The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind Pummels Prices

Julie Johnsson and Naureen S. Malik, Bloomberg
March 11, 2013  |  40 Comments

A glut of government-subsidized wind power may help accomplish a goal some environmentalists have sought for decades: kill off U.S. nuclear power plants while reducing reliance on electricity from burning coal.

That’s the assessment of executives and utility experts after the U.S. wind-energy industry went on a $25 billion growth binge in 2012, racing to qualify for a federal tax credit that was set to expire at year’s end.

The surge added a record 13,124 megawatts of wind turbines to the nation’s power grid, up 28 percent from 2011. The new wind farms increased financial pressure on traditional generators such as Dominion Resources Inc. and Exelon Corp. in their operating regions. That’s because wind energy undercut power prices already driven to 10-year-lows by an abundance of natural gas.

“Right now, natural gas and wind power are more economic than nuclear power in the Midwestern electricity market,” Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocate of cleaner energy, said in a phone interview. “It’s a matter of economic competitiveness.”

Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4 percent of U.S. demand in 2012 and the share is projected to jump to 4.2 percent in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The wind power boom has benefited consumers in regions where wind development is fastest, contributing to a 40 percent wholesale power-price plunge since 2008 in the Midwest, for example. Yet the surplus is creating havoc for nuclear power and coal generators that sell their output into short-term markets.

‘Perfect Storm’

The impact is greatest in the capacity-glutted Midwest. There, Richmond, Virginia-based Dominion is closing a money- losing reactor and selling coal plants, Exelon warns of shrinking nuclear margins and an Edison International merchant coal-plant unit has gone into bankruptcy.

“It’s a perfect storm,” said Charley Parnell, a Chicago- based spokesman for Edison’s Midwest Generation unit, in a phone interview. Pricing, already under pressure from cheap natural gas and the lingering effects of recession, now has a wind factor. “Wind absolutely plays a part in that,” he said, “especially in the off-peak hours.”

Atomic-power providers complain that the upheaval is an example of government subsidies distorting the market — to the particular detriment of nuclear which provides 19 percent of the nation’s electricity, is clean and has proved safe despite perennial concern by activists that it poses a danger to public safety.

Prices Below Zero

Wind power has two advantages. Green energy laws in many states require utilities to buy wind energy under long-term contracts as part of their clean-energy goals and take that power even when they don’t need it. Wind farms also receive a federal tax credit of $22 for every megawatt-hour generated.

Thus, even when there is no demand for the power they produce, operators keep turbines spinning, sending their surplus to the grid because the tax credit assures them a profit.

On gusty days in the five states with the most wind power — Texas, California, Iowa, Illinois and Oregon -- this can flood power grids, causing prices to drop below zero during times when demand is light. Wholesale electricity during off-peak hours in Illinois has sold for an average price of $23.39 per megawatt hour since Jan. 1, after hitting a record low of -$41.08 on Oct. 11, the least since the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. began sharing real-time pricing in 2005.

‘Negative Prices’

Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plants must continue running even as this “negative pricing” dynamic forces them to pay grid operators to take the power they produce.

“It is becoming more pronounced as more wind is coming on,” Christopher Crane, chief executive officer of Chicago- based Exelon Corp., said in a phone interview.

If the push to “over-develop” subsidized wind continues, “there is a very high probability that existing safe, reliable nuclear plants will no longer be competitive and will have to be retired early,” according to Crane.

More development seems a certainty. Wind power got another boost when Congress, as part of January’s deficit deal, extended the production tax credit through Dec. 31, amending current law so that projects begun this year will receive the 10-year tax break regardless of when they come online.

Defending Wind

While few new projects are expected to be built out this year due to developers’ mad dash at the end of 2012, “we think 2014 will pick up again,” said Rob Gramlich, interim CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group.

Gramlich doubts wind power is the chief reason that spot- market power producers like Exelon are suffering a profit drain. “Low prices are due to a lot of things, mostly shale gas,” he said. “But to some extent wind does reduce power prices and that’s a good thing for homes and businesses.”

Natural gas is fuel for a growing number of U.S. power plants because of its cost advantage and new environmental rules for coal. Wind is gaining as turbine costs plummet -- they are down one-third since 2010 -- and technology gains make windmills economical in states with lower average wind speeds.

Google Inc. is investing $1 billion in wind and solar projects and Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings, Iowa’s largest utility owner, owns 6 percent of U.S. wind-energy capacity and has invested about $13 billion in renewable energy.

Tenfold Rise

U.S. wind installations have risen 10-fold since 2003 to 60,007 megawatts, attracting $120 billion investment that has produced new capacity equivalent to 14 nuclear power plants and enough to power 14.7 million homes, the AWEA, the industry group based in Washington, D.C., said in a Jan. 30 report.

Wind’s rapid gains have created headaches for grid operators since winds often blow strongest when homes and businesses use the least amount of power: at night and during the spring and fall seasons, said Paul Patterson, a New York- based analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC.

“I think this model’s got problems with it,” Patterson said in a phone interview. “There are not many examples where the product you produce actually has negative value.”

Before 2006, when wind power began its latest growth spurt, negative prices were extremely rare. The phenomenon is now prevalent in parts of the Midwest, Texas and the West Coast where turbine installations are growing fastest, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“We can’t find enough demand for the amount of energy created by Mother Nature,” said Doug Johnson, spokesman for the Bonneville Power Administration, which manages the grid in the Pacific Northwest. The transmission operator, based in Portland, Oregon, paid wind operators $2.7 million last year to stay off line so it could make room for the power from hydroelectric generators handling the runoff from melting mountain snows.

Wind vs Fossil Fuels

The surge in wind generation is also squeezing the number of hours that fossil-fuel plants are needed to supply some wind- heavy markets, said Michael Blaha, the principal analyst of North American power research for Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in Houston. “It makes it economically harder for fossil units because when the wind’s up, it’s going to start depressing prices,” he added.

Negative prices are starting to seep into a Southern California power hub and may become more frequent as state regulations mandate that 33 percent of its power come from renewable sources by 2020, Blaha said. “That extra amount is going to knock out about 15 percent” of energy filled by fossil fuels.

Exelon in Illinois

Exelon, the largest U.S. nuclear operator, says a surplus of wind power is making negative pricing a problem in Illinois, where it owns six nuclear plants and a wind project. Prices for markets served by Exelon’s Clinton and Quad Cities reactors trade below zero between 8 percent and 14 percent of off-peak hours, said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon’s senior vice-president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.

Exelon cut its quarterly dividend for the first time Feb. 7, after reporting a 38 percent decline in fourth-quarter profit on lower power prices and higher nuclear fuel costs.

“Wind generators ignore that price signal in order to chase the federal tax credit,” Exelon’s Dominguez said in a telephone interview. “Everyone else that is producing electricity during that time period pays that negative $30 per megawatt-hour back to the system in the form of congestion charges.”

The market should remain “open and fair” even in the “very rare instances” when demand can’t support two low-cost sources like wind and nuclear, Gramlich of the wind trade group said. “Just because one was there first doesn’t mean they automatically get the right of way to operate 24-7.”

Copyright 2013 Bloomberg

Lead image: Wind turbines via Shutterstock

40 Comments

Register To Comment
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
March 22, 2013
'Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind Pummels Prices' / 'LA Galaxy faces ownership uncertainty while Britney Spears banned from son's soccer game'. Perhaps a bit too much of an effort to conflate parallel events. A few bug bites won't stop an elephant.
The US has 104 reactors nominally in operation while reactors are typically being relicensed for 50-60 years of operation. That means that only 1.9 new reactors would need to come on line each year in order to maintain the status quo. Since it currently takes about 5 years of construction, one would expect approximately 10 reactors to be under construction at any given time. In that respect, the US nuclear industry is a bit musty but it's not so bad a growing season in other parts of the world. I would guess that the Koreans, at least, don't find the business all that dry.
The main obstacles are structural and financial and the main, possibly only, competition in the US is coal. It's so unlikely that a minor player, also a new kid on the block, would have any effect at all. Negative pricing is just as likely to be driven by firm capacity as anything else. In Ontario this sometimes happens because of excess nuclear power and even then, although CANDU capacity is substantially dispatchable, it is cheaper to sell power at a slight loss than pay curtailment charges enforced by PPAs along with paying for greater spinning reserves.
Nuclear power has an obvious plus for emissions but negatives for site specificity and water use. It also suffers from a sort of power industry monotheism which essentially treats excess energy as waste (with a few exceptions). Unfortunately, in North America, good == cheap is the only relevant equation.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 21, 2013
CliffC, indeed we are dumb, and will likely be helping China & others complete the work we could have decades ago, thus sending more T-bills overseas to add debt so we can buy new nuclear technologies that we invented.

Personally, I was educated by amazement, when testifying at the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future last year -- not a single member of that commission knew of the report JFK requested in 1962... http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

A few in the audience did, thankfully.

Imagine what being rid of combustion power by this century would mean.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 21, 2013
Terry, avoiding reality with: "There wouldn't be a nuclear industry if the government wasn't the insurer for any possible catastrophe."

So, Terry, since windmills have killed & injured many more people per kWHr already in England than has UK nuclear power, should we be worried about wind subsidies via British deaths & injury?
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

How much less do you think a Brit's life given to windmills is than if it had been given to a nuke, eh Terry?

C'mon, man up.
;]
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 21, 2013
The US government has kept nuclear power frozen in a 1940's atomic weapons technology paradigm. The feds control the whole fuel cycle. The feds have mismanaged all attempts at technological evolution for nuclear power beyond uranium PWR. The feds have likewise managed to spend tens of billions not solving the spent fuel problem with either breeder reactors, reprocessing, or a repository. In this context of bureaucratic malfeasance, it is absolutely necessary for the federal government to pool and underwrite the risks they impose upon the nuclear plant operators and the nation by handcuffing them to such a crappy program. We could be recycling fuel like the French and building far better and safer reactors and moving our radioactive waste from plant site pools to in an air-tight, deep underground, geologically stable and self-sealing salt dome (the WIPP near Carlsbad NM where the locals are begging us to put it) tomorrow if it was up to industry and they were allowed to use currently technology and best practices. Forget Harry Reid and the $8 billion Nevada took for the nuclear repository before changing their minds and giving the taxpayers the finger. The Chinese are already leapfrogging us technologically with their 15 operating plants and 27 under construction. Bill Gates has had to go to China to fund next-generation nuclear plant research because it wasn't allowed here. The same guy who predicted peak oil (M. King Hubbert) prescribed the cure--migration to nuclear energy. Someday people are going to look back and wonder why the obvious transition took so long and why we were burning our forests down for biofuels when we had the answer staring us in the face. The irony that the transition was blocked by environmentalists will be good for a few laughs 50 years from now, but it is not funny at the moment.
terry badger
terry badger
March 21, 2013
Wonderfully hypocritical of the nuclear industry complaining about PTC's (government subsidies), when they have been subsidized for years (as has the petroleum industry). There wouldn't be a nuclear industry if the government wasn't the insurer for any possible catastrophe.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 14, 2013
So Dennis, thanks, you show no US deaths, except for the old SL-1 military reactor, which has nothing to do with civilian power.

And you show your desperation by the 1st links, from Japan: "The criticality accident occurred in a uranium reprocessing facility", not a power plant.

Did you actually read your Wiki link Dennis? If you had, again you'd see no US power plant deaths, but lots of medical-radiation errors, like...

"Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer "

And, the UK fire was in a reactor, illegal elsewhere, as Chernobyl is. Remember how many UK wind has killed?
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Again, no civilian power plant, no US power plant deaths. So, Dennis, why do you disperse your credibility so easily?

Oops. Thanks for making the argument on why nuclear power is safest. Our wind in Calif. has killed more than all western nations' reactors.

Keep it up, Dennis, no one's as smart as you!
;]
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
Where are the deaths..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

Two of the three technicians irradiated died on 22 December 1999 and 27 April 2000, respectively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster 56 direct deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihama_Nuclear_Power_Plant four dead

Or just make it easier by reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Wow Dennis, you think no one knows of accidents? What about the deaths, Dennis? Where are they. Read the Swiss report yet?

Thought not.
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Well Dennis, #27, what can I say? My whole existence here is to convert you away from your bias against nuclear!
;]
Your comments about CO2 are incorrect in relation to the studies I quoted, but, hey, I only got them from a Nobel physicist at Stanford, so maybe he and they lie about enrichment, mining, etc? You think?

You do realize that there's more than one way to use Uranium and Thorium for fuels, right? You do realize that Canadian CANDU reactors have never needed enrichment, right?

You do realize that your fist full of Uranium runs all of NYC or Tokyo for about an hour, right?

You do realize that over 200 new nukes are in build progress around the world now, right?

You do know that's equivalent to hundreds of thousands of top-line Siemens 5MW windmills on millions of acres, right?

And you do know that's equivalent to about a trillion tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials adding CO2 and mining wastes for all the windmills avoided by nukes, right?

Fact6s ate tough.
;]
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
Readers of the thread should simply use google, then enter "US nuclear power accident" Wikipedia has the easiest collection. For more accurate and detailed reports. Start with www.nrc.gov, then in the search box enter "US nuclear power accident", be prepared to spend sometime reading as it returns the detailed studies and analysis related to accidents, responses and preparedness world wide.

Prior to this post, I had not brought up Chernobyl, curious that you did in same post suggesting that I might be a propagandist. Are you using misdirection to hide your identity? Name calling is quite unprofessional - something I would not expect from someone with a "Dr." in the title.

Hopefully this will make your life easier... wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

It lists the 56 nuclear accidents that have happened in the US since 1955.

Then there is the real simple listing by country..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

It notes that 2/3 of the accidents have been in the US --- EVEN though we do not have 2/3 the reactors.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Dennis #17: "you implying that nuclear plants do not use concrete, steel" -- of course not.

"concrete that is used to make the caskets to hold the wastes" -- of course not, & these spent fuel components are valuable. Present reactors are 1945-patent designs & only use about 2/3 the energy available in the enriched portion of the original fuel, while breeding some new fissile fuel & containing >90% of their original Uranium238. In other words, 'spent' reactor fuel is not spent. It's simply altered in ways that force its removal from a reactor after about 5 years. This is why the French have long processed old fuel to make new.

"Or attempt to cover plants that have been destroyed in nuclear accidents." -- gotta love the plurals here -- good propaganda, Dennis! What plants in the world have "been destroyed in nuclear accidents" & require oodles of concrete to cover them up? Let's see, Chernobyl -- its RBMK reactor design has always been illegal outside the former Soviet Union. Any western reactors blown up & needed concrete coverage, Dennis?

By the way, the several other RBMKs have been operating safely for years, despite being illegal here.

You really would have been a good propagandist in the old CCCP, Dennis...

"nuclear is withering is after recent accidents the MAJORITY of the educated public is becoming more cautious"

What accidents? There's that plural again. You mean Fukushima, eh ol' boy. Read the report. It was no accident. It was predicted years ago. Despite the quake, all reactors shut down perfectly. Reactor #6 remains safe, why? It's the only one TEPCO had designed above-water emergency power for. They'd been warned by geologists & GE engineers on all sorts of safety issues, including clear evidence of an equal tsunami in 869ad.

TEPCO has long had management troubles, which is the cause of Fukushima disaster, not nuclear power. Sort of like those German windmills that fell over because of poor foundations!
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
DrAlexC, you are doing a wonderful job of converting many of the people who formerly supported nuclear in some forms to no nuclear plants at all.

Nuclear bankability: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-115/issue-7/departments/opinion/banking-on-nuclear.html

Nearly $1Billion for reactor research:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/npi/print/volume-6/issue-1/nucleus/are-smrs-the-new-face-of-nuclear-power.html

And I can find plenty of Nuclear Industry papers that claim they they are on PAR with wind for CO2... but then they don't include the CO2 used in enrichment activities, mining, transportation, security,....

As this thread continues, I become more enlightened and moving toward the NO Nuclear camp with each of your responses. Your truly unbiased research has been very useful.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Sorry to have misjudged you, Larry -- "a professional mechanical engineer". What university?

You relatives opinions are fine. Sounds like whether in a nuke sub or at Hanford, they're not themselves "mutants", eh? They, of course, know that Hanford has nothing to do with civilian nuclear power, right?

Your nuke sub cousin may have been on the sub my uncle was on -- he also has not mutated.

So you're against "poisons" -- great. So am I. Misinformation is one of our worst 'poisons'. You might want to study the Swiss report, and this...

http://atomicinsights.com/2013/03/radiation-superstition.html
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
And Larry, all these windmills were "perfectly safe until..."
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
httpcolonslashslash tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-YJuFvjtM0s&feature=endscreen
www.homebrewpower.co.uk/html-renewable-energy-failures/vestas-wind-turbine-fail.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ppLh5pGX3qQ&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=oke5PzwpBiE&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5PPBGsoQMM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Keep trying, Larry, you';re clearly no engineer or scientist.
;]
By the way, the Titanic was known to be safe only if it hit icebergs straight on, otherwise, its recycled rivets were known dangerous, as were 'watertight' compartments with no tops.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Larry, your "mistake won't poison entire ecosystems for one thousand years"?

You mean all the CO2 emitted in building millions of windmills and killing gazillions of bats & birds? Or do you mean the chemical mistakes from industries, as in Bhopal -- still not cleaned up. Maybe you mean the PCBs still in the Hudson River from GE?

Note the Japanese will even be able to return to some of Fukushima's irradiated lands. (AAAS Science 9 March 2012). You do know what "radiation" means, right, Larry?

Or maybe not. Have a banana while Googling "Banana equivalent dose".
;]
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
March 13, 2013
Like they say

"liars can figure and figures can lie"

Remember the the Titanic was perfectly safe right up to the point where she went under.

Same arrogant deifying of "perfect technology" in 1912 as today.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Larry, then you & "heavy hitter" should be interested in what other "heavy hitters" have to say...

www.policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/fixing-climate-policy-with-professor-dieter-helm-cbe
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12812
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
March 13, 2013
OOPS! Should have been you're and not your

At least that mistake won't poison entire ecosystems for one thousand years
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Dennis, good you read the Fukushima report. Too bad you apparently haven't read the Swiss report, which again found nuclear power worldwide to be safest mass generation for decades. Plan to read it?

As to "serious accidents", why not list them? Three Mile Island is the most serious US accident, >3 decades ago. It injured no one from any radiation leaks. But, it did spur better regulation & training of operators, which is why US nukes went from 65% CF to over 90% by 2000.

Sounds like you want accidents. We have plenty from windmills -- 2 dead just last year here in N. Calif.

The difference is that nuclear power is treated seriously.

Your history of reactors as designed for the Navy is correct, which is why we embarked on other design choices some decades back, on the initial request from Pres. Kennedy. Unfortunately, both the combustion industry & naive environmental groups succeeded in damping public opinion about nuclear power. The Heating Oil Institute paid for ads and billboards for those protesting the Shoreham Long Island plant years ago. Now the Japanese are planning to install a gas plant there. Progress? Our own gas company here burned to death 8 of our residents a couple of years ago. Our Calif. nukes are behind, having 0 deaths for all their history.

Interesting you should bring up San Onofre, which hasn't a nuclear problem but a problem with the new Mitsubishi steam generator. Could even happen to a solar power tower!

As for insurance, we'll await the first shipping accident with Cape Wind, if it ever gets built -- the Coast Guard estimates 1.23 collisions per year -- love the precision.

Your "one a year" nuke 'accidents' seem to hurt no one -- why? The Brits document their wind-worker deaths well. Want to get the US industry to do same? After all, you seem concerned with power-generation danger, right Dennis?

Just for others here, the doc on CO2 burden for wind shows it equal to nuclear, hydro & geo.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
March 13, 2013
Oh by the way "DOC"

I also have a good friend who has been heavily involved in the financial industry for over 30 years. He specializes in analyzing the financials for principally 'heavy hitter' investers involved in equally heavy industry and more specifically the energy industry.

Mention nukes to him and you will hear

"It's all about capitol formation" In a country dominated by zombie banks too big to take to prison with shaky balance sheets he says "good luck on building any anytime soon"
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
March 13, 2013
"So yes, Larry, if you were an engineer"

Presumptuous much old "Doc"

Try a professional mechanical engineer with experience in renewable and other forms of energy since 1974?

How about 30 years of designing and manufacturing renewable energy products and systems.

I suppose most importantly it would be my years of looking at data points on the energy balance of one energy system vs another. How about also having two,yes make that two relatives with degrees in nuclear engineering and one having spent 6 years under water in nuke subs who now has nothing but disdain for 'mutant' nuclear power and all the massive poison infrastructure that supports it.

Yes my navy nuke cousin coined the mutant moniker.

Oh yeah! He's the one who worked 12 years at the Hanford Reservation in Washington.

No rose colored glasses or blind advocacy.
Just the facts mam

Your living in a fantasy world removed from hard facts

Equal CO2 footprint my ass

A bit arrogant too aren't you?
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
Hmmm, DrAlexC, are you implying that nuclear plants do not use concrete, steel, iron or other materials that are also carbon intensive? The rising costs of those materials were noted in the FERC long range reports as one of the contributing costs for nuclear plants. MORE so than coal plants because nuclear plants require more concrete, iron and steel than ANY other power plant.

And that isn't counting all the concrete that is used to make the caskets to hold the wastes, or to enclose the retired but radioactive products. Or attempt to cover plants that have been destroyed in nuclear accidents...

The reason why nuclear is withering is after recent accidents the MAJORITY of the educated public is becoming more cautious and willing to select energy sources that they perceive lower risk to society.

Nuclear could wind back public trust be becoming more transparent AND voluntarily taking many more steps to improve safety of the plants. But that isn't likely to occur because the very same people are also trying to MINIMIZE cost in order to make the plants seem cost effective. What is needed is more R&D to make nuclear safer - but then that would generally mean government subsidies for an industry.
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
I did read the Diet report. Equally interesting is what they said they did not cover explicitly. They were focused on finding the cause and understanding the event.

Most of the US reactors are based on designs originally for the Navy. Designs that assume there is lots of water around for cooling. Naval designs do not expect that the spent fuel rods will be kept on board or on site!

The US nuclear plant history has had many of near misses. Three Mile Island was the most memorable, but there have been problems in Idaho, at Browns Ferry (fire), Davis-Besse (coolant leak, corrosion problems later)... a quick google search reports 55 US reactor accidents in about 57 years. That is nearly an average of ONE a YEAR. These are just the serious accidents, then you look at the problems found with the current reactors -- San Onofre, Ft. Calhoun,... the list goes on. The current reactor designs and safeguards are far from perfect. Perhaps future generations of the small module reactors, or traveling wave reactors, for thorium based reactors MIGHT be safer - but they are not far enough along in the development process to PROVE that they will work AND be safe.

As for the fibs and hidden costs, go back and read the NRC, FERC, and NERC reports. What we read in the popular press about the merits of the current nuclear power plants do not match our federal government reports -- the are neutral at best.

My point in my original response is that the reason for the nuclear industry withering - IS NOT just the "subsidized" competition from wind - it is the LOSS OF PUBLIC support.

Nuclear plants could not be licensed to operate without liability insurance. They can not buy it on the private markets - it is only available as a government backed and subsidized insurance.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Well, Larry O'Galaxy -- the shamrock galaxy? You just demonstrated you don;'t understand nuclear power,

"Spoken like a true blind advocate of building more 'temporarily controlled meltdowns' "

but maybe that line gets you girls at the local bar?

So yes, Larry, if you were an engineer you'd be able to calculate for yourself, from say, Mid-American Energy windmill data sheets how much concrete, steel, etc. goes into each few MW windmill, and then see that the total emissions generated in building out a wind 'farm' of many thousands is the same as building a single nuke with the same energy output (GW-years), except, of course, the nuke doesn't need dams & other build-outs of generation & transmission to make up for its <40% capacity.

You do know how steel & concrete are made, right Larry? Here's a start: 2000 tons of fossil0-fuel-processed materials per installed MW average (not peak, as promoters fib with).

So, here you go, just an example from a recent EDF presentation by a Nobel scientist...

"Comparison of Life Cycle Emissions in Metric Tonnes of CO2e per GW-hour for various modes of Electricity Production"; P. Meier, in: "Life-Cycle Assessment of electricity Generation Systems with
Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis"

You can easily find it and more, because you're careful to get facts, right Larry?
;]
But here's another look that anyone can benefit from...
www.policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/fixing-climate-policy-with-professor-dieter-helm-cbe
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
March 13, 2013
Wow! "DRAlex"

That cannot go unchallenged

Wind and nukes having an equal CO2 footprint

Sort of like an elephant and a fish?

Anytime you would like to put some 'meat on the bones' of that statement where you can actually quantify the statement based on real data I'm all ears.

Spoken like a true blind advocate of building more 'temporarily controlled meltdowns' across the country that stay with us in perpetuity like giant infected parasitic sores that never stop poisoning their host.True monuments to modern mans stupidity.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Dennis, the "blaming" isn't the issue. The fibbing is.

One of the 1st things learned when studying wind subsidies and development is the costs that are hidden, never to appear in honest accounting. Combustion has hidden them too, such as their NORM Exemptions allowing them to kill >12.000 of us each year via emissions. Of course we're better off that the Chinese, who lose an entire city the size of SF each year (700,000).

For something like nuclear power, the costs are clear. If the true costs for wind & combustion were tallied, nuclear would remain the safe bargain it's been and will be into the future.

On your "After Fukushima" remark, it might be good to understand what that tragedy meant, from the Japanese perspective of reality... www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

Then there's the unmatched safety of western nuclear power, including our navies... http colonslashslash tinyurl dotcom/42wvr9l
You'll note that even including Chernobyl's illegal reactors, nuclear power remains safest, even in the popular press...
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy

The key to our descendents' future remains power density, not subsidy.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Dennis, the "blaming" isn't the issue. The fibbing is.

One of the 1st things learned when studying wind subsidies and development is the costs that are hidden, never to appear in honest accounting. Combustion has hidden them too, such as their NORM Exemptions allowing them to kill >12.000 of us each year via emissions. Of course we're better off that the Chinese, who lose an entire city the size of SF each year (700,000).

For something like nuclear power, the costs are clear. If the true costs for wind & combustion were tallied, nuclear would remain the safe bargain it's been and will be into the future.

On your "After Fukushima" remark, it might be good to understand what that tragedy meant, from the Japanese perspective of reality... www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

Then there's the unmatched safety of western nuclear power, including our navies... http colonslashslash tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
You'll note that even including Chernobyl's illegal reactors, nuclear power remains safest, even in the popular press...
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy

The key to our descendents' future remains power density, not subsidy.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Dennis, the "blaming" isn't the issue. The fibbing is.

One of the 1st things learned when studying wind subsidies and development is the costs that are hidden, never to appear in honest accounting. Combustion has hidden them too, such as their NORM Exemptions allowing them to kill >12.000 of us each year via emissions. Of course we're better off that the Chinese, who lose an entire city the size of SF each year (700,000).

For something like nuclear power, the costs are clear. If the true costs for wind & combustion were tallied, nuclear would remain the safe bargain it's been and will be into the future.

On your "After Fukushima" remark, it might be good to understand what that tragedy meant, from the Japanese perspective of reality... www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

Then there's the unmatched safety of western nuclear power, including our navies... http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
You'll note that even including Chernobyl's illegal reactors, nuclear power remains safest, even in the popular press...
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy

The key to our descendents' future remains power density, not subsidy.
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
After Fukushima - even the Chinese stopped their building of plants long enough to do a review.

At some point in time virtually all energy industries have been supported by government subsidies or intervention. Nuclear fuel research, reactor research have all been underwritten by governments.

Early (large power) wind turbine research was done by government research grants and then commercialized.

Hydro was heavily subsidised by governments.

Coal/oil have had research and tax credits designed to promote their industries.

Geothermal has had research and production credits available to them.

There are countless research projects, grants and tax credits for biomass related production.

Solar has been subject of government research, grants and tax credits.

Energy Efficiency has been researched and subsidized.

Government sponsored research, grants and tax credits to promote different types of energy sources have been around as long as there have been governments (ANY GOVERNMENT not just US).

So we should stop blaming the promotion of one energy sector on another... especially when the public policy is following the generally prevailing EDUCATED public opinion.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
March 13, 2013
Sounds like some markets where they could be advertising/offering free/discount electric vehicle charging during off-peak hours if they're producing more electricity than they can sell. If they can't curtail production efficiently, increase demand.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
Forgot to add that, as an environmentalist, given the equal CO2 footprints of wind 'farms' & nukes, the choice is obvious: the >50MW/acre, 24/7, >40-year-relaibility nuke.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
"A glut of government-subsidized wind power " says it all.

I suppose the Mafia could do a quicker job on any targetted competitor for windmills. But as Cliff points out, the grid and the country do not benefit from variable, climate0-sensitive power. Even Ireland, more gung-ho on wind, will limit it to about 1/3 total load.

And, of course, wind investors have the good deal -- no need to pay for all wind costs and certainly not de-commissioning.

One of the hidden costs in wind power is deaths...
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

so how much does a Brit's life deduct from EROI?
;]
Then there are the many failures, maybe due to poor regulation?...
http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-YJuFvjtM0s&feature=endscreen
www.homebrewpower.co.uk/html-renewable-energy-failures/vestas-wind-turbine-fail.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ppLh5pGX3qQ&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=oke5PzwpBiE&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5PPBGsoQMM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

So we have the few getting subsidized by the many, to consume vast areas of land/sea, to generate power variably, at low capacity, when we could put the same $ toward non-emitting, 24/7 sources at >90% capacity factor, like nuclear. Hmmmm.

No wonder the Chinese and others are building nukes as fast as they can.
;]
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
Instead of the flat rate production tax credit for all wind, it should have been modified when it was renewed the end of 2012, changing it so that in regions where wind is approaching 30% of the generation peak, the PTC starts to decline. Also the law that allows for the PTC could have included provisions for deciding who and when the producers must curtail production.

Finally if a renewable is approaching the 30% of capacity level, then to continue with a high production tax credit --- it should require that they bring with the production a percentage of storage. That is, you want 30% PTC, then include 5-10% of the plants capacity in battery storage nearby. That would help make the wind appear to be more dispatchable and valuable.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
March 13, 2013
Don't get overly excited: negative pricing in hourly power markets is not a new thing. Historical data shows that in markets with wind power now had negative pricing prior. Negative pricing has some deleterious effects, particularly poorer quality of service and higher prices. Producers with moderately dispatchable capacity go offline predictively in order to avoid negative pricing which creates a combination of more demand for spinning reserve, poorer frequency regulation, brown-outs etc in the hours in advance of off peak hours. Coal fired plants figure greatly in this scenario.
The advantage of wind and solar is best dispatchability combined with near zero run rates. In practice, what happens with high penetration of wind is that load factors go down as the variability of resource is smoothed through curtailment; however, even though load factors are somewhat reduced, the cost of generated wind power increases only slightly. This is partly the case as operating costs of wind include a significant component that can be avoided during curtailment.
One observation is the higher level of spinning reserve needed in markets with unregulated producers and/or consumers as compared to well regulated markets. Structural effects in a market and the grid are the big factor in this - but you can simplistically blame complex existing problems on new players.
David Bainbridge
David Bainbridge
March 13, 2013
The nuclear industry conveniently doesn't mention the Price-Anderson Act. If there was a catastrophic nuclear power accident it would be the U.S. tax payer footing the bill, not the nuclear industry. It even protects them from gross negligence and willful misconduct. How is that fair?
ANONYMOUS
March 13, 2013
It seems now the problem is finding a way to cost effectively store the excess electricity.

All the same, the current system is wasteful. There is no way wind powered utilities should be should get the tax credit that forces the price below zero. In fact, it might be fair to say below even $10-15.

Perhaps this is one place to look at cutting government spending to help our budget deficit.

I am still a fan of geothermal. It is consistent power. Might it also help in other ways. Could water be brought through pipelines to the geothermal sites from the oceans and the gulf, the water that is left after being used for generation help in drought stricken areas. There is a new pipeline technology that produces the pipe in back of a semi and can just drive along laying long stretches of pipeline very cost effectively. The remaining problem I see is developing the means of cleaning out the underground geothermal piping of the salt and other residues and pollutants that are left after the water converts to steam and how to dispose of it safely if there is any risk from the pollutants.

We can definitely see the need for such a process with the droughts in various parts of the country and what it's done to agriculture and resulting food prices. It would also make for very productive and proactive economic stimulus and somewhat insulate us against further droughts and their economic effects.

I apologize to readers for going off topic on this. All the same, I'm no expert but wonder if this is a idea worth serious consideration. It appears to me to have some very positive benefits in other areas besides just energy.
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
I do disagree with the comment by Gramlich. -> "The market should remain "open and fair" even in the "very rare instances" when demand can't support two low-cost sources like wind and nuclear, Gramlich of the wind trade group said. "Just because one was there first doesn't mean they automatically get the right of way to operate 24-7."

I doubt the investors for the wind projects would be very happy if a yet another new source of energy was added to the same transmission lines -- also competing with capacity and also able to generate at a cost that is partially subsidised. They would of course be asking for some kind of system to prioritize.

Nuclear of course has been subsidized over the years via all the R&D into the reactors themselves, the fuel processing systems, support of the agencies that regulated the plants and finally insurance. Now there is another energy source in town and there is a great deal of concern from the old school about a level playing field. Ah, such is life...
Dennis Heidner
Dennis Heidner
March 13, 2013
It isn't just the subsidies to wind that are hurting the nuclear industry.

The following quote is from FERC report: Item A-3, June 19, 2008... it says "Cambridge Energy Research Associates – CERA – produces an index of costs for the main inputs that go into building new generating plants. The slide shows how that index has almost doubled since 2003. The increase in nuclear plant inputs has risen even faster. Much of this cost increase results from rising
global demand for basic materials. Part of it also comes from shortages of people to do key engineering and construction jobs. In any case, the implication is that, we will pay more, not less, for the next round of construction."

And then there is the fuel costs for nuclear plants... From the NERC 2009-2018 Long Term Reliability Assessment (page 24), it says: "There is limited capacity in North American nuclear fuel cycle processes given almost 25 years of underinvestment due to the highly sensitive nature of the technologies, the large capital costs, the large-scale of the required industrial operations, and safety concerns. Enrichment is perhaps the most constrained aspect of the fuel cycle; however, impacts due to the reliability of the
nuclear fuel supply have not yet emerged in North America. North American dependence on imported supplies of enriched uranium may leave it vulnerable to long-term supply disruptions, particularly as global demand for enriched uranium accelerates with the construction of new plants outside of North America."

In the US we've seen extended outages of at least four power plants because issues that were found during maintenance.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8611

Then of course there is the issue of RECENT nuclear power plant safety at Fukushima...
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 12, 2013
The net effect of adding more intermittent generators such as wind and solar is running the overall grid less efficiently and thus paying more for power and generating more emissions per unit of energy service delivered. You can see it above with the wind turbine operators selfishly pushing electricity when and where it's not needed, flooding the grid wastefully and wearing out their hardware prematurely for no collective benefit. The less visible side of this great waste of energy is the large power plants being run at idle in "spinning reserve" as backup generators to the intermittent power sources, and cycling up and down to pick up load when the wind dies or the cloud passes in front of the sun. And the conventional utilities are paying for this wasteful and expensive folly that instead should more fairly be charged to the wind and solar they are backstopping. Where are the government subsidies for spinning reserve? Why are we holding conventional sources responsible for maintaining grid stability instead of the wind and solar we are subsidizing? It's nonsense. If you as a customer don't pay for this waste and inefficiency in increased power bills as they do in Nevada and California, you are still paying for it in your federal and state taxes which are used for the subsidies (assuming you pay taxes). A sensible government would incentivize greater efficiency in electricity delivery (both in dollars and in emissions), and be agnostic as to the sources and let the market figure out the best mix. Until there's a breakthrough in power storage, there wouldn't be another wind farm or solar farm built without government subsidy.
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
March 11, 2013
With prices that low you can produce hydrogen for almost nothing. We can run ICE's on hydrogen.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 9
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 5
    Ireland Keen to Hit 2030 Renewable Targets, Says EU Ambassador
  • 3
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Active Communications International
  • Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
  • Rotork plc
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • SolarInsure, Inc.
  • Trojan Battery Company
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Delta Rigging & Tools
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information