Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bernie Sanders proposes $16.3 trillion Green New Deal plan
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-climate-idUS...
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders unveiled a climate change strategy on Thursday that would mobilize $16.3 trillion to help the U.S. generate 100% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030 and achieve “full decarbonization” by 2050....It bans the practice of fracking to extract natural gas and oil, the import and export of fossil fuels and sets a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals....

Sanders said his own Green New Deal plan will “pay for itself over 15 years” by raising taxes and fees on fossil fuel companies, through revenue generated by renewable energy produced by federal power authorities, over $1 trillion in scaling back military spending and from income tax collected from the 20 million new jobs it says the plan will create....

It calls for a transition to 100% electric vehicles, providing $2 trillion in grants to low- and moderate-income families to trade in their fossil fuel-dependent vehicles for new electric vehicles and $85.6 billion to build a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure network.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Of course, Bernie wants to phase out nuclear power. Count me out.

Count me out of all of it. Count me out for any carbon tax, or carbon fee and dividend, or whatever the latest scheme might be. I do not trust that any of the politicians are acting in good faith to actually do something meaningful. They have other agendas.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I do not trust that any of the politicians are acting in good faith to actually do something meaningful. They have other agendas.

- Pete


-------------------

It seems to me that it would take a very large team of experts and scientists in all the major disciplines (econonists, engineers, social scientists, medicine, defense, labor, transportation, urban planners, agriculture, foreign policy and so on to name a few), working for years to develop the extensive, comprehensive integrated plan that would be required to have a chance of delivering on Bernie's claims. I wonder where he has been keeping this team and if their supporting studies and position papers are available for public scrutiny.

Do you suppose he could just be making this stuff up?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Count me out of all of it. Count me out for any carbon tax, or carbon fee and dividend, or whatever the latest scheme might be. I do not trust that any of the politicians are acting in good faith to actually do something meaningful. They have other agendas.

- Pete

============================================================

Your only agenda is nuclear power. One of the most costly and ineffective ways to reduce carbon emissions. Everything else that scientists and engineers show as being more cost effective and much faster at reducing carbon emissions is abhorrent to you.

The world is not following your agenda. The world is following the effective ways to reduce carbon emissions being developed by engineers and scientists.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey, (almost) free stuff!

www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Bernie-Sanders-Gre...
Sanders would harness the resources of the U.S. government itself to generate renewable power that would be "publicly owned." Under his plan, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the federal power marketing administrations that now focus on hydropower would build wind, solar and geothermal installations, too.

Sanders says that selling electricity from those agencies would help offset the cost of his project - and after 2035 that renewable power would be "virtually free aside from operations and maintenance costs."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your only agenda is nuclear power. One of the most costly and ineffective ways to reduce carbon emissions. Everything else that scientists and engineers show as being more cost effective and much faster at reducing carbon emissions is abhorrent to you.

Has any nuclear power plant ever, in the course of its operation, ever generated enough profit to even cover the perpetual cost of storing, guarding, protecting, and caring for its nuclear waste?

Perpetual is a very, very, very, very long time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Perpetual is a very, very, very, very long time.

While driving the other day I was thinking that all radioactive material has a half-life and will decay away sooner or later. At the same time, hazardous materials such as lead or mercury really will last in perpetuity. My conclusion was that concentrating these mineral-type wastes may not be a good idea.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Sanders said his own Green New Deal plan will “pay for itself over 15 years” by raising taxes and fees on fossil fuel companies, through revenue generated by renewable energy produced by federal power authorities, over $1 trillion in scaling back military spending and from income tax collected from the 20 million new jobs it says the plan will create....

It calls for a transition to 100% electric vehicles, providing $2 trillion in grants to low- and moderate-income families to trade in their fossil fuel-dependent vehicles for new electric vehicles and $85.6 billion to build a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure network."

Stupidity at work!

First of all, if he raises taxes on the 'fossil fuel' companies, tens of millions of Americans who use Natural Gas or Propane or oil for heating will see 50% increases in cost. Lower income Americans will have to choose between starving or dying from lack of heat. Great going, Bernie.

Second, tens of millions of Americans drive 8-20 year old cars. Second hand cars they can afford. In your first 15 years, half of 'middle class' Americans will be forced by your 50% increase in fossil fuel costs to buy new EVs. Probably only thing available as you'll make selling passenger cars with ICE illegal. So the fleet of used EVs will not really be there for your first 15 years, but you'll be charging at least 50% more for gasoline.

Third, you'll put 20 million out of work who can no longer afford to drive to work with 50% or more higher fuel costs. Plus, of course, all those mass transit system using buses will have to up their charges by 50%. The cost of new road construction will rise 50%

Fourth, the cost of construction of new houses and industrial parks will rise by at least 50% with higher costs for concrete and steel. Same for road construction. Plus, of course, workers salaries will have to rise to compensate for their higher costs to commute, whether by car or by bus.

Fifth, he'll be taking from middle class Americans and giving to lower income folks to buy EVs that probably will be costing 50% more as the cost to make they skyrocket 50% with all the fees and surcharges on the fuels needed to mine, refine, transport, turn into steel parts and plastics and everything else in a car.

Of course, sixth, your electric rates will necessarily skyrocket as your utilities scramble to build more and more green power (at higher and higher costs)

And the real killer - all those solar panels have typical life spans of 20 years. So after you install bazillions of them, after 20 years, you have to buy bazillions more at trillions more to keep your green energy system running. Same for wind machines.

Meanwhile, in the first couple years of his reign, tens of millions of jobs are lost in the fossil fuel industry, the price of gasoline rises to $6/gallon, and there are shortages and outages all over the country. More tens of millions of jobs are lost as the travel industry cuts tens of millions of jobs.

Create new jobs? That's a joke. Where are most solar panels made? Not in the USA.


t.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Below is the electricity production in 2018 from the zero or low carbon energy sources.

Nuclear      807,078 GWh
Hydro 291,724
Wind 274,952
Solar (LS) 66,604 (LS = Large Scale)
Wood 41,411
Solar (SS) 29,543 (SS = Small Scale)
Geothermal 16,728
Landfill Gas 11,336
Other 10,017

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

Another way to look at it...
Nuclear:                 807,078 GWh
All other clean sources: 742,315 GWh


Nuclear produced more electricity than all of the other clean sources combined. And the progressives want to shut down nuclear. This isn't about reducing CO2. This is about implementing a political agenda.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
First of all, ...

Second,...


Nope. First of all there are approximately ZERO farm tractors and harvesters and semi trucks that don't use diesel today. There are no factories that make any that aren't diesel today with a very minor ramp up by Tesla, Mercedes and others doing semis in the next few years.
No one will have any food to eat if we are 100% renewable and/or the fossil fuel tax will drive up the cost of farming long before your list of items.


And the real killer - all those solar panels have typical life spans of 20 years.

Actually, this is not true. The solar panels I had installed ~4 years ago have a 30 year warranty. And it is not as if they stop working after 30 years...this is just the warranty on the degradation of the output. Mine have a 0.75% degradation per year over 30 years warranty. The newer panels being made today by the same company have a 0.375% degradation per year warranty.
To do the math on this...after 28 years you still are at ~90% of full capacity.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" The solar panels I had installed ~4 years ago have a 30 year warranty. And it is not as if they stop working after 30 years...this is just the warranty on the degradation of the output. Mine have a 0.75% degradation per year over 30 years warranty. The newer panels being made today by the same company have a 0.375% degradation per year warranty.
To do the math on this...after 28 years you still are at ~90% of full capacity."

Your warranty is only as good as the company making them.

Likely, half the solar panels in use today were made by companies that don't exist any longer.....or won't be in five or ten years.

For much of the US, solar panels will never pay off.....great in CA an AZ and TX.....not so great in AK, ID, MT, and ND and VT and ME.

Hope you had better installers than Solar City/Tesla and the flaming installations they did now burning down Walmart stores.....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mshmidt: Mine have a 0.75% degradation per year over 30 years warranty.

Not bad. In 30 years they still produce almost 80% 0f the original power.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CNC:" In 30 years they still produce almost 80% 0f the original power."

Assuming the hail doesn't get it first.

I've replaced my roof TWICE in 28 years due to hail damage. FIrst time was one inch diameter hail stones. The fence around the back of the house looked like someone took a shotgun to every square foot of fence with a dent in every square inch of fence. Second time wasn't quite so bad but totalled the roof again.

Hate to think what that would have done to a roof full of solar panels. Or a field full of them.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Your warranty is only as good as the company making them.


Very true. However, even if the manufacturer and the installer go out of business, the design of the panels is such that they are likely to last 30 years or more. Which means, as you assumed, that they WON'T need to be replaced after 20 years unless my specific ones fail. On average over many thousands of installations, most will still be producing plenty of power after 20, 30 or more years. Plus even if a single panel fails it can be removed or replaced -- they are the ultimate in modularity.

In my specific case the manufacturer's warranty is 25 years at the degradation stated. The installer adds an additional 5 years plus a warranty on the inverter and one free temporary removal for roof repair, if needed. The installer has been in the roofing business for over 35 years and installing solar for 20+ years.

Mine crossed the 50% paid for threshold 2-3 months ago. The second 50% will be faster due to the fact that utility rates are increasing much faster than the degradation.


Hope you had better installers than Solar City/Tesla and the flaming installations they did now burning down Walmart stores.....

As best I can tell from the stories... they put in breakers that were too small. No fear of that in my small residential system. I have a 40 amp breaker but my system only generates 3.3 kw. So that would be a peak of about 28 amps at 120v. IIRC, it is really ~3.3 kw dc and ~3.1 kw ac out of the inverter. On most sunny days the logged peak is 2.5 to 2.8 kw.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Another way to look at it is to look at the growth rate over the last 5 years.

Nuclear generation growth in last 5 years
807,078 - 797,166 = 9,912 GWh

Clean generation growth from in last 5 years
Hydro 291,724 - 259,367 = 32,357 GWh
Wind 274,952 - 181,655 = 93,297 GWh
Solar (LS) - 66,604 - 17,691 = 48,913 GWh
Solar (SS) - 29,543 - 11,233 = 18,310 GWh
Total growth = 192,877 GWh

So clean generation grew almost 20 times faster than nuclear power.

Looks like clean generation will pass nuclear generation in 2020.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Clean generation growth from in last 5 years
Hydro 291,724 - 259,367 = 32,357 GWh
Wind 274,952 - 181,655 = 93,297 GWh
Solar (LS) - 66,604 - 17,691 = 48,913 GWh
Solar (SS) - 29,543 - 11,233 = 18,310 GWh
Total growth = 192,877 GWh

------------------------------------

Also in the last 5 years, generation from natural gas grew by 341,404 GWh, somewhat larger than the growth of hydro, wind and solar recorded above.
1,468,013 - 1,126,609 = 341,404

At an average heat rate of 7812 BTU/kwh (last year recorded), and a natural gas emission factor of 53 kgCO2/million BTU, that natural gas generation produces...
(341,404 GWh) x (1000 MWh/GWh) x (1000 kwh/MWh) x (7812 BTU/kwh) x (53 kg/1E6 BTU) x (1 Tonne/1000 kg) = 141,353,546 tonnes of CO2 per year

141 million tonnes of CO2 per year from the growth in nat gas.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

You could argue that the decrease in coal was larger than the increase in natural gas, which is true. However, the growth of natural gas generation is still larger than the growth in renewables, by quite a margin.

Bottom line: Intermittent, low capacity factor and non-dispatchable renewables (solar, wind) plus natural gas will always produce more CO2 than nuclear. This is why Germany's Energiewende has been such a failure. France (and Sweden) (and Quebec, Canada) with their nuclear power fleets produce much cleaner electricity than Germany's much praised renewables with needed back-up fossil fuels.

Updated for 2018...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAqsjV0UIAA573d?format=jpg

Germany: 510 grams of CO2 per kwh
France: 51 grams of CO2 per kwh

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I previously wrote:
France (and Sweden) (and Quebec, Canada) with their nuclear power fleets produce much cleaner electricity than Germany's much praised renewables with needed back-up fossil fuels.
----------------------------

Oops. I mixed up my Canadian provinces. That should be Ontario, not Quebec.

http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html

Quebec's electricity is very clean, too, but that is mostly hydro. Ontario has the big nuclear fleet.

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-en...

As I have written before, you can have a clean electricity system with 1) a big portion of hydro (Norway, Quebec), 2) a big portion of nuclear (France), or 3) a mixture of hydro and nuclear (Sweden, Ontario). No industrial nation that I know of has achieved below 100 grams CO2/kwh on a consistent basis with intermittent renewables and fossil fuel backup. You also need the water resources to properly use hydro in a big way. Not every country or region has that opportunity.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You also need the water resources to properly use hydro in a big way.

You also need the water resources to properly use nuclear in a big way. It takes a huge amount to cool those reactors, preferably fresh water (less corrosion), but a lot of seawater is also used. Salem, NJ; Oyster Creek, NJ; Fukushima, Japan; ....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You also need the water resources to properly use nuclear in a big way. It takes a huge amount to cool those reactors, preferably fresh water (less corrosion), but a lot of seawater is also used.
-----------------------------------------

Then how do you explain the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest nuclear power plant in the nation, located in the middle of the Arizona desert?

I know the answer to that question. Do you?

Also, do you know how much water is used in the manufacture of the semiconductors that go into solar panels? That water needs to be super clean, and highly processed. And it is not a small amount.

The point is there are engineering solutions to engineering problems. But scare-mongering against nuclear is so much fun, isn't it?!!!

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bottom line: Intermittent, low capacity factor and non-dispatchable renewables (solar, wind) plus natural gas will always produce more CO2 than nuclear. This is why Germany's Energiewende has been such a failure. France (and Sweden) (and Quebec, Canada) with their nuclear power fleets produce much cleaner electricity than Germany's much praised renewables with needed back-up fossil fuels.

=================================================================

Wrong bottom line!

The real bottom line: Wind, hydro, solar and other clean energy sources along with energy storage will continue to grow and replace coal, oil and natural gas power plants. New nuclear power has stalled because it has been proven to be too expensive, too long in construction, generating high & low level radioactive waste that must be carefully managed, and serious concerns about nuclear plant safety from human error and natural phenomena. The growth of natural gas has good because it has forced the closure of hundreds of old, inefficient coal, oil and natural gas power plants. But natural gas will be phased out after coal power plants are abandoned.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sanders would harness the resources of the U.S. government itself to generate renewable power that would be "publicly owned." Under his plan, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the federal power marketing administrations that now focus on hydropower would build wind, solar and geothermal installations, too.

Sanders says that selling electricity from those agencies would help offset the cost of his project - and after 2035 that renewable power would be "virtually free aside from operations and maintenance costs."

DB2

======================================================================

French government generates nuclear power that is "publicly owned."

The US government already owns and operates many hydro-electric and nuclear power plants in the US. They provide low cost electrical power to the local grids.

Having the US government own and operate renewable power facilities is a great idea.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Then how do you explain the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest nuclear power plant in the nation, located in the middle of the Arizona desert?

"The Palo Verde Generating Station is located in the Arizona desert, and is the only large nuclear power plant in the world that is not located near a large body of water."

There is a reason why it is the only one not located near a large body of water.

The point is there are engineering solutions to engineering problems. But scare-mongering against nuclear is so much fun, isn't it?!!!

It is no fun at all. Is the problem of nuclear waste generation an engineering problem, an economic problem, a political problem, or a moral problem? In my view, it is all of these and simply applying engineering solutions to it is doomed to failure. Is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station* going to make sufficient profits during its period of operation that it can pay for proper disposal of the nuclear waste, or are the taxpayers for the next quarter of a million years have to pay for that? Most of those taxpayers will never benefit from the construction and operation of that installation.

_____
* Or should it be called the Palo Verde Nuclear Waste Generating Station since it generates nuclear waste in addition to electrical power.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Sanders says that selling electricity from those agencies would help offset the cost of his project - and after 2035 that renewable power would be "virtually free aside from operations and maintenance costs."


Yeah, we heard that about nuclear power which was going to be so cheap and plentiful, they wouldn't even bother to meter it.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sanders says that selling electricity from those agencies would help offset the cost of his project - and after 2035 that renewable power would be "virtually free aside from operations and maintenance costs."
---
The US government already owns and operates many hydro-electric and nuclear power plants in the US. They provide low cost electrical power to the local grids. Having the US government own and operate renewable power facilities is a great idea.


Does this mean that residential customers in California will only pay about ten cents per kWhr (similar to TVA customers)?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Count me out of all of it. Count me out for any carbon tax, or carbon fee and dividend, or whatever the latest scheme might be. I do not trust that any of the politicians are acting in good faith to actually do something meaningful. They have other agendas.


By turning your back on global warming regulation/economic measures you turn your back on nuclear power's main hope to be a relevant player in the energy economy. Your cynical anti-government stance ignores the meaningful progress that Obama made on this issue.

You constantly berate 'progressives' like Bernie for their anti-nuclear stances, but you ignore the fact that the Democrats last two Presidential nominees were nuclear-friendly. Obama's environmental regulatory environment was very nuclear-friendly and he also repeatedly worked with the industry to extend deadlines and availability of loan guarantees and tax credits for new nuclear. Hillary specifically campaigned on recognizing nuclear's clean energy production, including promising to reward existing nuclear plants for their ongoing production.

Under Obama's Clean Power Plan and other environmental measures, states had to make plans to reduce their heat-trapping, smog-forming, and toxic pollution. Nuclear offers the only large capacity base-load low-carbon, clean energy solution, so, despite massive problems and cost-overruns, South Carolina's electric utilities were moving forward towards completion of the new Summer nuclear plants. Practically as soon as Trump won the Presidency and began implementing his anti-regulatory agenda, SCE&G and Santee Cooper moth-balled the project.

Why would they keep pouring billions of dollars in a new plant when they can keep running old coal plants indefinitely?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I said Why would they keep pouring billions of dollars in a new plant when they can keep running old coal plants indefinitely?

The old coal plants are cheap for the utility to run, but there is a high economic and personal cost to public health imposed on the US population by those plants.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Ben wrote:
Nuclear offers the only large capacity base-load low-carbon, clean energy solution, so, despite massive problems and cost-overruns, South Carolina's electric utilities were moving forward towards completion of the new Summer nuclear plants. Practically as soon as Trump won the Presidency and began implementing his anti-regulatory agenda, SCE&G and Santee Cooper moth-balled the project.
-------------------------------------

I am not the kind of person who necessarily gives credit to a president if something good happens during his/her administration. Neither do I necessarily assign blame to them for everything bad that happens. But that seems to be the way politics is played today, so here is a list of things that happened during President Obama's time in office.

Obama promoted Gregory Jaczko to be chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jaczko was already on the commission (due to political maneuvering by Harry Reid), but Obama made him the chairman. Jaczko almost immediately ran the agency into the ground, with his bullying and harassment style of other other commission members, as well as harassment of support staff. The other commission members eventually mutinied, sending a letter of concern to Congress. After some hearings, Jaczko was eventually forced out, and he was Obama's (and Harry Reid's) choice.

Obama killed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Under George W. Bush, real progress was being made to eventually open Yucca as the solution for what we are going to do with spend fuel, in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Act, that had already been passed by Congress. Obama and Reid killed it. They simply chose to ignore the law and stopped any further progress. Even the New York Times had to admit that it was all politics.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10...

Like I said, you can't give blame or credit for everything that happens during any president's term, but here is a list of occurrences during Obama's time.

Shut down the Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin. (2013)
Shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. (2014)
Shut down the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska. (2016)
Offered no help in keeping the San Onofre plant in operation.

New Nuclear projects cancelled during the Obama years:
Bell Bend (Aug 2016)
Bellefonte (Mar 2016)
Callaway (Aug 2015)
Calvert Cliffs (June 2015)
Comanche Peak (Nov 2013)
Grand Gulf (Feb 2015)
Nine Mile Point (Nov 2013)
River Bend (Dec 2015)
Shearon Harris (Apr 2013)
Victoria County (Jun 2010)

Construction/Operation licenses issued during Obama, but were eventually cancelled or put on indefinite hold:
Fermi
Levy County
North Anna
South Texas Project
Turkey Point
William States Lee

Truth is, almost all of these projects were cancelled because of the collapse in the price of natural gas, in conjunction with the large subsidies given to renewables, which caused a collapse in wholesale power prices. The drop in natural gas pricing was due to the new hydraulic fracturing technologies that came into widespread use during the Obama years. Obama didn't invent the technology, but he was in office at the time, so I guess he gets credit. Using that logic, Obama did more to jumpstart the fossil fuel industry than any recent president.

President Obama Gets It: Fracking Is Awesome
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/02/12/pr...

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am not the kind of person who necessarily gives credit to a president if something good happens during his/her administration. Neither do I necessarily assign blame to them for everything bad that happens. But that seems to be the way politics is played today...

Who is doing that? Straw man much?

I talk about the impact of specific clean air policies such as the Clean Power Plan, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and other regulations based on the Clean Air Act which would have made it difficult to impossible to continue operating the old, out of date coal plants, many of which do not have ANY pollution control on them. More modern coal plants with up to date pollution controls could continue operating, but the Clean Power Plan would have squeezed them out over time.

Fracking did change the energy scene in the US. Abundant and cheap natural gas was a major factor in the cancellation of all those proposed nuclear plants. I give Obama little credit for that other than that he did not interfere with the fracking revolution, which made him hated by the more extreme Greens.

I do blame Obama and Harry Reid for shutting down the Nevada nuclear waste dump, and I think that was a bad idea. Result of political horse trading that probably was the price for passing the Affordable Care Act through the Senate.

My comment remains true that robust air pollution laws including addressing global warming and heat trapping pollution is the only way that I see nuclear having any prayer of competing in the US.

Trump appears to be in the pocket of the fossil fuel companies and has shown zero interest in nuclear from what I can tell.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pete wrote, making up an argument with a strawman: Obama didn't invent the [fracking] technology, but he was in office at the time, so I guess he gets credit. Using that logic, Obama did more to jumpstart the fossil fuel industry than any recent president.

I've rarely heard anybody give Obama credit for the fracking revolution in oil and natural gas production. So, yeah, you're just making up more straw men to argue against. Though, in truth, some of the more the extreme Greens, who you so hate for their opposition to nuclear, also considered Obama's lack of heavy regulation of fracking as a horrible mis-judgement, a sell-out to the fossil fuel industry that warranted their opposition of him and his heir apparent, Hillary Clinton.

Instead of arguing against straw men, why don't you instead address my main point:

Why would [South Carolina utilities] keep pouring billions of dollars in a new nuclear plant when they can keep running old coal plants indefinitely?

A reactionary anti-regulation agenda like Trump embraces regarding fossil fuels spells doom for nuclear in the US.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
According to Ben:
Pete wrote, making up an argument with a strawman...
So, yeah, you're just making up more straw men to argue against...
Instead of arguing against straw men, why don't you...

--------------------------------

Rather than accusing me of making up false arguments, maybe you should listen to Barack Obama himself taking credit for the increase in oil production during his watch:

2-minute video
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4763205/obama-oil-production

Obama: "Suddenly, America is like the biggest oil producer and the biggest... [gas?]. That was me, people."
Such a humble guy.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pete scores a point, while still basically arguing against a straw man: you should listen to Barack Obama himself taking credit for the increase in oil production during his watch:

Still avoiding answering the main point of my argument, I see. Okay, sure some people will give Obama some credit for the big increase in oil/natural gas production during his 8 year Presidency. No surprise a politician like him would claim that credit, and to be fair, he deserves it, since he could have put a regulatory clamp down onto the new industry, but he did not, angering the Greens. But, I didn't bring up anything so tenuous as his not adding new regulations on oil and natural gas production. Instead I named specific clean air regulations that he put in place that benefit nuclear and were a major part of his meaningful multi-pronged attack on smog-forming, toxic and heat-trapping pollution.

So if you'd like to address the point instead of wandering off down side alleys:

Why would South Carolina utilities keep pouring billions of dollars in a new nuclear plant when they can keep running old coal plants indefinitely?

A reactionary anti-regulation agenda like Trump embraces regarding fossil fuels spells doom for nuclear in the US.

I perceive a contradiction in your heavy boosterism of nuclear paired with your professed lack of faith in government action. Nuclear has only ever succeeded when heavily promoted by government, and its biggest success story, France, is a story of nuclear Socialism: government owned and operated nuclear power.

I take it heavy government intervention in the energy economy is to be avoided ... unless government is boosting the industry you earn a living in?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ben asks:
Why would South Carolina utilities keep pouring billions of dollars in a new nuclear plant when they can keep running old coal plants indefinitely?
----------------------------------

I don't know what you mean by "indefinitely" in that sentence? According to my on-line dictionary, Indefinitely means: unclear, vague, lacking precise limits. In other words, "not definite".

That's kinda the point. Utilities can see there is little future in coal, despite the rhetoric from Mr. Trump. They knew the pressures that the Obama administration was putting on coal, and it is quite likely any future Democratic administration will put those pressures back on. Trump isn't going to be president forever, despite what those idiot conspiracy theorists on MSNBC and CNN might say. Trump may leave office in January 2021 or 2025, but he will be gone.

A Carolina utility CEO or Board of Directors with a long range time horizon is not going to shut down a nuclear construction project, that they have already spent several $ billion on, just so they can operate some coal plants for a few more years with lax regulation from one administration. However, a utility CEO that is only concerned with his company's stock performance in the present quarter, may decide to shut down a problematic construction project so he can keep his company's dividend or stock price up in the short term. I don't know what the SCANA officials were thinking when they cancelled Summer 2 & 3. I'm not psychic.

If Trump is trying to save the coal industry, he is doing a crappy job of it. Electricity generation from coal was trending down under Obama, and is continuing to go down under Trump. From the latest EIA monthly report (note: a new report is due Monday, 8/26, so these numbers will change somewhat as the June numbers are added.)

Year-to-Date, Electricity Generation from Coal, through May.

2017- 465,631 GWh
2018- 440,167
2019- 391,567

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

Coal plants continue to announce closures.
https://www.sj-r.com/news/20190821/power-plants-in-coffeen-a...

I don't think the Summer nuclear project was cancelled just because the South Carolina utilities wanted to keep burning coal for Donald Trump. I think their financial analysis was more complicated than that. I certainly wish they had continued to keep building. In the long run, a nuclear plant that operates for 60 or 80 years is a good asset to have.
---------------------------------------

Ben also says:
I perceive a contradiction in your heavy boosterism of nuclear paired with your professed lack of faith in government action.

Its not that I lack faith in any government action. I have lack of faith in any government headed by Bernie Sanders. Don't get me wrong. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 and have no plans to vote for him next year. But I surely won't be supporting any of these leading Dems, including that despicable liar Joe Biden.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't know what you mean by "indefinitely" in that sentence? According to my on-line dictionary, Indefinitely means: unclear, vague, lacking precise limits. In other words, "not definite".


Well, this dance of trying to move along the retirement or pollution control upgrade of old coal plants began with Bill Clinton introducing various clean air laws, reversed by Bush Jr. ... so we're already going on 20 years ... who's to say it's not another 20 years before the grip of fossil fuel money on the US government is broken? That's what I mean by indefinite.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pete writes a really ignorant post. Pete claims he knows something about nuclear power, but thus post shows total ignorance of why these nuclear power plants were cancelled:

New Nuclear projects cancelled during the Obama years:
Bell Bend (Aug 2016)
Bellefonte (Mar 2016)
Callaway (Aug 2015)
Calvert Cliffs (June 2015)
Comanche Peak (Nov 2013)
Grand Gulf (Feb 2015)
Nine Mile Point (Nov 2013)
River Bend (Dec 2015)
Shearon Harris (Apr 2013)
Victoria County (Jun 2010)

Construction/Operation licenses issued during Obama, but were eventually cancelled or put on indefinite hold:
Fermi
Levy County
North Anna
South Texas Project
Turkey Point
William States Lee

====================================================

The reason for the cancellation of these projects was the bad economics of nuclear power and the Fukushima nuclear disaster, on March 11, 2011, where 3 nuclear power plants exploded and released radioactivity, 100,000 people were evacuated, homes/jobs/businesses were lost because of the contamination.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Pete writes:

However, a utility CEO that is only concerned with his company's stock performance in the present quarter, may decide to shut down a problematic construction project so he can keep his company's dividend or stock price up in the short term. I don't know what the SCANA officials were thinking when they cancelled Summer 2 & 3. I'm not psychic.

==============================================================

LOL!

Pete is pretending to a nuclear power expert. SCANA cancelling the project had nothing to do with stock performance.

Pete does not understand the economics of utilities and the role of the public utilities commissions to regulate utilities for the good of the public. SCANA could no longer finance the project because the public utilities commission refused to approve more and more rate increases to pay for the over budget project and much delayed construction. Also Westinghouse the prime construction contractor and reactor supplier went bankrupt.

Remember about 6 years ago Pete was telling us that the Vogtle and Summer construction problems were not that serious and that it was just normal for first of a kind project.

Remember Pete never told us that each project would cost over $25 billion and be over 10 years late.

Remember Pete said the projects would never need the government loan guarantees and PTCs.

The US government has had to increase the loan guarantee for Vogtle and extend the deadline for PTC for Vogtle. The US government will need to do another round of loan guarantee increases and PTC extensions in a couple of years.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top