Colorado Shows How It's Done
30% Renewables by 2020, Efficiency, and Phaseout of Coal Plants
Graphics: CO Climate Action Plan
April 24, 2010
by Craig Severance
As the U.S. Senate now prepares to consider a new climate bill, Congress can consider how readiily climate action can take hold, through the example of Colorado. This politically diverse state has aggressively embraced climate action as a way to grow its economy.
Bipartisan Support. Colorado's action plan is noteworthy because key elements of the plan have received strong bi-partisan support, in a "purple" Swing State that is neither dependably Democratic nor Republican. As an example, the latest measure adopted -- a bill to encourage conversion of older coal-fired power plants to cleaner natural gas -- was co-sponsored by the Republican Senate Minority Leader Sen. Josh Penry and several other Republicans, along with most Democrats and Democratic Governor Bill Ritter.
This strong support for climate action is remarkable, considering Colorado is one of the nation's most heavily coal-dependent states.
Coal Was King. As recently as 2005, Colorado relied upon coal to supply over two thirds of its electricity, making Colorado far more dependent on pollution-spewing coal than the nation as a whole, which averages around half of total electricity from coal. Coal has been cheap yet produces massive carbon dioxide emissions which cause global warming. The idea of a major coal-dependent state such as Colorado becoming a climate change leader was thus a daunting challenge.
Colorado is nevertheless now leading the way to achieve one of the highest reductions in carbon emissions anywhere in the world. Colorado is on track to achieve a total 30% reduction by 2020 in CO2 emissions from its electric power industry. This is far ahead of 17% reduction by 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goals set in Congressional climate legislation -- showing that even a "coal state" can far exceed those goals.
As the nation's 8th largest coal-producing state, Colorado could have chosen to resist climate change action like many other states with strong coal lobbies. However, led by Colorado's own citizens through a 2004 renewable power initiative, strong leadership by Governor Bill Ritter and bipartisan action by the Colorado legislature, Colorado is instead showing "how it's done" to the rest of the country and the world.
Click here to read full article.
San Antonio: New Economy Leader or Nuclear Guinea Pig?
Photo: Mural at Construction site in beautiful downtown San Antonio, TX
September 19, 2009
by Craig Severance
SAN ANTONIO, TX -- San Antonio's new Mayor Julian Castro, in office just three months, has inherited a dilemma. The nation's 7th largest city is suffering from almost 8% unemployment. With limited resources, the Mayor and City Council are searching for ways to create local jobs. At the same time, the City, through its municipal utility City Public Service (CPS), is burning through hundreds of millions of dollars on just paperwork, to prepare to spend billions on a new nuclear power plant project some 200 miles away at Bay City, TX.
Should the Mayor and the City Council question the wisdom of rushing ahead with the nuclear project, or approve CPS continuing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to prepare applications for CPS to buy a 40% share of two new reactors proposed for the South Texas Project? CPS says the two new reactors, to be co-owned with NRG Inc., would help the utility meet power demands projected for 2020 and beyond -- over 10 years away.
$400 Million Bond Issue. The issue comes to a head next month, when the City Council must approve or disapprove CPS issuing $400 million in bonds to continue its spending on the project. The monies will not be used to actually begin construction --- that would be years away -- but to prepare the enormously complex engineering, design, and environmental applications required for a new nuclear power project.
Local citizen groups, however, say a far better use of such monies would be to help CPS fund aggressive energy conservation, Smart Grid, and solar energy programs to help citizens cut utility bills. Such programs would immediately create local jobs -- and cut electric growth so the nuclear projects would not be needed.
"First in U.S." CPS and NRG, Inc. are rushing the proposal, as they say the South Texas Project expansion will be the first new nuclear plants to be built in the U.S. in over 30 years. They hope to be first in line to receive Federal Nuclear Loan Guarantees under an $18.5 Billion program authorized by Congress.
Many San Antonions question the wisdom of rushing to be the guinea pig for the nuclear industry, which has a history of massive cost overruns. They challenge whether it is even a good idea to be first. Why not let someone else find out whether the nuclear industry has learned how to build plants on-budget?
Nuclear Debate Held Wednesday, September 16th. With so much at stake, San Antonio civic leaders have taken extraordinary measures to open up the process to public scrutiny. The San Antonio News Express , led by Editor Robert Rivard, has for months run articles on the nuclear proposal. Open meetings have been sponsored by the utility in many neighborhoods.
As a peak event in this public discussion, The San Antonio Clean Technology Forum, led by civic leader Michael Burke, organized a sold-out luncheon debate this past Wednesday, attended by 400 of San Antonio's leading citizens. Tables were sold to major companies and organizations, and all news media were invited.
The Clean Technology Forum invited myself and Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, to debate the wisdom of the new nuclear project. Supporting the project were Steve Bartley, CPS Interim General Manager, and Patrick Moore, who is a paid spokesperson for the nuclear power industry. Mayor Julian Castro keynoted the event, which was gracefully moderated by Bob Rivard, Express-News Editor.
View the Actual Debate. The video of the full debate can be viewed here:
Click HERE to go to TexasVox site with Videos of Debate.
I encourage readers to view the full debate to hear the exchange for themselves, as it was quite lively. Each speaker had only 12 minutes, followed by audience Q&A and a 2 minute close, so it's not too long.
Click here to read entire article.
Enabling Wind, Sun To Be Our Main Power Supplies
Quest for Storage -- "Holy Grail" of New Energy Economy -- Nears Goal
August 29, 2009
By Craig Severance
As the world meets this December to set plans to halt global warming, it is expected America and other industrial nations will commit to a daunting task: reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. In just 40 years, a complete revolution in how we use and supply our power must happen, or the world will face catastrophic effects of runaway climate changes.
As a new power plant typically lasts 40-50 years, many scientists are now arguing we must simply stop building new power systems that use significant amounts of fossil fuels. They argue we must move to a high reliance on the wind and the sun for our electricity.
Abundant Power. The U.S. has enormous wind resources, capable of generating over 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
The sunlight falling on our deserts, parking lots, and rooftops has even more power -- enough to supply 69% of U.S. electricity by 2050 according to published studies.
Other renewable power sources -- such as geothermal energy, municipal waste-to-energy, and biomass -- will also play a role, but they pale in size compared to the gargantuan resources of wind and sunlight.
How We Use Energy vs. How Nature Provides. Though nature provides all the energy we may need, there is a problem. We demand power literally "at the flick of a switch", not just when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
This basic fact about how we use power versus how nature supplies clean energy has caused many to discount the idea that wind or solar power can ever supply more than a small fraction of our electricity. Critics of renewable electricity call it "intermittent" and "unreliable". They say we can't "catch the wind", nor can we command the sun to always shine.
These critics see two possible choices for the future. We can develop more stable supplies of renewable energy by coupling wind and solar projects with storage. Failing that, they argue we should give up on renewables as a primary source of electricity, and instead build more nuclear power.
The flaw in the nuclear path, beyond its tremendous cost, long lead times, and imported fuel, is that nuclear is not actually "dispatchable" power. Nuclear plants are designed to run all the time at fairly steady output -- meaning nuclear power cannot provide the "peaking power" now provided by gas turbines. Thus, a nuclear path would still rely heavily on fossil fuel power plants to "ramp up" on a daily basis to provide the power needed during these daily swings.
A truly dispatchable system providing over 80% reductions in carbon emissions, therefore, must rely on some form of energy storage. The energy storage can allow us to fully utilize wind and sunlight as our main power sources -- supplying both "base load" power and dispatchable daily peaking power with energy from these inexhaustible supplies.
Click here to read entire article.
Solar You Can Count On
Hybrid Solar/Natural Gas Plants Provide Power When Needed
Source: Skyfuel Source: BrightSource Energy
August 18, 2009
by Craig Severance
By far the largest source of safe, clean energy that will never run out (i.e. renewable energy) available in the United States is the sunlight falling on the unused deserts of the Southwest. This attractive source of energy produces no nuclear waste, no carbon dioxide or mercury emissions, and none is imported from foreign countries.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy enough sunlght falls in just the unused, nonsensitive areas of our SW deserts to generate over twice the total kWh's now consumed in the entire U.S..
SW Solar Now. In June, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar opened up 24 of the SW's sunniest areas on Bureau of Land Management lands in six states to begin leasing for installation of up to 100,000 MW of solar power plants. (See here for article on the Interior Department announcement). The first plants could be operating within 3 to 4 years in these ideal locations, which were chosen for maximum clear sunny days and minimal impact on the environment or other land uses.
Sun Doesn't Shine All the Time. Although the SW sunshine resource is enormous and largely untapped, critics of solar energy routinely note the sun does not shine all the time. The implication is that power is needed all the time, and since the sun is not always available, solar opponents say it would be foolish to invest in generating electricity from the sun.
Grid Can Use Solar. Utilizing solar electricity when the sun does shine is not really a major problem for the electric grid, until the percentage of power generated by solar reaches high percentages. This is because roughly 50% of the electrical capacity on the grid consists of load-following power plants (chiefly natural gas and hydroelectric), which can quickly reduce power output when a renewable resource such as solar or wind is available, and increase output when needed. The ability of the grid to absorb a high percentage of power from renewables has been documented by the U.S. Department of Energy and was discussed in my article "The Wind does NOT Blow Only 1/3 of the Time" here.
The output from a solar power plant also fits very well with the times when power is most needed. Most utilities see increased demand for electricity during daylight hours, with peak demands occurring on hot sunny days when a solar power plant produces well. By the same token, less power is needed at night.
It is generally agreed, however, that extending the percentage of our electricity generated by renewable power sources above 20-30% will require means to better regulate the grid (see "Smart Grid" article here), more efficiently supplement renewable power, or store it for later use.
Solar Thermal Offers More Choices. Solar photovoltaics (PV) require storage of their electrical energy output to extend their use into evening and cloudy hours. Methods the electric grid can use to store electrical energy include batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro or compressed air energy storage.
The "other" kind of solar power -- Solar Thermal power -- offers more choices to integrate with the grid to provide reliable power.
Instead of directly converting the sun's rays into electricity, Solar Thermal plants use mirrored surfaces to concentrate sunlight to produce high temperatures. This is why they are also called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plants.
The high temperatures are used to boil water to produce superheated steam to generate electricity. This different technology means there are now three different ways that Solar Thermal power plants can provide power when the sun is not shining:
1. Integrate a back-up source of heat (e.g. natural gas) to produce steam.
2. Produce excess solar heat during the day, and store that heat.
3. Grid storage of electrical energy (as with PV or wind).
This expansion of choices means that a Solar Thermal plant can function as a reliable source of "24/7" power to the electrical grid.
Click here to read entire article.
Nuclear Costs -- Who Has "Better Numbers"?
Who Pays if Things Go Wrong?
July 31, 2009
by Craig Severance
On July 10th I debated the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a head-to-head discussion in Washington. (See here for article on the "lively discussion".)
This week NEI published on its blog site NEI Nuclear Notes a very spirited critique (here) of my debate presentation. (My presentation was based upon my detailed study "Business RIsks and Costs of New Nuclear Power", published in January 2009 here.)
Now We're Talking. The NEI fight-back response is welcome in that we are blowing open the "Black Box" of hidden assumptions about the costs of new nuclear power. It is NOT a cordial discussion when one side won't disclose its numbers. I wrote about this in January:
It has unfortunately been the case over the last couple of years that some utilities have begun to claim that even rudimentary basics of their nuclear cost estimates must be hidden from the public as 'trade secrets". For instance, in the South Carolina Electric & Gas proposal to build two reactors now under consideration by the South Carolina PSC, there is literally a large "box" obscuring the bulk of the calculations....In a different case, Duke Energy claimed that it does not even have to disclose its new cost estimates for a proposed nuclear facility in Cherokee County, S.C. In the Duke case, C.Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate... noted, "If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?"
We've come a long way since then, as we are now "duking it out" in a much healthier fashion.
Click here to read full Article.
Boiling The Frog Slowly:
Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late
Image: purpleslog
July 24, 2009
by Craig Severance
There is a well-known story about how to boil a frog. If you try to throw a frog into a pot already boiling, he'll jump out. However, put a frog into a pot and slowly raise the temperature -- and you get frog legs for dinner.
The nuclear power industry seems to be pursuing this strategy, slowly releasing ever higher cost estimates for new nuclear power plants. If the public does not realize the true costs of a new nuclear plant, the industry can obtain political support for the Federal loan guarantees it needs. After the taxpayers are on the hook and a nuclear project is already underway, the full costs will become clear.
At that point, however, it may be too late for taxpayers and utility ratepayers to jump out.
The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW. (If this sounds familiar, recall my January 2009 study estimated a new nuclear project would most likely cost approximately $10,500/kW).
"It's shockingly high," the Star quoted Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto regarding the nuclear bid.
The Province had originally thought the two reactors would cost a total of only about $7 billion, which works out to about $2,900 per kW, according to 2007 estimates. The Star reports "During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas."
Rather than blindly accepting these estimates, however, Ontario authorities were wise enough to require nuclear vendors to submit bids accepting the risk of cost overruns. Once the suppliers were on the hook -- rather than ratepayers and taxpayers -- the true costs of new nuclear power became apparent.
Click here to read full story.
"Lively Discussion" with Nuclear Energy Institute
\
July 23, 2009
by Craig Severance
On July 10th, I participated in a "Lively Discussion" with the Nuclear Energy Institute, represented by Leslie Kass, NEI Director of Business Policy and Program.
The Event, sponsored by the Foundation for Nuclear Studies, was structured as a luncheon in the House Rayburn Office Building, with the primary audience being Congressional staff members. The room was full, with perhaps 70-80 attendees.
It was a very cordial discussion and afterward we all shook hands and posed for pictures. Yet, the differences were sharp.
Is New Nuclear Power Competitive? The Foundation called me to Washington, to discuss the Question of the Day -- Is New Nuclear Power Competitive?
My full Power Point Presentation is here. Some highlights:
Not Competitive if Begging for Subsidies from Taxpayers
The reason we were before Congressional staff in the first place is that the nuclear industry is asking for even more subsidies from taxpayers, in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal Loan Guarantees.
Wall Street rejected any thought of financing new nuclear power plants in 2007, when investment banks wrote the Department of Energy they will not fund any nuclear plants without full Federal Loan Guarantees. The private sector simply regards nuclear power as too expensive and hence too risky.
Four Choices if Your Industry is Not Competitive. The U.S. nuclear industry hasn't had a new order in over 30 years, because utilities have had more economical choices. There are four choices if your industry is not competitive:
1. Go Out of Business (which the new nuclear industry effectively did)
2. Change So You Are More Competitive
3. Become the Only Choice (Monopoly); OR
4. Ask for Taxpayer Dollars for Support
Click here to read full article.
BLM Opens Doors for SW Solar Grand Plan
Map of SW Solar Resources on BLM Lands. Source: BLM.
July 2, 2009
by Craig Severance
Just a year and a half after a breakthrough Solar Grand Plan study was published in the January 2008 Scientific American, the U.S. government has begun plans to implement major elements of such a Plan.
Measures announced Monday by the U.S. Department of the Interior identified initial solar project areas for the extremely sunny desert areas of the U.S. Southwest. These Solar Energy Study Areas could site utility-scale solar projects totaling 100,000 MegaWatts (MW) capacity. By comparison, the extremely successful U.S. wind energy industry had total installed capacity by the end of 1st Qtr 2009 equaling 28,206 MW, and "new nuclear power" Generation III+ nuclear plants installed worldwide to date equals zero MW.
Salazar Announces BLM Plans to "Fast-Track" Solar. On Monday, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, appearing in Las Vegas with Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), announced Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to move quickly on solar projects in the desert Southwest. Plans to "Fast-Track" solar include:
- Identification of 24 "Solar Study Areas" in 6 Western States, on land administered by the BLM. (Click here for detailed state-by-state maps of the Solar Study Areas.)
- In-depth evaluation of these 24 areas will begin immediately for their suitability for "large-scale solar energy production".
- The 24 areas will be segregated from new mining claims and other actions initiated by third parties under public land laws. Existing claims will be honored. This segregation will allow solar resource plans to be evaluated and authorized first before conflicting new resource claims would be considered. The BLM noted that "most of the solar energy study areas are located in alluvial valleys are unlikely to contain significant mineral values".
- 4 new BLM Renewable Energy Coordination Offices -- in Nevada, California, Arizona, and Wyoming (which has major wind resources) will be opened to expedite processing of renewable project applications The NV office opened Monday.
- The BLM has already received applications for 158 SW solar projects. The new processes are expected to complete study area evaluations by the end of 2010, with construction of approved projects to begin thereafter.
Optimum Areas Selected. The announcement by Interior follows exactly two weeks after release on June 15th of the Western Governor's Association "Western Renewable Energy Zones - Phase 1 Report", a collaborative effort of the Western Governors, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, the Interior Department, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. BLM's "Solar Energy Study Areas" were clearly developed in concert with the Western Governor's Association project.
Click here to read full Article.
The Wind does NOT Blow "Only 1/3 of the TIme"
May 8, 2009
by Craig Severance
There are some things that "Everybody Knows" because we have all heard them from (parts of) the popular media:
- "Everybody Knows" Barack Obama is a Muslim Socialist. [He's a Christian, locked in an FDR-like struggle to save capitalism.]
- "Everybody Knows" America has all the oil we need, and environmentalists have kept us from drilling for it. [America's production of crude oil in the lower 48 peaked in 1970-71 because of geological limits predicted in advance by renowned oil company geologist M. King Hubbert.]
- "Everybody Knows" the wind only blows one third of the time.
Right.
The phrase "the wind only blows one third of the time" has been repeated so many times in blogs and interviews by nuclear hawks and Big Oil apologists, it has become "common knowledge".
I have even seen this phrase creep into articles written by proponents of clean energy. A cacophony of voices is now lamenting the intermittency of wind energy, leading many in the public to believe wind cannot offer a serious contribution to U.S. energy needs.
20% of U.S. Electricity Needs Can Be Met by Wind by 2030. This was the conclusion not of some Hollywood celebrity, but of the Bush Administration's Department of Energy, in a landmark study published in July 2008.
DOE projects that U.S. wind energy can grow from installed capacity of 11.5 Gigawatts (1 GW = 1 million Kilowatts) supplying 0.8% of U.S. electricity in early 2007, to a total of 305 GW of capacity by 2030. These wind farms would supply 20% of projected U.S. electricity needs in that year.
The remarkable thing about the DOE study was that it envisions a major expansion of wind energy without any advancement in "energy storage" technology to "make up for" the intermittency of wind by attempting to store it for later use.
How can we do this when everyone knows "the wind does not blow all the time"? Won't the lights go out on a calm day?
Click here to read entire Article.
Smart Grid - "Enabler of the New Energy Economy"
Today's Grid -- not so Smart
Smart People Say......
THE SMART GRID CAN DELIVER!! Graphic: U.S. DOE
April 27, 2009
by Craig Severance
Over the last couple decades we have seen a revolution in communications with the Internet, digital cell phones, GPS, YouTube, and a host of applications the digital era has enabled.
However, your electric utility still has to count on customers calling in to let them know about power outages, and still has to send meter readers to know how much you have used each month.
As an electric customer you are equally in the dark. You have no idea how much your refrigerator or air conditioner consumes, or what would be the most effective way to cut your electric bill. If you use power at night when it costs the utility far less to generate, you don't get a discount because your meter has no clock. All you or your utility know is the total kWh's you consumed each month -- long after the fact, when it is too late to do anything about it.
Because customers receive no price signals that consuming electricity at peak times is very expensive, utilities are forced to build new power plants, just to have enough capacity available for a few dozen hours per year of peak demand. All utility customers now pay this huge cost as part of average rates.
The need to use renewable sources of power is also a major problem for today's electricity grid. One of the largest and cheapest renewable power sources -- wind energy -- produces electricity only when the wind blows. The windiest locations are also hundreds of miles away from large cities, where the power is needed most. Bringing power from these remote locations, and finding ways to store it for use when needed, are challenges to expanding renewable's share of electricity production.
Change is Coming. This is all about to change, spurred by the push to use more renewable energy and implement energy efficiencies, and with help from billions in the Economic Stimulus package. Utilities are now poised to begin a massive upgrade of electric meters and the electricity transmission and distribution grid, with a number of technologies collectively referred to as the "Smart Grid". While this upgrade is expected to cost billions of dollars to implement nationwide, it will save even more.
Click here to read the full Article.
AUSRA: HYBRID SOLAR/NATURAL GAS POWER PLANTS COULD CUT COSTS 1/3
Photo: www.Ausra.com
March 11, 2009
by Craig Severance
Solar power from the sunny Southwest could soon provide relliable and cost-effective electricity, using a new power plant designed to operate around the clock. The proposal could answer naysayers who have argued that solar is impractical as a power source because the sun does not shine all the time.
The new power plants would combine solar and natural gas in one power plant, sharing a common steam turbine. Bob Fishman, CEO of solar company Ausra, said today that combining the two technologies in one facility can slash one third off the cost of solar power, reducing total generation costs to around 7 to 8 cents/kWh.
Ausra's solar thermal concentrating power plants are already a leading technology in the effort to develop electricity from the sun. They work by using a field of mirrored-surface reflectors that concentrate sunlight on tubes filled with water, producing steam to turn a turbine that generates electricity.
Unlike solar photovoltaic panels or wind generators that must use batteries if power needs to be stored, Ausra's steam plants can generate extra heat during daylight hours and store it as very hot fluids, often as molten salts. These very hot fluids are then used during cloudy and nighttime hours to continue production of steam to run the generator, extending power plant operation several hours into the evening.
While Ausra's design provides power during peak usage hours when electricity is most needed, the design has not reached full 24/7 power production entirely from solar energy. Fishman also noted that as stand-alone power plants solar power is now costing 12 to 13 cents per kWh. While this is significantly less than solar photovoltaic panels, it is still more expensive than most fossil fuels.
Because the solar steam power plant cannot operate full time, a utility will often run a load-following natural gas turbine to provide a backup power source. Fishman's proposal would simply combine both the solar and the natural gas heat sources in the same facility, sharing a common steam turbine. The savings from sharing a turbine, and having zero fuel cost solar power most of the time, bring total costs down to a very competitive level.
Fishman made the comments at the Always On Going Green East conference held in Boston, MA, a conference where leading greentech companies present their business plans to a group that includes investors, bankers, journalists, and their peers. Always On Going Green East's major sponsors included Always On, EcoWorld, Scientific American, Morgan Stanley, and KPMG.
Solar Panels: Tapping the Power of "We"
March 9, 2009
by Craig Severance
This past week I was on a panel at the Clean Power Finance Forum in Glenwood Springs, CO, and the question arose - why are solar panels becoming so popular? The discussion was electrified with many possibilities for renewable energy here in Western Colorado, but most especially solar power.
Western Colorado is one of the sunniest parts of the U.S, and has already seen hundreds of solar electric and solar hot water systems installed on homes, businesses, and public buildings. However, solar enthusiasm is not just a function of geography. Even much cloudier parts of the world, such as Germany, are experiencing widespread installations of solar panels.
The excitement for solar cannot be explained entirely by economics. There are many other "green" ways to generate electricity that are less expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Wind farms on the Great Plains beat PV hands-down in any comparison of cost per kWh. Micro-hydro turbines hold great promise, especially in a mountainous region with water literally pouring down from higher elevations. Geothermal electric generation and district heating can be very cost-effective where that resource exists, such as Glenwood Springs, CO, where the workshop was held. Even among solar-only alternatives, it seems that at least for now, solar thermal electric farms are likely to beat solar PV farms for many large utility projects.
Why, then, is there such enthusiasm for solar? The answer becomes clear when you answer this question from the standpoint of the individual homeowner or business owner. It is not just a question of what technology is adopted, but who can implement it.
There are now millions of people who want to help solve the combined global warming, energy dependence, and economic problems, and people are looking for something they can do to reduce their own energy use and cut their own utility bills.
Unless you own a large ranch like T. Boone Pickens, you are not going to be able to put a wind farm in your backyard. You can't drill down below your property and generate electricity from hot rocks. Unless you are a farmer, you won't be burining methane to generate clean energy. However, the sun shines on us all, and it might very well be possible to install a solar hot water and solar electric system.
Tapping into the solar resource, therefore, is a way of tapping into The Power of "We", as in "We Can Solve It", or even "Yes, We Can." Solar energy is something that a great many of us can do,
Click here to read entire Article.
Business Solar System Pays For New Hybrid
March 2, 2009
By Craig Severance
Our 10 KW photovoltaic system for my wife’s office is not only paying for itself -- but also generated enough extra cash flow to buy us a Prius. If you are a business owner thinking of installing a new solar system for your business, here’s how:
To read the full Article and access PDF spreadsheet analysis, click here:
Nuclear, Solar Not Red or Blue
March 1, 2009
by Craig Severance
Within days of the well-publicized release of my new study Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power in January by the Center for American Progress, the Heritage Foundation, the arch-nemesis of CAP, thought it necessary to respond with an article defending nuclear power. Their article, which also gained wide publicity, was entitled New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic.
My purpose in doing the updated nuclear cost study was to open up nuclear costs to public scrutiny, with a detailed cost analysis where all assumptions were clearly spelled out. It is now incumbent upon nuclear supporters to present specific analysis to the contrary. (None has been forthcoming).
Though the title of their article implied I was being "staggeringly pessimistic", Heritage did not actually challenge the assumptions in the Study. Instead they noted:
Aside from the cherry-picking of data and its clear tilt toward Big Green (the vast industrial complex and lobbying machine being built around global warming alarmism), its conclusions are potentially not that far off.
From the above quote, it seems Heritage is a bit paranoid of the green movement (currently being championed by such far-left institutions as Chevron, IBM, and Microsoft). The thrust of the Heritage "rebuttal" was to blame nuclear's staggering cost on environmentalists, and to call for measures to prevent the outcomes predicted in my Study:
The value of the CAP study is to demonstrate why a nuclear renaissance may never unfold unless something is done to ensure that the conditions set forth by the study never come to pass.
Oh, if it were only that easy! The nuclear industry has already achieved its political goals of streamlined applications, restricted intervenor rights, and government subsidies for nuclear power. The nuclear industry even carried off a masterful public relations coup in convincing a majority of the public and policymakers that it could be an important solution to global warming. Public opposition to nuclear power is now far lower than at virtually any time in the past several decades.
In the end, however, none of that matters. Though ideologues may see every issue as a political battle between Left and Right, Blue and Red - these are just power plant projects. They are not liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic. And when the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. (Something about "lipstick on a pig" somehow comes to mind.)
Click here to read the full article.
Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power: The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power
March 1, 2009
By Craig Severance
On January 5, 2009 the Center for American Progress published here my new study Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power which projects that power from new nuclear plants will cost from 25 to 30 cents per kWh -- putting dramatic upward stress on electric rates and financial solvency for utilities which pursue these projects. (Image: Salon)
This staggering cost for new nuclear energy places nuclear power solidly in the "Trash Bin" category of new generation options.
Many will mourn the loss of nuclear power as an "easy" option to reduce carbon emissions, as nuclear has often been the "magic wand" waved by policymakers faced with finding energy solutions. (For further discussion of this point see here.)
The actual costs of new nuclear power, however, bring us face to face with a new "inconvenient truth" -- building new nuclear power plants will actually make global warming worse, because hundreds of billions (indeed, trillions) would be needed to build any substantial fleet of new reactors. If even a fraction of this money were instead spent on other low-carbon choices such as energy efficiency, wind, geothermal, and solar, vastly greater amounts of low-carbon kWh's and greenhouse gas reductions could be achieved.
At a time when the world climate is a "3 Alarm Fire", choosing to build new nuclear power plants is like buying a gold-plated garden hose, when with the same amount of money you could buy the fire engines we really need.
This analysis of new nuclear power's costs was sorely needed, because the nuclear power industry's glossy public relations campaign had succeeded in convincing the public and policymakers that nuclear power was a cheap and effective means to reduce global warming. However, when exposed to open scrutiny, the numbers just don't add up that way.
Open scrutiny is the goal of the Study, as I wrote to Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Dr, Joseph Romm, who is the editor of the ClimateProgress.org blog, which released the Study:
All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.
As a former utility commission staffer, I find it very disturbing that utilities now proposing new nuclear power plants are actually succeeding (in PSC dockets!) in hiding basic assumptions about what the new nuclear plants will cost. Quoting further from my correspondence to Joe Romm:
In contrast to this transparency, many nuclear promoters have adopted a “Black Box” approach. It has unfortunately been the case over the last couple of years that some utilities have begun to claim that even rudimentary basics of their nuclear cost estimates must be hidden from the public as “trade secrets”. For instance, in the South Carolina Electric & Gas proposal to build two reactors now under consideration by the South Carolina PSC, there is literally a large “box” obscuring the bulk of the calculations in the SC E&G Exhibit which presents the utility’s projection of construction and financing costs for the proposed two-unit facility. In a different case, Duke Energy claimed that it does not even have to disclose its new cost estimates for a proposed nuclear facility in Cherokee County, S.C.. In the Duke case, C. Dukes Scott, South Carolina’s consumer advocate, who represents the public in utility rate cases, noted, “If the cost wasn’t confidential in February,” Scott said, “how is it confidential in April?”
Even when no effort to conceal information is apparent, the very terminology used when projections are presented can be confusing or misleading. For instance, in 2007 when a number of new nuclear proposals began to advance, it was common for “Overnight Cost” estimates to be quoted. For a project (such as solar or wind) whose construction period may be as short as several months, the difference between an “overnight” cost and the full cost to complete the project may not be significant. However, for a nuclear project that may typically take a decade to complete, cost escalations that occur during this long construction period, plus the financing costs during construction, may easily double the total cost of a project compared to its “overnight” cost. When the full picture is presented, some may perceive the total cost estimate has mysteriously doubled. However, it simply should have been stated clearly to begin with that major escalation and financing costs cannot be avoided when it takes a long time to complete a project. Failure to do so is tantamount to selling someone a house with “teaser” initial mortgage payments and failing to make clear that the mortgage payments will later reset to a much higher level.
Another mysterious “black box” presentation method is to fold the overall costs of the new facility into the general rate base of the utility, without ever mentioning what the generation costs per kWh of the nuclear unit will be. Instead, it is often only presented how total costs per kWh for all ratepayers will increase — which includes kWh’s generated by existing generation units. (For instance, if a nuclear unit is to supply 20% of the kWh’s for the utility when it comes on line, any cost increase per kWh appears to only be 1/5 as large because the additional costs are also spread over the 80% of kWh’s generated by other facilities, even though those other facilities did not cause the rate increase.) While it is important to know the impact on final overall retail electric rates, it is also important to know the generation costs per kWh from the nuclear facility. If this step is “skipped” in public presentations, the nuclear units (or any new generation power source that is more expensive than existing units) can appear far cheaper than their real impact.
The Paper takes the approach that it is best to lay out in detail “how you got that number” at each step of the way. All parties can then proceed to have discussions based upon real numbers rather than mysterious “Black Box” secrets.
The "Black Box" is now blown open. As Dr. Romm said in his Article on the Study:
Given the myriad low-carbon, much-lower-cost alternatives to nuclear power available today — such as efficiency, wind, solar thermal baseload, solar PV, geothermal, and recycled energy (see “An introduction to the core climate solutions“) — the burden is on the nuclear industry to provide its own detailed, public cost estimates that it is prepared to stand behind in public utility commission hearings.
Click here to read the full Article.
Do it ALL for Energy?
By Craig Severance
Posted: 08/14/2008 DenverPost.com
Lets do it all - everything. This is the politicians' new mantra to calm voters' gas pump anger.
Finally, our politicians realize how to get things done. Just do everything. So, lets get moving using this new principle.
Lets set up NASA right away to go again to the Moon, and to Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. Scientists have been waiting for decades to accomplish these important missions. Now we can do them all.
Afghanistan? Iraq? Iran? Russians in Georgia? Our military can handle it all.
Potholes? Bridge collapses? Amtrak and airlines in crisis? The DOT can fix it all. By the way, since we can do it all, what was wrong with that $300 Million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska? I hear those 50 islanders could really use that new bridge so they don't have to wait for the ferry.
This all seems ridiculous, so why do we let our politicians get away with saying "do it all" when we ask for energy solutions? Is it because we ignored this problem for 30 years and now no one really knows what is the best thing to do?
Energy solutions are technological, but finding the best way to proceed isn't rocket science. Congress will have to do the same thing it did with the rocket scientists - develop cost effective principles and a budget.
On a budget you don't do it all - you do what works best.
Click here to read full article.
Nuclear Not Only Way to Generate a KWH
By Craig Severance
Posted June 12, 2008 www.opednews.com
Speaking to the nation about the energy crisis recently, President Bush proclaimed, "if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it". Bush then proceeded to wave the perpetual "magic wand" for energy, urging more nuclear power. Candidate John McCain followed suit in his speech on global warming, linking his carbon emissions cap-and-trade proposal to massive subsidies for the nuclear power industry.
We have seen this all before -- a powerful lobby promoting itself as our energy solution, and receiving Federal billions. Corn ethanol has now received these subsidies for decades, though experts warned it would do little but divert food crops to fill our gas tanks. Today's food price crisis is in part a fulfillment of these prophecies.
The nuclear industry has launched a major effort to convince Americans nuclear power is the solution to global warming. This public relations campaign can be traced directly to a 2003 MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power", which recommended it. Why would public opinion matter? The MIT authors noted, "Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice. Moreover, unlike other energy technologies, nuclear power requires significant government involvement because of safety, proliferation, and waste concerns." They concluded nuclear power faced "stagnation and decline", without billions in new government subsidies.
The U.S. nuclear industry has in fact been in stagnation for 30 years. The last nuclear plant built in the United States was ordered in 1978. The industry blames environmentalists for its collapse, yet government policies have always favored nuclear power.
Utility executives, not environmentalists, halted nuclear power
's expansion decades ago, because of extremely high costs. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, cost overruns for nuclear plants for the years 1966 to 1977 ranged from 200 to 380 percent. The largest bond default in the history of the municipal bond market was a $2.25 billion bond used by the Washington Public Power Supply System to construct two nuclear power plants. Nuclear power failed because, in the end, it is just one of many ways to generate electricity. In comparison with other choices, nuclear power proved to be one of the most expensive ways to produce a kilowatt-hour.
Click here to read the full article.
