Van Jones is a shill for the progressive left and looks to make a great deal of money with his newly acquired fame. Of course, nobody wants to talk about the fact that he has called for the complete remake of our government. I put him in the category of Mr. Gore, a charlatan, through and through. And he has the nerve to talk about the poor as if he’s their champion. Bah humbug!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
It seems that some people make comments without actually reading the article. The article states:
===
Our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year subsidizing unsustainable transportation, farming and energy. He emphasized he is not against free markets. On the contrary, he would like to see a true free market without these subsidies for environmental destruction.
Being “conservative” should be about “conservation”.
===
It makes news when a green company gets a small bit of government support. The daily subsidies for cars, oil, factory farming, nuclear power and coal get no attention.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Robert, I read just fine, thank you very much. I realize for those who stick their head in the sand that what Van Jones is saying sounds wonderful. I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him, and that’s not very far. Mark my words, he is not what he appears to be.
Aside from that, most “green” solutions are scams. They are costly and have produced virtually no new jobs or benefits here at home. As for Van Jones, he is by his own admission and progressive and a socialist. Those are both ideals in direct contradiction to free markets. Which means he’s selling a bill of goods.
As for subsidies, I abhor them. Subsidies squash innovation and create extremely lazy capitalism.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
From the Washington Post:
“Solyndra was cleared to participate in this loan-guarantee program by President George W. Bush’s administration. [...T]he legislation creating the loan-guarantee program, approved by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, received yes votes from — wait for it — DeMint, Hatch and McConnell.”
The question is not whether a particular investment was a good investment. Most start-ups fail.
The rest of the industrialized world is investing in sustainable energy. Why would any patriotic American want us to be left behind?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Okay Robert, a couple of things. First, if you’re going to quote an article you should at least quote the punchline ... “This doesn’t mean that Bush is to blame for Solyndra or that the Obama administration should be absolved. Obama, whose administration gave the company the loan guarantee, deserves the black eye that Republicans have given him over the half a billion dollars squandered on the company.”
Having said that, I’ve already stated that I don’t like subsidies paid for by the taxpayer. I don’t know how I can be more plain than that. Furthermore, the Obama administration was warned away from Solyndra and ignored the warnings. That’s why the questions and statements about cronyism. It has everything to do with the transaction and nothing to do with the technology. Period.
And finally, get a grip on reality, would you? Those industrialized countries you spoke of are drowning in debt due to their aggressive “green energy” programs that are not economically feasible. I see absolutely no connection between bad business decisions and patriotism whatsoever. So before you tell another half-story to make your point, please do your homework.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
The Washington Post piece goes on to say “Bush’s Energy Department apparently adjusted its regulations to make sure that Solyndra would be eligible for the guarantees. It hadn’t originally contemplated including the photovoltaic-panel manufacturing that Solyndra did but changed the regulation before it was finalized. The only project that benefited was Solyndra’s.”
Regarding countries drowning in debt, the US is drowning in debt from lack of exports because it has not invested in technology or its workforce.
The biggest solar energy investor? Germany! Guess who the biggest exporter in the world is? Germany! And guess who has the strongest union laws in the world? The one that mandates a union representative on the board of every corporation? Yes, Germany!
I also find your concern about subsidies disingenuous. Subsidies for nuclear power have gone on for decades and are vastly larger than for solar or wind power. Not to mention the subsidies for suburban sprawl in the form of tax breaks for suburban home owners that urban renters don’t get. That has been hundreds of billions of dollars and it is a major cause of our bloated energy demands.
Sorry, but you have little credibility and I also note that you don’t use your actual name as Mr Bernstein does.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Melissa,
First off, I could care less what you think of my credibility. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the press and elsewhere for weeks. That fact is that the Obama Administration was warned off this loan guarantee and they approved it anyway. The Bush Administration had nothing to do with it. And in case you haven’t noticed, he’s been gone for three years. It’s time to stop blaming him for everything.
The U.S. is drowning in debt for two reasons, the government is spending money it doesn’t have, and government regulations make it impossible for businesses to flourish in this country. Technology has nothing to do with that.
As for Germany, here’s an April 2011 report from the Chamber of Commerce:
Reuters reported the new WTO statistics that the United States in 2010 was again the world’s top exporter, taking into account exports of both merchandise and commercial services. U.S. total exports reached $1.795 trillion, followed by China with $1.750, and Germany with $1.500 trillion.
And being that Germany is one of a number of social democracies in Europe, it’s certainly no surprise that they mandate union inclusion of corporations. Go figure! Tell us something we don’t know. What we now know is that you admire them, which speaks volumes about your position on things.
As for my position on subsidies, I have consistently argued against them. It’s not the government’s place to invest in failed technologies. The cost of green energy far exceeds that of more traditional energy sources, which is why countries like Spain are going under. And what in the world do you mean by “bloated energy” demands? What does that have to do with the cost of producing energy?
Your comments clearly indicate that you side with progressives in their blind ambitions to “mandate” everything. A position, by the way, that is clearly not American in it’s origins or nature. So before you start accusing me of being disingenuous and lacking of credibiilty, try looking in the mirror. As for my name, my argument stands for itself and doesn’t need my help.
Your “concern” is a typical progressive strawman argument and has no bearing on the topic. What was that again? Oh yes, Van Jones can’t be trusted. Hmm?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a cheerleader for this guy. He is an admitted socialist and believes our economy should be state controlled. The fact that he makes statements to the contrary shows questionable integrity. It doesn’t help that he is a religious convert to Al Gore’s AGW cult.
Robert, nice spin on the GWB angle, you forgot to mention that they also shot the funding down when it became obvious that Solyndra could not perform and would put taxpayers at substantial risk, a point Obama was willing to ignore.
Melissa, German industry is some of the most heavily subsidized in the world at a huge cost to the German taxpayer. They also have some of the most onerous trade protectionism in the western world, so please spare me the drooling worship. Don’t get me wrong, I love Germany and its products, but they are not competitive and if we ever pulled our military out of their country and they were required to pay their own way for security they would go broke faster than you could say “Van Jones”, so please spare me the disillusioned worship over their so called “economic success.”
Fortunately the German people are fairly astute in recognizing their precarious position and are rolling back 6 decades of nanny coddling socialist policies as fast as they can, including onerous labor policies.
As for green tech, it’s a boondoggle and the left knows it. I am a great fan of conservation, but it is best done in the private market place. More technological innovation in power conservation has occurred as a result of market demand for lighter, faster, more powerful and longer running lap top computers and cell phones than all the research done to date on electric car technology. So give me a break with your government command economy as the savior of the world philosophy. The only thing the government has done successfully is crony capitalism on a massive scale.
Finally, the very best solar energy can do is help conserve base load supplies. I get real tired of non-engineers and non-scientists touting a technology they do not understand. I am a big fan of solar PV, but it will never compete with large scale centralized generation, fueled by cheap abundant carbon based supplies. California has the some of the most expensive electricity generation at 14 cents a kilowatt and the best solar PV can do with heavy government (taxpayer) subsidies is $3.46 per kilowatt. I know you die hard AGW cultists don’t care how much energy costs as long as it’s not carbon based. But the biggest beneficiaries of cheap carbon based power are the very poor you lefties love think you are for. You tell me how much support you will get from the masses when they find out they will have to pay 25 times more for energy because of you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
What I don’t get is why anyone would pay $150 to hear this guy. It must be the 1% (limousine liberals) who have nothing better to do with their money. BTW, I wonder who pocketed the money. Van Jones is probably getting rich giving these anti-capitalist speeches. If he isn’t careful, he might become a one percenter.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Well Socaljay and Lou, I guess we told them, huh? Nothing quiets a liberal faster than facts.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Its not surprising in the least to know that neither AN50 or Socaljay understand what Van Jones appeal is or why he is heralded… They simple assume the man is an evil socialist/environmentalist because their corporate warlords/media sluts have said so.
Its a case of not understanding because they cannot understand. As much as they cannot understand the nuances of quantum physics they’ll never understand things that are well beyond their intellectual capacity.
Stick to cutting and pasting poorly written editorials and citing flawed polls and politically motivated studies…those paths seem to work well for you two…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
someguyinsb—There you go again with you absurd personal attacks. Seriously, what is your problem?
Van Jones is an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader. He is quoted as saying, “his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice.”“
Van Jones is also quoted as saying, “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”“
Van Jones’ appeal is about making money. The problem is that he’s no better than a speculator, because it’s not his money that he’s campaigning for. It doesn’t speak well for you to have missed such a simple and obvious truth. And you can stop attacking the messenger any time you like, it’s a ploy that’s really getting kind of old and worn out.
You have yet to respond to my question about what gives you the right to claim sole possession of all knowledge and truth. I guess in your world what you think you know trumps what everyone else knows, hmm? You’re not interacting with clueless college students here, you’re debating with successful businessmen and professionals.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
I really, really enjoy putting insipid, moronic, ignorant folks in their place. Getting your panties all bunched up makes me laugh. Its pure pleasure.
You do realize that you’re about as self aware as my right shoe for you fill your posts with attack after attack yet seem completely obtuse to that fact…its almost as funny as AN50’s continued “facts make liberals _____” when he is replying to a well though out factually correct post filled with citation and citation… Its like little kids saying “I know you are but what am I!” All the while ignoring the facts and parroting his warlord Rush Limbaugh.
So SoCalJay, Do you honestly think you’re going to have any influence on anyone in a web comment? Seriously? Do you think people out there read your posts and say - “what a smart guy, he is so right, that SoCalJay guy!”
Its also truly amazing to me that you think this is a forum for discussion or dialog. Are new to the internet?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Ok, I retract my last statement. Some liberals just don’t know enough to know when they are whipped.
Socaljay, you about summed this guy up. Gad what an embarrassment.
As for Jones I completely forgot about is revolutionary “enlightenment.” Nothing says wanna be class warfare nut like a $150 a plate speaking engagement in a three piece suit. Where are all those OWS nuts when you really need them? A nice pie in the face from one of them at this farce would have been real “justice.”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
AN50, I’ve got to weigh in when you start talking about renewables and conservation. I’ve also got to weigh in when you make a stinker of a mistake and reveal your lack of understanding when you discuss renewables.
Californians pay about 14 cents per kilowatt HOUR, not per kilowatt. A kilowatt (kW) is a unit of power, the ability to deliver energy. Kilowatt hours (kWh) are energy. One kilowatt can deliver one kilowatt hour per hour.
So comparing 14 c/kWh for utility electricity to $3.46 per kW for solar is nonsensical.
Commercial scale solar power is now being sold to the utilities for less than 14 c/kWh, so it’s CHEAPER than the retail rate we pay to utilities.
The retail rate, however, includes transmission and distribution, so the accurate wholesale rate to compare with wholesale solar is what’s called the “Market Price Referent,” which is about 10-11 c/kWh. And solar is now competitive with this price, judged by actual contracts signed recently by many utilities in California for wholesale solar power.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
I love it when the lefties start quoting a self-described communist as their guiding moral light.
Actually the subsidies for “green” energy or renewables greatly exceeds subsidies for conventional sources. Without the huge subsidies nobody would use this intermittent and inefficient energy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/power_shift.html
From the Institute for Energy Research here are the subsidies for various forms of energy:
Green energy- Photovoltaic solar technology-$0.21 per kilowatt hour (kWh), solar thermal technology-$0.31 per kWh, and offshore wind-$0.24 per kWh.
Conventional energy- $0.07 per kWh for natural gas-fired combined cycle, $0.10 per kWh for conventional coal, and $0.11 per kWh for advanced nuclear.
Sorry, but all this green/renewable energy is much more highly subsidized than conventional energy and it still can’t compete.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Okay, Tam, if solar is economically competitive with fossil fuels, there will not be any need to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars to solar firm employing high paid lobbyists and Obama bundlers. If solar is a cheap source of energy then it will gain traction in the marketplace, because in the end the cheapest, most plentiful energy source will win out. So far, this hasn’t proven true, so until I see more evidence of solar rapidly gaining market share, I will continue to be a proponent of drilling more oil and natural gas in the US as well as other viable sources of energy such as nuclear, coal, etc.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Lou, see my recent piece discussing how solar and wind are doing exactly what you say you are looking for: growing exponentially. Solar, in particular, is growing at about 68% annually over the last five years globally. This rate of growth, even if cut in half to “only” 35% annually, will bring us more solar power than we can use by 2030 or sooner because of a doubling time of about 2.3 years. Doubling about every two years, as the old Chinese tale about the chessboard and rice grains demonstrates, leads to huge numbers very quickly.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/the-good-news-climate-change-doesnt-matter-anymore
These growth rates do currently reflect subsidies for solar and wind around the world, but as I wrote in the below piece we are on track in the next few years to a decade to seeing solar compete witout subsidies. This is the case because solar prices are dropping so fast due to huge increases in global production and cheaper commodity costs.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/09/on-solar-and-solyndra
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
someguyinsb “Do you think people out there read your posts and say - “what a smart guy, he is so right, that SoCalJay guy!”
No, but you apparently do.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
I have nothing against solar, but I also want to be realistic. I think solar energy is around 1 or 2% of the total electricity market. Count automobiles and other energy uses, and solar is an infinitesimal amount of our energy sources. So you can brag about the growth rates, but when you start from such a low level, it doesn’t really make a dent in the market. A leading study from an environmental group admits that solar will not be greater than 10% of the electricity market by 2025, 15 years from now. It is not realistic to not increase our production of fossil fuels, when we will continue to rely upon them for the lion’s share of our energy for a long time.
Most interestingly, is how Wall Street is handsomely profiting from the solar industry. As you may know, there is a federal 30% tax credit, and many Wall street firms and tax shelter syndicators now sell these tax breaks to wealthy investors (1 percenters). Don’t you find it a little ironic that the greedy and selfish 1% are making a killing from the solar energy industry. I predict that many more abuses will be uncovered in the next few years. I am afraid we have just uncovered the tip of this iceberg, believe me it is only just beginning.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
You folks are so scared of the proverbial boogie man. Communists! BOO! Socialists! Oh no!!! “Hide yo wife, hide your children, the communists are gonna sneak in your bedroom and take you away!”
What year do you live in? Dont answer that we know - somewhere in pastoral 1950’s… How sad that you are so afraid of a nonexistent threat as well as progress. No wonder you’re so confused. You’re just a bunch of scaredy cats. Like the old curmudgeon chasing away those pesky kids…
Talk about a cliche.
Friggin hilarious… Communists! HA!
Wake up people its 2012 and there are no Communists, no Marxists, Socialist or any other political movement that will sweep away your “freedom” ruin your idyllic lifestyle and subjective your faith in the magic walk on water, blue eyed, white savior from North Africa aka Jesus.
We are in the 21st century and its time to look at things as they are not as they were. What ever it is is an amalgam of many facets, not a singular philosophy or system.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
someguyinsb ... yepper, they’re call “progressives.” And they haven’t changed their tune (or is that toons?) in over two hundred years. The fact that you diss the whole topic shows how entrenched you are, not me.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Tam, sorry my mistake. I meant Kwh’s in both pricing structures. And looking at my data it was 18c/kwh not $3.46. The $3.46 was the cost per watt not the rate we got paid on output. Glad you caught that, it helps not to mix apples and oranges.
I went through this exercise recently for a large solar PV industrial project. I really wanted to get it going and took advantage of every available scheme out there. We could not get the subsidized pricing down enough to sell the capitalization. It really sucked. I was very disappointed.
Look I am big supporter of solar PV, Tam, you know that. I want it to succeed. It is a great way, particularly for smaller decentralized systems, to conserve base load supplies, especially for industrial applications where peak demand coincides with peak PV output. Really we have thousands of square miles of industrial roof tops just sitting there going to waste. But those of us pushing this hard on the industrial decentralized system node just can’t make the financing attractive enough. It’s a real bummer, but spin anyway you want it still doesn’t pay for itself quite like cheaper carbon based central supplies.
I truly believe if we don’t sell out our manufacturing to the damned Chinese, like so many PV manufacturers already have, and use cheap carbon based fuels as a source of revenue to fund the PV NRE and start up costs we can beat the costs down enough to warrant using them for conservation sources. I think it’s a waste not to. But like it or not solar PV has a limit to its energy density and once that is reached it won’t give up any more no matter how many cells you flood the market with. It really becomes a physics problem at that point.
Sorry it sounds pessimistic, but really its reality. Carbon fuels have the advantage of millions of years of stored solar and geothermal energy at your command in an instant, you will never get enough solar at an instant to compete with that no matter what you do. Same goes for battery powered cars. We just can’t compete with our current understanding of quantum physics with what nature has already done for us. And that my friend is why we should keep trying and use what nature has provided to fund it. It ain’t that hard to figure out unless you are a dopy anti carbon fuel nut. That scenario goes real dark in a real hurry.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Someguy, a communist is one who believes the state should own all the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Socialism is a system where by the state controls but does not necessarily own the means of production and distribution of goods and services. A capitalist system is where the means of production and distribution of goods and services is privately held. A market system is where control is determined by the market place.
Yes you are right we have an amalgam of these various systems, for better or worse. What we conservatives prefer is a free market and private ownership. That means maximum freedom for all of us. It also means maximum risk/reward. Guys like you don’t seem to have the stomach for risk but really like rewards. So you glom on to a more state owned type economic system because it seems safer and risk free. But what you fail to realize is the more control you give up, the less you allow yourself to own, the less free you are. The safest place for you is prison. Three squares a day, all the drugs and sex you want and never have to worry about supporting yourself.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
SoCaljay - I suggest you move to Utah or Miss or Kansas. There you’ll be right at home among the ignorant masses who deny scientific proof and lack an evolved, educated mind. You can watch your Nascar and listen to your charlatan preachers talk about evils of the modern world…all while listening to the music and using the technology that were created by us progressives…yes, you’re welcome for the internet, the personal computer, your cell phone and for rock music and practically everything else worth while in the world.
I have to ask: Why do you live here when you are so out of sorts? You hate everything that is of virtue in this fine land. You’d be more happy among your people. You know the ones that find their truth in a fictional book written 2000 years ago…
PS - you really should pick another user name. One other than the same one you use for your other online activities. I’ll save the sure to be embarrassing outing of you for another day…that is gonna be fun!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
someguy,
Time to put your tin foil back on, mommy’s calling again. Get back on your meds.
Tam,
Without subsidies these renewables would never be used. Bottom line. I posted the subsidies previously, they are significantly higher. Secondly, these renewables are largely intermittent, so we still need to have adequate supply of conventional generation to handle base and peak loads.
I have nothing against any form of energy but I have a huge problem trying to plug a square peg in a round hole through government largesse and “good intentions”. Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg on this nonsense. Research funding is one thing but hugely subsidizing something that can’t survive on its own is dumb. All these European countries that went down this path are all licking their wounds and significantly cutting government support for “green” energy.
If solar or wind can compete on their own without subsidies that’s wonderful, but I’m tired of this politically motivated “investment” in inefficient forms of energy. Every dollar diverted to this stuff is a dollar that can’t be used somewhere else. Remember the opportunity cost concept from Econ 101?
If this is really so great the VCs would rushing to invest in this. Everyone would. The reality is the only reason they have invested is that the government basically guarantees them a ROI through their subsidies, breaks and loans. If VCs or other investors want to invest their money on their own in these technologies and take the commensurate risks, great. That’s what they are for.
If the Chinese want to corner the market for inefficient and unprofitable forms of energy let them. If they want to sell us cheap solar panels that benefits us.
I tell you what, let’s get rid of all energy subsidies, how about that? None for anyone. We’ll see which technologies are viable and which aren’t. You game? We can’t afford them anyway, we’re broke.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
This discussion has sparked my memory banks regarding all this green energy worship. Tam actually wrote a piece several months ago about how Spain and Portugal were leading the green energy revolution—- right before they basically went bankrupt. You all should go read it and read the comments:
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/020811_tam_hunt_spain_portugal_lead_the_way_on_renewable_energy/#comments
The band, song and notes don’t change regardless of the audience, situation or facts.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
someguyinsb, you probably think you’re pretty clever, don’t you? Unfortunately you have me pegged wrong on just about every case except one. You might even be able to figure that one out if you try hard enough. Not sure why the personal vendetta, however. You must not have much to do. By the way, you are beginning to step out on thin ice. Personal threats are against the terms of use.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Oh Jay, I suggest you go back and read the very first post on this thread and tell me how you’re not attacking someone based on a rather obvious prejudice/bias? Are you really that unaware?
As for the TOS! ha ha you really take yourself so so seriously dont you… what a tool. You actually think your being smart with your drivel… no one cares what you say. Don’t you get that? You’re not going to change any ones opinion about anything.
It sure is fun to poke you though. Nothing quite like putting an arrogant idiot in his place, time and time again. And each time your veins pop, your panties bunch and you spend all that time trying to prove how smart you are… insecure much?
You must be new to the interwebs - have fun and yes, I will continue to mess with you - Why? Because its FUN! Yet another trait conservatives seem to lack any semblance of understanding about - how to have a ton of fun. Conservatives are boring and unfunny. Can you name a single funny conservative? And no Dennis Miller is not funny. No wonder you’re all so uptight.
You have already flagged this entry.
AN50, commercial rooftop solar can in fact be quite a good investment, so email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you’d like me to take a look at your project (that is my day job, after all).
As for solar potential more generally and energy density, yes, solar is not very energy dense. But that’s not really an issue when we consider, as you mention, the potential for dual use property: rooftops, parking lots, agricultural land (animals can graze around solar panels), etc. We also have a lot of open space that we can use if need be.
As I’ve mentioned before, I enjoy these discussions, but the writing is on the wall regardless of what you or I think: just look at the growth rates I’ve discussed and project out a few years. Our future is going to be primarily solar powered, whether we like it or not.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Lou, please read the articles I link to. I show the math. Again, at even half of the growth rate for solar that we’ve seen over the last five years, we will have more solar power, literally, than we can use on a global basis by 2030. Will that actually happen? No. But I’ll be you a handsome sum of money that we get to well over 1/3 solar and other renewables, and probably over 50%, globally by 2030.
CA is on track to reach 33% renewables by 2020 and if we throw in big hydro also (which isn’t considered renewable under California law due to environmental concerns), we’ll be over 50%. Hmmm. The world’s 8th largest economy at over 50% renewables by 2020 - now that’s a good example for the world.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, yes, we have indeed been through this before. And you’re still wrong on the facts.
Portugal’s and Spain’s debt woes have almost nothing to do with their renewables programs. Those programs are funded through utility rates, not debt. And the mere fact that their renewable programs are still in full effect should be enough to put your argument to rest.
As for subsidies, I’m guessing you wouldn’t say the same about nuclear power? Nuclear power gets the same loan guarantees that renewable power can. And the same production tax credit. But nuclear also gets Price-Anderson risk insurance (socialized risk for privatized profit, a great model for capitalists), as well as other subsidies. Hmmm.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
I tell you what Tam, if you lighten up on the regulatory torment that they put nuclear plants through, then sure. Most of the huge costs of making a nuclear plant is in complying with government studies and rules and a barrage of lawsuits. Just to apply to build a plant and go through the permitting process can take more than a decade and cost billions before they can even move any dirt.
I suggest you take a tour and talk to PG&E about Diablo Canyon. They could increase their output by 20% today, for zero cost but their license won’t allow it. They have that capacity as we speak.
To apply to increase their ratings would cost them $1B and years of regulatory and legal torment. It’s not worth it. Between the lawsuit happy flat-earth, no growth, environmental whakos and their counterparts in government, they have done everything they can to kill nuclear power.
Do you understand that? Just to file a bunch of paperwork would cost them $1B. There is no excuse for this, this is purposeful obstruction. Level the playing field and stop favoring one form of energy over another and let them all compete on their own merits.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, nuclear power is not remotely cost-effective when compared to better alternatives and your facts are yet again way off in terms of cost components for nuclear power. The vast majority of the cost of nuclear power is its capital cost, not the regulatory burden. Here’s a 2008 Time article summarizing some recent findings, including reports filed by new nuclear plant applicants projecting total costs of $12 to $19 billion for a single facility! At these price levels, nuclear power would cost well over the cost we currently pay for retail power, let alone wholesale power.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1869203,00.html
Moreover, I would hope that incidents like Fukushima might have convinced you that those who worry about the safety of nuclear power, and push for tighter regulation, are actually justified in their concerns. Too much to hope for, I guess.
Here’s a great example of the complete dishonesty required to sell nuclear power as cost-effective:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
See the chart a little ways down showing the “US electricity production costs 1995-2008” of nuclear power compared to gas, coal and oil. Wow, look how cost-effective nuclear power is. Then look at the note below the chart stating that the calculation doesn’t include capital costs because they vary so much by jurisdiction. This is like calculating the cost of driving your car and omitting the cost of buying the car. It’s completely disingenuous and even more so with nuclear power than in the car example because capital costs are the lion’s share of the costs of nuclear power.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Tam, since you didn’t deal with the ample information about bogus green jobs I will consider that argument conceded.
Now, why has the cost of nuclear plants become so expensive? Regulation, delays, lawsuits, etc. have all contributed massively to increasing the cost. A Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier cost about $4B to construct. There is no way a conventional nuclear power plant should cost more than an aircraft carrier that has two reactors, and much, much more complexity and ancillary equipment and is infinitely more complex to construct.
This makes my point that regulatory torment is what is killing nuclear power. There is no way on earth that cement, rebar, and associated construction costs should be $12B. Dragging the process out for a decade or longer is what drives up the cost. That is done purposely to kill nuclear power.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html
The above link talks about what has happened and shows specific examples where the regulatory and legal stalling tactics drove up the cost of construction of a nuclear plant by 10X. Other countries take far less time and cost much less to permit and bring on line nuclear plants. Artificially driving up the cost of a nuclear plant by purposeful obstruction and then saying its too expensive is BS.
That is my whole point, stop tormenting them to death and let nuclear power compete on a level playing field. All I’m saying is cut all the subsidies and quit trying to pick winners and losers and let the market decide what makes sense and what doesn’t. If its really so expensive it will die a natural death. What are you so afraid of?
How many people have died from the Fukushima disaster? Three-Mile Island? Zero. How many people die each year in coal fired power plant accidents? Falling off windmills? More than zero. If you are to believe the coal fear mongering many thousands die every year. Our reactors have superior fail-safe methods compared to the Japanese systems that had issues (self-circulating) so what happened there would not happen here.
I would think all you man-made global warming disciples would embrace nuclear power. After all, it doesn’t produce any of the dreaded greenhouse gasses you think are destroying our planet. It’s the ultimate “green” energy. No emissions and its not intermittent.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Have to agree with wireless on this Tam. You can’t say nuclear is cost prohibitive when most of the cost is obstructionist regulation. By that I mean regulation which is well beyond reason and science and mostly done to slow down or stop a particular activity. I really don’t know why the environmental community is so adverse to this technology and hydro for that matter. It just boggles my mind. In the case of hydro they have the same infantile mentality of the “preserve” Santa Barbara movement. “Our physical environment must never change”, is the mantra and is so out of place with our dynamic earth. As for nukes, I too am concerned about the waste factor and the operational security. However we use this technology all over the globe and the worst offenders are larger communist governments so I don’t get America’s aversion.
These two energy producing alternatives (hydro is the favorite of the third world for obvious reasons) would be excellent sources of wealth and income for driving NRE and development costs on replacements for finite carbon fuels, instead of pulling that wealth out of an already overtaxed and debt ridden economy. They are fairly abundant though only in specific areas. Unfortunately we are now 3 decades behind on nukes because of irrational and stupid fear mongering by leftist environmental whackos, the same lunacy you now see with AGW and 2 decades behind on hydro development (which is actually being reversed, good grief!)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, Amory Lovins said it well a few years ago with respect to the alleged “nuclear Renaissance”: “You can de-fibrillate a corpse and it will jump but it won’t come back to life.”
In other words, Congress is throwing massive money at nuclear power here in the US, in terms of loan guarantees, production tax credits, risk insurance, accelerated depreciation, etc., but this will very likely lead to just six new plants (if that) because that’s when the subsidies run out. Nuclear power isn’t remotely sensible as an investment unless it has these massive subsidies.
The key difference between nuclear power and renewables is that subsidies are actually working as intended for renewables b/c the cost of renewable power is decreasing dramatically.
The opposite is the case for nuclear power because regulation justifiably tightens with each major incident. Your statement with respect to deaths from previous nuclear accidents demonstrates a rather dangerous myopia: are deaths all that matter with respect to US and Japanese nuclear accidents (don’t forget that many cancer deaths have resulted from Chernobyl)? Did you follow Fukushima at all? Did you not read about the widespread and massive economic and environmental harm that resulted from this unfortunate accident?
As for it not happening here in the US, I urge you to research a little the history of our very own backyard nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon. They built it right next to a fault that was discovered after they started construction. And they got the plans backwards in construction and had to engage in massive retrofits to correct this basic mistake. And now PG&E is seeking re-licensing without completing the requisite seismic studies first. Wow.
As for eliminating all subsidies for energy I’m almost in agreement. I do believe in the twin threats of climate change and peak oil and so I also believe that government should do what it can to promote solutions to these major threats.
New nukes are a distraction from the far more cost-effective solutions of increased energy efficiency, conservation and renewables - that have all the benefits without many of the major downsides of nuclear power.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Tam,
You completely ignore that nuclear is expensive because radical environmentalists like yourself do their best to put it out of business and make it expensive. I note you didn’t comment on the specific examples of a 10x cost escalation. You ignore my example of the aircraft carrier; that stuff just rolls off your liberal back.
Other countries continue to build new nuclear power plants, including China who supposedly makes all those cheap solar panels. Gee, I wonder why? The Japanese screwed up their response to Fukushima about as bad as they could and it still did not kill anyone. There is some radiation leakage but it’s manageable and will be dealt with. The economic benefit they have derived from nuclear energy greatly outweighs whatever damage this accident will produce.
http://www.thewcrp.com/media/hiroshima-vs-detroit/
(just for fun so we can see where liberal policies lead)
Before the tsunami they had 14 more plants on tap to take their total nuclear capacity to about 53% of all electricity. Everything is on hold for the moment but I suspect as time moves on and cooler heads prevail they will continue. If nuclear is so expensive why would the Japanese have planned to go from 23% to 53% of their capacity in the next decade or so? Displacing LNG by the way.
Chernobyl is a bogus example as that was an ancient design and didn’t even have a containment vessel. The studies on deaths from that fiasco were much less than anticipated.
Naturally you only support subsidies to your precious renewable energy that you also happen to have a financial interest in. If we are going to subsidize something it should at least be a 24/7 energy source, not intermittent “renewables”.
BTW, speaking of renewables, reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is a common practice everywhere but here. If you really are concerned about man-made global warming and peak oil the most available and most practical and scalable source of electricity generation is nuclear power. You don’t get to make it expensive on purpose then tell us its too expensive so you can chase your green energy unicorns.
I really would challenge you to go on a tour of Diablo Canyon and see how that is built, it isn’t going anywhere. Call PG&E and ask for a tour, they love trying to educate anti-nuclear luddite lefties like you. Who knows, you might even learn something. Its actually a fascinating tour. Don’t worry you won’t grow a third eye.
You still haven’t commented on the fact that they could increase production by 20% for free but the permit costs are prohibitive—$1B to file paperwork and answer legal challenges. PG&E told me their cost to produce a kW/hr is 3 cents now. Granted the capital is written off but that is much less than any of your intermittent renewables will ever be.
As our economy grows we will need more energy not less, even with conservation and other improvements in efficiency. Your green pipe dreams have so far proven to yield disastrous economic results as I amply pointed out with our friends in Europe and our own fiascos like Solyndra here at home. None of these renewables has a prayer of being a base load for power needs.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, addressing your point about artificial increases to the cost of nuclear power: your facts are wrong.
There is an interesting but misleading article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that I picked up in the airport last week:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power
Moniz adopts the ridiculous and dishonest nuclear industry line that nuclear power’s operational costs are cheap - therefore nuclear power is cheap. This is, as I’ve pointed out previously, like saying that buying and running a new car is cheap once we pay it off.
Moniz later in his article acknowledges that the capital costs for new nukes are exorbitant AND that increased costs due to regulatory delays are, by law, reimbursed to nuclear plant developers (p. 88):
“In the United States, there is still a great deal of uncertainty over the cost of new nuclear power plants. It has been almost 40 years since the last new nuclear power plant was ordered. The Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned corporation, is currently finishing construction of the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor, in eastern Tennessee, which was started long ago, and it has plans to complete another, Bellefonte Unit I, in Hollywood, Alabama. The first new nuclear plants of next generation design are likely to be built in Georgia by the Southern Company, pending the NRC’S approval. Scheduled for completion in 2016, the proposed project entails two reactors totaling 2,200 megawatts at an estimated cost of $14 billion. It will take advantage of substantial subsidies (loan guarantees, production tax credits, and the reimbursement of costs caused by regulatory delay) that were put forward in the 2005 Energy Policy Act to kickstart the construction of new nuclear plants. Even after Fukushima, Congress and the White House appear to still be committed to this assistance program. The success or failure of these construction projects in avoiding delays and cost overruns will help determine the future of nuclear power in the United States.”
So Moniz is a supporter of new nukes in the US, and this is the point of his article, but he does a good job of detailing the many hurdles to new nukes - including the incredibly high capital costs.
But it seems that your objection about anti-nuclear activists unfairly increasing the cost of nuclear power is unfounded, due to the reimbursement of regulatory delay costs (though lawsuits are a different matter).
I wouldn’t trust PG&E’s $1 billion estimate of permitting costs to expand Diablo. I work with CA utilities all the time at the CPUC and I generally trust their statements very little unless independently verified (PG&E is better than SCE, but not by a whole lot). Point me to an independent study and I may take this figure seriously.
I don’t know why new aircraft carriers are substantially cheaper, but I suspect it’s due at least in part to the fact that their reactors are far smaller than terrestial reactors (165 MW or less for carriers versus over 1,000 MW for terrestrial). As Moniz points out in his article, there are generally negative economies of scale associated with nuclear power so the bigger they get the more expensive they seem to get.
Moniz also points out that costs are likely to go higher as lessons from Fukushima are incorporated into regulatory requirements here in the US - as has happened for every incident in the past. This is entirely rational.
As for new nukes in other countries, the experiences in many countries, but particularly in Finland and France, suggest that new nukes are costing other countries way more than previously suggested in the planning phases. This will certainly have a chilling effect on the actual number of new nukes that are built around the world.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Tam,
Took you awhile to dig and you should have kept digging because as usual you are very selective on your sources. It is true that government permitting related costs can be reimbursed but that is only IF the ultimate permit is successful. Most are not, so those massive costs are lost. The process carries too much risk and is a huge disincentive to undertake a project. Costs due to private lawsuits, etc. are not reimbursed and can be significant. Also not recognized is the time value of money when the permitting process is strung out for years.
If renewables had to go through a similar process they would never survive and they still only survive due to all the favoratism and largesse from the government:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-28/energy-subsidies-stymie-wind-solar-innovation-nathan-myhrvold.html
You also don’t recognize that once the costs of construction are borne these plants provide decades of reliable, non-intermittant, clean power that we need.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Tam,
I’m guessing you were and are a supporter of AB-32, our very own CA global warming law. By 2020 we’ve committed ourselves to get to 1990 emissions levels and another 80% cut by 2050. Aside from the mindless absurdity of this self-destructive legislation and how it is killing CA, there remains the very real question of how on earth we can achieve these goals.
Luckily, some eggheads from Livermore Labs have done the math and concluded we can do it if we all drive electric cars. This means we are going to need a lot more electricity. They conclude that nuclear power is the only viable way to achieve this but we need to build 1.5 nuclear plants per year to meet our self-imposed goals. What to do?
http://news.investors.com/Article/593182/201111291848/california-in-denial-about-its-nuclear-needs.htm
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, the source I primarily relied on in my last post on nuclear power costs was from a writer in FAVOR of nuclear power. I’m not sure how this is “selective.” As I mentioned, this author is a proponent of nuclear power, but because he was writing for a respected foreign policy journal he had to be at least partially honest (as I mentioned, he followed the usual nuclear advocacy line about nuclear power being cheap, except for the vast majority of the cost that constitutes the cost to build it…)
You yourself adopt this transparently silly line of reasoning when you state “you also don’t recognize that once the costs of construction are bornet these plants provide decades of reliable, non-intermittent, clean power that we need.” Yeah, just like when my 30-year mortgage for my house is paid off, I can live really cheaply. Oh, that mortgage is the vast majority of the cost living in the house, in the aggregate? Oops.
As for the costs of nuclear plants being inflated by regulatory delays that may not, after all, be reimbursed, how many nuclear power plant applications are denied for each one that is successfully built? There are currently 104 nuclear plants operating in the US. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out how many applications were submitted in order to reach this level of nuclear development.
As for nuclear power subsidies compared to renewables, I suggest you do some more research. Nuclear power has received far more subsidies at the federal and state level than renewables. When we compare subsidies per kWh, it’s not quite as clear a picture, with solar generally the hands-down winner under this measure. But, again, as previously mentioned, renewable energy subsidies are clearly working as intended: costs for renewables have steadily decreased over the decades, with grid parity in sight over the next few years. Not so for nuclear power, as costs have only gone up and up as regulations have justifiably tightened because of the huge risks associated with nuclear power.
As for AB 32, reputable studies have been completed as part of the implementation process and the latest result is that implementing AB 32 through 2020 will have a neutral effect on CA’s economy. It seems clear to me and many others that in the long-term decarbonizing our economy will have major economic benefits for all Californians because it will help us create new industries, new jobs, and new innovation that will allow us to compete in the world’s biggest industry (energy) as it transitions to a fossil fuel free future.
As for your IBD article on the Science magazine study looking at CA’s 2050 carbon emissions goal, it is practically fraudulent in how it represents this article (which I’ve read). The Science article is a critical look at what it will take to achieve CA’s goal of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The paper looks at a number of scenarios, including a high renewables and a high nuclear scenario. In no way does the paper conclude that the high nuclear scenario is necessary. Rather, in the high renewables scenario, renewables provide the vast majority of power by 2050, with power demand reduced dramatically be energy efficiency. Nuclear power plays a small but significant ongoing role in that scenario.
The IBD law also gets AB 32 wrong: that law doesn’t require the 80% reduction by 2050. AB 32 only goes through 2020. The 2050 goal is not codified in law. Rather, it’s codified in Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order from 2006, which preceded AB 32.
As for the Forbes article, it’s anti-green energy stance positively drips from the pages. This is the only way that the article could miss the positive news in discussing a coming glut in lithium ion batteries, and instead frame this development in a negative light. This “coming glut” is a tremendously good development because bringing costs of batteries down significantly has been a major problem for decades. We are finally starting to see this happen, right when a whole slew of new electric vehicles are coming on to the market. This is great news! Government subsidies have actually worked, as they have for renewables more generally when we consider the dramatic price declines of recent years.
What really bugs me about pro-nuclear advocates is that I have yet to meet one who is honest. Why can’t one be pro-nuclear and also honest in one’s advocacy?
Wireless, you’re clearly a smart guy with some time on your hands. I recommend you leave the right-wing media alone for a while and try to focus on factually accurate sources of information. I don’t mind disagreements about policy or philosophy, but let’s at least be honest in the facts we choose to use to buttress our arguments.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Wireless, I have benefited personally somewhat from the federal cash grant program, through my consulting work for a Bakersfield-based oil company that installed a 1 MW solar facility this year. I permitted the project and helped in some other ways. The article you linked to is interesting but misleading in some ways.
The fact is that federal energy subsidies are diverse and have different motivations and effects. The cash grant program, which is an option to replace the 30% investment tax credit for some renewables, or the 2.2 c/kWh production tax credit for other renewables, is designed to simply reduce the tax burden and upfront cost of renewable energy equipment. The article is right in that foreign-produced equipment can benefit from this subsidy - as befits int’l trade rules that prevent discriminating against foreign trading partners in favor of domestic companies (review World Trade Organization rules).
The loan guarantee program is a different subsidy, which mostly benefited domestic companies receiving lower interest loans due to the guarantee.
Some programs do have a “buy American” requirement, or did, but this is rare because as I mentioned this violates int’l trade rules.
The bottomline is that I would generally prefer US energy subsidies to help US companies and to grow employment here, but I’m not going to oppose subsidies that lead to lower prices by providing some subsidies that benefit foreign companies too.
So the article is misleading in that it ignores this key point: Asian and European manufacturers may benefit from some of our subsidies, but we benefit from lower prices and growing industries here in the US. At the same time, we benefit from liberalized trading rules that allow our companies to take advantage of similar programs elsewhere.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Comments
