taxpayers.
I don't think it's exactly like that because government doesn't make money on either of those energies.
It might be more like that if coal provided the same ~50 percent of electricity as now and wind provided, at relatively high per-MWh cost, the other ~50 percent, justifying that premium by the taxes end-users tolerate being made to pay on its electricity and by wind royalties from the turbine operators, and by being able to respond quickly whenever people would start turning on ovens or airconditioners, and the call would go out, "Start up the wind turbines!"
If solar plants' gross electrical output were so much cheaper than wind-generated electricity, even in December and January, that solar power plants could economically run flat-out all year, responding quickly to rises and falls in demand by diverting less or more of their output to giant resistors, then government would see solar power as a threat to its wind income. (Some situations are more hypothetical than others; this one, it should be noticed, is way out there.)
And maybe protest groups would spring up decrying government's wish to roll out solar power. It stands to reason that government's real wish would be just the opposite, but by making this bizarre protest, these groups would provide it with cover.
Wind turbines routinely and with little notice kill. That's in this world, not just in counterfactual-land, and not just birds and bats. So maybe some conscientious public servants really would want to roll out solar power in that wind-powered alternate world; maybe they have relatives who might end up on a wind turbine tower, and they would rather have him work at a solar power station. Could they help him by giving solar developers free land? Yes, but that would amount to real money, for something that's going to cost them and their fellow public servants additional real money when it starts working. It's hard to see how they could get away with that.
If they did it instead by offering loan guarantees, the question we're wrestling with, or anyway I am, is, is that real money too? To some small extent it has to be because some things that could derail a solar project are not due to voluntary action by government personnel. It would be better if the taxes on nat-- um, on wind-generated electricity were not levied, or were promptly refunded to the whole population equally, and the same with the wind royalties; that would make government no special friend of windpower, and solar could peacefully displace it from the market. But loan guarantees to low-tax-yield energies also reduce government's special friendship to high-tax-yield energies, almost as pleasantly.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
"I find that a hard question because of the complex way the risk to government varies with the amount of borrowing it backs up. If it guaranteed only the first dollar, it would probably end up having to pay that dollar. If it guarantees the first several tens of billions, its likeliest payout is zero dollars, exactly because of the effect the guarantees will have on its own behaviour."
I suppose I'm having a dense weekend, but I don't understand that either.
Here's how I look at governmental loan guarantees.
Joe's Nuclear, Inc. wants to build a new plant but doesn't have the cash, so they have to borrow.
Fred's Most Excellent Lenders, Inc. takes a look at Joe's, Inc. plans, calculates their risks, and sets a 12% interest rate.
Paying that interest rate over the many years of construction would result in a much higher price per kWh.
Joe's, Inc. goes to the government and gets the government to guarantee the loan so Fred's, Inc. is going to get its money, come hell or hot water. Fred's, Inc. drops the loan rate to 6%.
Joe's, Inc. gets a break, can market electricity that it (might) produce at a lower price, thus being competitive.
If Joe's, Inc. pulls a "Humboldt Bay", "Rancho Seco", whatever the taxpayer has to pay the loan. And Fred's, Inc. has already determined that it might well happen at some level of chance. Thus their higher rate level.
Seems to me that the taxpayer has just entered into the mix and put their money at risk in order for nuclear to work. Leaving that risk out of the projected price seems dishonest to me.
(One can calculate the cost of a gamble.)
---
"...because government doesn't make money on either of those energies"
If the government makes money via taxing any type of energy they will most likely make money off of all types of energy down the road. There might be a decision to not tax a particular type of energy in the short term in order to help it become a reality.
Sort of like not taxing internet purchases.
For now.
---
"Wind turbines routinely and with little notice kill."
If they are poorly sited (and managed). A lot of the "killing" stuff came from Altamont, an early wind farm just east of San Francisco.
A fair number of raptors were killed, mainly due to tower design. The structure of the early towers provided handy perches where the hawks, etc. could perch and watch for prey. When they spotted something tasty, they would take off and fly into the rapidly spinning blades.
Mono-towers (and slower spinning blades) take that problem out of the mix.
Here's a pretty good source for clearing up some of the misconceptions about bird kill.
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=120272
Nobody has ever died from a coal mine collapse or an oil refinery explosion or a dam breach. Windmills are the only energy source that causes death. A couple billion birds a year die from cars. If we care about birds so much, we should ban cars.
RobertInSantaBarbara
I haven`t escaped from reality. I have a daypass.
Wingpawn Global Cooling News:
Shockwaves from melting icecaps are triggering earthquakes, say scientists
Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: September 8, 2007
Byline: Daniel Howden
Original URL
High up inside the Arctic circle the melting of Greenland's ice sheet has accelerated so dramatically that it is triggering earthquakes for the first time.
Scientists monitoring the glaciers have revealed that movements of gigantic pieces of ice are creating shockwaves that register up to three on the Richter scale.
The speed of the arctic ice melt has accelerated to such an extent that a UN report issued earlier this year is now thought to be out of date by its own authors.
The American polar expert Robert Correll, among the key contributors to the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in February, described the acceleration as "massive".
Estimates of the likely rise in sea levels this century vary, and the IPCC published a conservative range of between 20cm-60cm. But those estimates are now heavily disputed, with many scientists insisting that new data collected since the IPCC report suggested a rise closer to two metres. Professor Correll said there was now a "consensus" that a significant acceleration in the loss of ice mass has occurred since the last report.
The revelations came at a conference in the north of Greenland, which has drawn world religious leaders, scientists and environmentalists to the Ilulissat Icefjord. Ilulissat is home to the most active glacier in Greenland and it was one of the immense icebergs that calve from it on a daily basis that is believed to have sunk the Titanic. The Arctic is acknowledged as the fastest warming place on earth.
The local Inuit population, whose lives have been drastically altered by the changing climate, were yesterday led in a silent prayer for the future of the planet by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the organiser of the arctic symposium and spiritual leader of the world's 250 million Orthodox Christians.
Greenland's ice cap is immense, the second largest in the world, and its break-up would be catastrophic. The packed ice is up to two miles thick and its total collapse into the ocean would raise worldside sea levels by seven metres.
At the Ilulissat Icefjord, 250km north of the Arctic Circle, the advance of the glacier into the sea is now visible to the naked eye. "It's moving toward the sea at a rate of two metres an hour," said Professor Correll. "It's exuding like toothpaste, moving towards us at 15 kilometres per year."
One day's worth of the Ilulissat ice would provide enough fresh water to supply the largest cities in the world for a whole year – and yet it amounts to only 7 per cent of Greenland's total melt.
As the glaciers thaw, pools of water are forming, feeding fractures in the ice, down which the water flows until it hits the bedrock.
"These so-called moulins are phenomenal," said Professor Correll, who said they had been remarkably scarce when he first visited the glacier in 1968. "Now they are like rivers 10 or 15 metres in diameter and there are thousands of them."
He compared the process to putting oil underneath the ice to make it move forward faster.
As the reality of the unprecedented thaw becomes apparent, the consequences are outstripping the capacity of scientific models to predict it.
Earthquakes, or glacial ice quakes, in the north-west of Greenland are among the latest ominous signs that an unprecedented step change is under way. The Finnish scientist Veli Albert Kallio is one of the region's leading ice experts and has been tracking the earthquakes.
"Glacial earthquakes in north-west Greenland did not exist until three years ago," he said.
The accelerating thaw and the earthquakes are intimately connected, according to Mr Kallio, as immense slabs of ice are sheared from the bed rock by melt water. Those blocks of ice, often more than 800m deep and 1500m long, contain immense rocks as well and move against geological faults with seismic consequences. The study of these ice quakes is still in its infancy, according to Professor Correll, but their occurence is in itself disturbing. "It is becoming a lot more volatile," said Mr Vallio. Predictions made by the Arctic Council, a working group of regional scientists, have been hopelessly overrun by the extent of the thaw. "Five years ago we made models predicting how much ice would melt and when," said Mr Vallio. "Five years later we are already at the levels predicted for 2040, in a year's time we'll be at 2050."
This dramatic warming is being felt across the Arctic region. In Alaska, earthquakes are rocking the seabed as tectonic plates – subdued for centuries by the weight of the glaciers on top of them – are now moving against each other again.
In the north of Sweden, mean temperatures have risen above zero for the first time on record.
Professor Terry Callaghan has been working in the remote north of the country at a research station which has been taking continuous readings for the past 100 years. His recent findings tally with the accelerating pace of change elsewhere.
"Mean temperatures have remained below zero here since medieval times," said Professor Callaghan. "Now, over the past 10 years we have exceeded zero, the mark at which ice turns to water." Professor Correll said: "We are looking at a very different planet than the one we are used to."
It wasn't very long ago, maybe a few weeks back, while discussing this Greenland glacial meltdown that I suggested we'd likely see an increase in tectonic activity.
Glacial ice is very heavy (I believe parts of Antarctica are sunken by the ice weight above) and as they diminish it makes sense that they would relieve pressure on the crust below, ultimately causing the sub-crustal magna (?) to shift. (Forgive me if I mis-use the proper geologic terminology.) In any event, an increase in volcanism and earthquakes is going to be another feature of the future as all that's left of this inter-glacial era melts away or slides off into the sea under the duress of unarrested global warming climate choas.
Whoowee! As if we don't have enough on our plates already to try and deal with. Infrastructure of all sorts along fault zones is going to get jolted. It's not the kind of timing circumstance where I'd go building more nukes for one thing. Cat 5 hurricanes are up, and I would expect earthquakes to get bigger too as all this glacial relief happens a lot faster than anticipated.