Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
projects.propublica.org
projects.propublica.org
The mind boggles. I've got to the point where I think subsidies for nuclear power are entirely justifiable.
You mean wind, solar, geothermal, (existing) hydro, and utility scale battery storage.
There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.
Because that is where "here" is.
[1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see...
[2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta...
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f...
EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).
From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest).
> So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?
However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that:
- Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.
- Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
- They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, utility scale battery storage, or home storage if you prefer (Tesla PowerWall).
> Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
Both are already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, to the point where Exelon (who operates the largest US fleet of commercial nuclear generators has to pay consumers to take their power 10-20% of the time due to wind generation).
> They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
I concede that utility solar and wind are safer than rooftop solar. I'd argue you can make installing solar on roofs pretty damn safe if you follow OSHA guidelines.
As for cheaper, it's still slightly more (30%) for PV solar than for nuclear (as far as I can tell). That will continue to come down, which is great. The cheapest clean energy is actually geothermal, but there are only so many places where the plate tectonics work with our current drilling technology. Ironically, drilling advancements for fracking and deep wells will open up the field for geothermal in many more places.
As for safety, the 5x number was for plant solar, not rooftop. Production of silicon PV panels is not clean, nor is it safe shipping millions of them around the world. However, the safety is so much higher than coal that I shouldn't really be complaining.
[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-po...
Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.
Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".
Do I possess enough capital to personally fund an entire nuclear program? No.
Does that invalidate my opinion? No.
My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in: 1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship. 2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to. 3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors.
I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses.
Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.
Also, unlike coal, nuclear, hydro (to some extent), and natural gas, wind and solar are intermittant - on cloudy or calm days, they do not produce peak power. If we want to replace a stable constant base load plant, we need something that can offer the same guarantees.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
Wind generation has minimal environmental costs (it requires no fuel, kills less birds than buildings and cats each year, and also requires no water as opposed to coal and nuclear plants):
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewa...
http://energy.gov/eere/wind/environmental-impacts-and-siting...
> If we want to replace a stable constant base load plant, we need something that can offer the same guarantees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/eos-utility-scale-battery-st... (utility scale battery storage already cost competitive with natural gas in 2013)
otherwise, we need a bit more study..
e.g. I vaguely remember some factoid about how some significant amount of top-soil in the Amazon rain forest is attributed to top-soil/sand from Africa? Also, I just googled "deforestation affect wind" and got some interesting results.
I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
That is a fair point. I disagree with you that nuclear is an option.
> I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
How do you propose the following problems with nuclear be solved:
* Long term waste disposal
* Liability/insurance
* Funding for construction costs
* Completing construction of generation units in a reasonable timeframe (<10 years)
Without answers to the above, whether nuclear delivers with regards to capacity is a moot point.
The federal government has to be the insurer of last resort for the time being. I think this is a very manageable risk.
Likewise to a lesser extent for construction costs. After the current construction in GA is done I think we'll have a much better idea of where we stand; remember that's the first expansion of our nuclear fleet in ~30 years and data from that project has the merit of being pretty current in terms of logistics, technique, and environmental/regulatory constraints, making it a better model than past white elephant projects.
I vote with my wallet; I put 6+ figures into SolarCity SolarBonds, I ride my legislators hard (showing up in person at their office to advocate for solar and wind tax credits), etc. If you believe in nuclear, I encourage you to do the same sort of activities.
From another energy article today I found this, may be just what the doctor ordered:
http://qz.com/426718/japan-is-building-huge-solar-power-plan...
While nuclear would be a big step, it seems like solar could be introduced immediately piece by piece to reduce the coal burden.
How does that work out? Shouldn't mass be conserved?
[1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=liters+of+oxygen+in+440...
Help me out. Where does the extra carbon come from? (or did they mean CO2... in that case wow, burning the coal doubles its weight with collected oxygen!)
> At sunrise, a reddish-brown snake slithers across the sky as the burned coal sends out plumes of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead and other metals. That malignant plume — containing 16 million tons of carbon dioxide every year — contributes to causing the very overheated weather, drought and dwindling flows of water the plant’s power is intended to relieve.
First, of all, words like "infernos", "gobble", "slithers", and "malignant" are clearly designed to provoke emotion, not just inform.
Then, the plant causes 29 percent of Arizona's pollution? How much of Arizona's power does it generate? Does it pollute more than the average for the amount of power it produces?
Then there's lumping in carbon dioxide with mercury and lead. Even if you consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant (as the EPA does), it's in a bit different class than mercury.
Then there's the connection of CO2 to the drought. That's suspected, perhaps even strongly suspected, but it's not proven. Anthropogenic climate change can cause a bunch of effects, from heat to cold to drought to flooding, but it's problematic to prove that any one effect is caused by CO2, when so many possible different effects could be caused by it.
That's just in two paragraphs of the article. That's enough for me to call both hyperbole and alarmism.
Look, the reality may be alarming. But creating an alarmist tone serves no useful purpose. For some people, it trips their propaganda detectors. For others, it creates alarm burnout. "Yeah, the world is ending from yet one more cause. Yawn. What happened on Game Of Thrones?"
But this article is the one we're discussing here, so this article is the one I'm criticizing here.