Group items tagged

CPS didn’t just pull nukes out of a hat when it went looking for energy options. CEO Milton Lee may be intellectually lazy, but he’s not stupid. Seeking to fulfill the cheap power mandate in San Antonio and beyond (CPS territory covers 1,566 square miles, reaching past Bexar County into Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson counties), staff laid natural gas, coal, renewables and conservation, and nuclear side-by-side and proclaimed nukes triumphant. Coal is cheap upfront, but it’s helplessly foul; natural gas, approaching the price of whiskey, is out; and green solutions just aren’t ready, we’re told. The 42-member Nuclear Expansion Analysis Team, or NEAT, proclaimed “nuclear is the lowest overall risk considering possible costs and risks associated with it as compared to the alternatives.” Hear those crickets chirping?

NEAT members would hold more than a half-dozen closed-door meetings before the San Antonio City Council got a private briefing in September. When the CPS board assembled October 1 to vote the NRG partnership up or down, CPS executives had already joined the application pending with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Supplemental Participation Agreement allowed NRG to move quickly in hopes of cashing in on federal incentives while giving San Antonio time to gather its thoughts. That proved not too difficult. Staff spoke of “overwhelming support” from the Citizen’s Advisory Board and easy relations with City staff. “So far, we haven’t seen any fatal flaws in our analysis,” said Mike Kotera, executive vice president of energy development for CPS. With boardmember and Mayor Phil Hardberger still in China inspecting things presumably Chinese, the vote was reset for October 29.

No one at the meeting asked about cost, though the board did request a month-by-month analysis of the fiasco that has been the South Texas Project 1&2 to be delivered at Monday’s meeting. When asked privately about cost, several CPS officers said they did not know what the plants would run, and the figure — if it were known — would not be public since it is the subject of contract negotiations. “We don’t know yet,” said Bob McCullough, director of CPS’s corporate communications. “We are not making the commitment to build the plant. We’re not sure at this point we really understand what it’s going to cost.” The $206 million outlay the board will consider on Monday is not to build the pair of 1,300-megawatt, Westinghouse Advanced Boiling Water Reactors. It is also not a contract to purchase power, McCullough said. It is merely to hold a place in line for that power.

It’s likely that we would come on a recurring basis back to the board to keep them apprised of where we are and also the decision of whether or not we think it makes sense for us to go forward,” said Larry Blaylock, director of CPS’s Nuclear Oversight & Development. So, at what point will the total cost of the new plants become transparent to taxpayers? CPS doesn’t have that answer. “At this point, it looks like in order to meet our load growth, nuclear looks like our lowest-risk choice and we think it’s worth spending some money to make sure we hold that place in line,” said Mark Werner, director of Energy Market Operations.

Another $10 million request for “other new nuclear project opportunities” will also come to the board Monday. That request summons to mind a March meeting between CPS officials and Exelon Energy reps, followed by a Spurs playoff game. Chicago-based Exelon, currently being sued in Illinois for allegedly releasing millions of gallons of radioactive wastewater beneath an Illinois plant, has its own nuclear ambitions for Texas. South Texas Project The White House champions nuclear, and strong tax breaks and subsidies await those early applicants. Whether CPS qualifies for those millions remains to be seen. We can only hope.

CPS has opted for the Super Honkin’ Utility model. Not only that — quivering on the brink of what could be a substantial efficiency program, CPS took a leap into our unflattering past when it announced it hopes to double our nuclear “portfolio” by building two new nuke plants in Matagorda County. The utility joined New Jersey-based NRG Energy in a permit application that could fracture an almost 30-year moratorium on nuclear power plant creation in the U.S.

After Unit 1 came online in 1988, it had to be shut down after water-pump shaft seared off in May, showering debris “all over the place,” according to Nucleonics Week. The next month two breakers failed during a test of backup power, leading to an explosion that sheared off a steam-generator pump and shot the shaft into the station yard. After the second unit went online the next year, there were a series of fires and failures leading to a half-million-dollar federal fine in 1993 against Houston Power. Then the plant went offline for 14 months. Not the glorious launch the partnership had hoped for. Today, CPS officials still do not know how much STP has cost the city, though they insist overall it has been a boon worth billions. “It’s not a cut-and-dried analysis. We’re doing what we can to try to put that in terms that someone could share and that’s a chore,” said spokesman McCollough. CPS has appealed numerous Open Records requests by the Current to the state Attorney General. The utility argues that despite being owned by the City they are not required to reveal, for instance, how much it may cost to build a plant or even how much pollution a plant generates, since the electricity market is a competitive field.

How do we usher in this new utopia of decentralized power? First, we have to kill CPS and bury it — or the model it is run on, anyway. What we resurrect in its place must have sustainability as its cornerstone, meaning that the efficiency standards the City and the utility have been reaching for must be rapidly eclipsed. Not only are new plants not the solution, they actively misdirect needed dollars away from the answer. Whether we commit $500 million to build a new-fangled “clean-coal” power plant or choose to feed multiple billions into a nuclear quagmire, we’re eliminating the most plausible option we have: rapid decentralization.

A 2003 study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the cost of nuclear power to exceed that of both coal and natural gas. A U.S. Energy Information Administration report last year found that will still be the case when and if new plants come online in the next decade. If ratepayers don’t pay going in with nuclear, they can bet on paying on the way out, when virtually the entire power plant must be disposed of as costly radioactive waste. The federal government’s inability to develop a repository for the tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste means reactors across the country are storing spent fuel in onsite holding ponds. It is unclear if the waste’s lethality and tens of thousands of years of radioactivity were factored into NEAT’s glowing analysis.

The federal dump choice, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, is expected to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion. If it opens, Yucca will be full by the time STP 3&4 are finished, requiring another federal dump and another trainload of greenbacks. Just the cost of Yucca’s fence would set you back. Add the price of replacing a chain-link fence around, let’s say, a 100-acre waste site. Now figure you’re gonna do that every 50 years for 10,000 years or more. Security guards cost extra. That is not to say that the city should skip back to the coal mine. Thankfully, we don’t need nukes or coal, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a D.C.-based non-profit that champions energy efficiency. A collection of reports released this year argue that a combination of ramped-up efficiency programs, construction of numerous “combined heat and power” facilities, and installation of on-site renewable energy resources would allow the state to avoid building new power plants. Texas could save $73 billion in electric generation costs by spending $50 billion between now and 2023 on such programs, according to the research group. The group also claims the efficiency revolution would even be good for the economy, creating 38,300 jobs. If ACEEE is even mostly right, plans to start siphoning millions into a nuclear reservoir look none too inspired.

To jump tracks will take a major conversion experience inside CPS and City Hall, a turning from the traditional model of towering plants, reels of transmission line, and jillions of dependent consumers. CPS must “decentralize” itself, as cities as close as Austin and as far away as Seattle are doing. It’s not only economically responsible and environmentally sound, but it is the best way to protect our communities entering what is sure to be a harrowing century. Greening CPS CPS is grudgingly going greener. In 2004, a team of consultants, including Wisconsin-based KEMA Inc., hired to review CPS operations pegged the utility as a “a company in transition.” Executives interviewed didn’t understand efficiency as a business model. Even some managers tapped to implement conservation programs said such programs were about “appearing” concerned, according to KEMA’s findings.

While the review exposed some philosophical shortcomings, it also revealed for the first time how efficiency could transform San Antonio. It was technically possible, for instance, for CPS to cut electricity demand by 1,935 megawatts in 10 years through efficiency alone. While that would be accompanied with significant economic strain, a less-stressful scenario could still cut 1,220 megawatts in that period — eliminating 36 percent of 2014’s projected energy use. CPS’s current plans call for investing $96 million to achieve a 225-megawatt reduction by 2016. The utility plans to spend more than four times that much by 2012 upgrading pollution controls at the coal-fired J.T. Deely power plant.

In hopes of avoiding the construction of Spruce 2 (now being built, a marvel of cleanliness, we are assured), Citizen Oversight Committee members asked KEMA if it were possible to eliminate 500 megawatts from future demand through energy efficiency alone. KEMA reported back that, yes, indeed it was possible, but would represent an “extreme” operation and may have “unintended consequences.” Such an effort would require $620 million and include covering 90 percent of the cost of efficiency products for customers. But an interesting thing happens under such a model — the savings don’t end in 2012. They stretch on into the future. The 504 megawatts that never had to be generated in 2012 end up saving 62 new megawatts of generation in 2013 and another 53 megawatts in 2014. With a few tweaks on the efficiency model, not only can we avoid new plants, but a metaphorical flip of the switch can turn the entire city into one great big decentralized power generator.

Even without good financial data, the Citizen’s Advisory Board has gone along with the plan for expansion. The board would be “pennywise and pound foolish” not to, since the city is already tied to STP 1&2, said at-large member Jeannie O’Sullivan. “Yes, in the past the board of CPS had been a little bit not as for taking on a [greater] percentage of nuclear power. I don’t know what their reasons were, I think probably they didn’t have a dialogue with a lot of different people,” O’Sullivan said.

For this, having a City-owned utility offers an amazing opportunity and gives us the flexibility to make most of the needed changes without state or federal backing. “Really, when you start looking, there is a lot more you can do at the local level,” said Neil Elliott of the ACEEE, “because you control building codes. You control zoning. You can control siting. You can make stuff happen at the local level that the state really doesn’t have that much control of.” One of the most empowering options for homeowners is homemade energy provided by a technology like solar. While CPS has expanded into the solar incentives field this year, making it only the second utility in the state to offer rebates on solar water heaters and rooftop panels, the incentives for those programs are limited. Likewise, the $400,000 CPS is investing at the Pearl Brewery in a joint solar “project” is nice as a white tiger at a truck stop, but what is truly needed is to heavily subsidize solar across the city to help kickstart a viable solar industry in the state. The tools of energy generation, as well as the efficient use of that energy, must be spread among the home and business owners.

Joel Serface, with bulb-polished pate and heavy gaze, refers to himself as a “product of the oil shock” who first discovered renewables at Texas Tech’s summer “geek camp.” The possibilities stayed with him through his days as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and eventually led him to Austin to head the nation’s first clean-energy incubation center. Serface made his pitch at a recent Solar San Antonio breakfast by contrasting Texas with those sun-worshipping Californians. Energy prices, he says, are “going up. They’re not going down again.” That fact makes alternative energies like solar, just starting to crack the 10-cent-per-killowatt barrier, financially viable. “The question we have to solve as an economy is, ‘Do we want to be a leader in that, or do we want to allow other countries [to outpace us] and buy this back from them?’” he asked.

To remain an energy leader, Texas must rapidly exploit solar. Already, we are fourth down the list when it comes not only to solar generation, but also patents issued and federal research awards. Not surprisingly, California is kicking silicon dust in our face.

In finding that balance, I’m not sure it’s possible to overcome the political pressures tugging agencies and officials to stress refinement and deployment of known and maturing technologies (even though that’s where industry and private investors are most focused).

On the left, the pressure is for resources to deploy today’s “green” technology. On the right, as illustrated in a Heritage Foundation report on ways to cut President Obama’s budget for the Energy Department, the philosophy seems to be to discourage all government spending on basic inquiry related to energy.

According to Heritage, science “in service of a critical national interest that is not being met by the private sector” is fine if that interest is national defense, but not fine if it’s finding secure and sustainable (environmentally and economically) sources of energy.

I solicited reactions to the Energy Department review from a variety of technology and innovation analysts. The first to weigh in are Daniel M. Kammen, an energy technology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who is on leave working for the World Bank, and Robert D Atkinson, the founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Here’s Kammen: The idea of a regular review and status report on both energy innovation and deployment spending is a good one. Some of the findings in the QTR review are useful, although little is new. Overall, though, this is a useful exercise, and one that should be a requirement from any major programmatic effort.

he real need in the R&D sector is continuity and matching an increasing portfolio of strategic research with market expansion. My former student and colleague Greg Nemet have written consistently on this: - U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion - Reversing the Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget

Perhaps the biggest worry in this report, however, is the missing logic and value of a ’shift to near term priorities in energy efficiency and in electric vehicles.’ This may be a useful deployment of some resources, but a range of questions are simply never addressed. Among the questions that need firmer answers are:

Following record levels funding made available to the energy industry through the [stimulus package of spending], what are the clearly identified market failures that exist in this area that added funding will solve? Funding is always welcome, but energy efficiency in particular, can be strongly driven by regulation and standards, and because good energy efficiency innovations have such rapid payback times, would regulatory approaches, or state-federal partnerships in regulation and incentives not accomplish a great deal of what can be done in this area? Congressman Holt raises a number of key questions on related issues, while pointing to some very hopeful experiences, notably in the Apollo program, in his 16 September editorial in Science.

given the state-by-state laboratories we already have of differing approaches to energy efficiency, the logic of spending in this area remains to be proven (as much as we all rightly love and value and benefit from energy efficiency).

Near-term electric vehicle deployment. A similar story could be told here. As the director of the University of California at Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center (http://tsrc.berkeley.edu) I am huge believer in electric vehicles [EVs]. However, the review does not make clear what advances in this area are already supported through [the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy], and what areas of near-term research are also not best driven though regulation, such as low-carbon fuel standards, R&D tax credits, ‘feebates’ that transfer funds from those individuals who purchase inefficient vehicles to those who purchase efficient ones. Similar to the story in energy efficiency, we do have already an important set of state-by-state experiments that have been in place for some time, and these warrant an assessment of how much innovation they have driven, and which ones do and do not have an application in scale-up at the federal level.

Finally, the electric vehicle landscape is already very rich in terms of plans for deployment by automakers. What are the barriers five-plus years out that the companies see research-versus-deployment and market-expansion support as the most effective way to drive change in the industry? Where will this focus put the U.S. industry relative to China?

There are some very curious omissions from the report, such as more detail on the need to both generate and report on jobs created in this sector — a political ‘must’ these days (see, e.g., the “green jobs” review by the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley) — and straightforward comparisons in the way of ‘report cards’ on how the US is stacking up relative to other key players (e.g. China, Germany…).

Here’s Robert Atkinson: If DOE is shifting toward a more short-term focus, this is quite disturbing.  It would mean that DOE has given up on addressing the challenge of climate change and instead is just focused on the near term goal of reducing oil imports and modestly reducing the expansion the coal fired power plants. If DOE thinks it is still focused on climate change, do they think they are fighting “American warming”?

If so, cutting the growth of our emissions make sense.  But its global warming and solving this means supporting the development of scalable, cheap low or no-carbon energy so that every country, rich and poor, will have an economic incentive to transitioning to cheap energy.  Increasing building efficiency, modernizing the electric grid, alternative hydrocarbon fuels, and increasing vehicle efficiency do virtually nothing to meet this goal. They are “American warming” solutions.

This is also troubling because (as you point out) who else is going to invest in the long-term, more fundamental, high risk, breakthrough research than the U.S. government.  It certainly won’t be VCs. And it won’t be the Chinese who are principally interested in cutting their energy imports and exporting current generation clean energy, not developing technology to save the planet.  Of course all the folks out there who have been pushing the mistaken view that we have all the clean technologies we need, will hail this as the right direction.  But it’s doing what the rest of the market has been doing in recent years – shifting from high risk, long-term research to short-term, low risk.  If the federal government is doing this it is troubling to say the least.

or those seeking more, here are the slides used by Steven Koonin, the physicist and former BP scientist who now is under secretary for science at the department, in presenting the review earlier this week:

Rolling Out the Quadrennial Technology Review Report

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OTHER COSTS   The estimated capital costs and other costs for decommissioning the nuclear plants, restoring the sites, building out renewables, wind and solar energy balancing plants, and reorganizing electric grids over 9 years are summarized below.    The capital cost and subsidy cost for the increased energy efficiency measures was not estimated, but will likely need to be well over $180 billion over 9 years, or $20 billion/yr, or $20 b/($3286 b in 2010) x 100% = 0.6% of GDP, or $250 per person per yr.     Decommission nuclear plants, restore sites: 23 @ $1 billion/plant = $23 billion Wind turbines, offshore: 53,300 MW @ $4,000,000/MW = $213.2 billion   Wind turbines, onshore: 27,900 MW @ $2,000,000/MW = $55.8 billion Wind feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years: $200 billion  Solar systems: 82,000 MW @ $4,500,000/MW = $369 billion Solar feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years = $250 billion. Wind and solar energy balancing plants: 25,000 MW of CCGTs @ $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion Reorganizing European elecric grids tied to German grids: $150 billion

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS   In September 2010 the German government announced the following targets:   Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050 Energy efficiency - Reducing the national electricity consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany   Germany has a target to reduce its nation-wide CO2 emissions from all sources by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-85% below 1990 levels by 2050. That goal could be achieved, if 100% of electricity is generated by renewables, according to Mr. Flasbarth. Germany is aiming to convince the rest of Europe to follow its lead.

A 2009 study by EUtech, engineering consultants, concluded Germany will not achieve its nation-wide CO2 emissions target; the actual reduction will be less than 30%. The head of Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Jochen Flasbarth, is calling for the government to improve CO2 reduction programs to achieve targets. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,644677,00.html   GERMAN RENEWABLE ENERGY TO-DATE   Germany announced it had 17% of its electrical energy from renewables in 2010; it was 6.3% in 2000. The sources were 6.2% wind, 5.5% biomass, 3.2% hydro and 2.0% solar. Electricity consumption in 2010 was 603 TWh (production) - 60 TWh (assumed losses) = 543 TWh http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php  

Wind: At the end of 2010, about 27,200 MW of onshore and offshore wind turbines was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $50 billion. Wind energy produced was 37.5 TWh, or 6.2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into electricity costs of rate payers was about $50 billion during the past 11 years.   Most wind turbines are in northern Germany. When wind speeds are higher wind curtailment of 15 to 20 percent takes place because of insufficient transmission capacity and quick-ramping gas turbine plants. The onshore wind costs the Germany economy about 12 eurocent/kWh and the offshore wind about 24 eurocent/kWh. The owners of the wind turbines are compensated for lost production.   The alternative to curtailment is to “sell” the energy at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to Norway and Sweden which have significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable wind energy; Denmark has been doing it for about 20 years.   As Germany is very marginal for onshore wind energy (nation-wide onshore wind CF 0.167) and nearly all of the best onshore wind sites have been used up, or are off-limits due to noise/visual/environmental impacts, most of the additional wind energy will have to come from OFFSHORE facilities which produce wind energy at about 2 to 3 times the cost of onshore wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive

Biomass: At the end of 2010, about 5,200 MW of biomass was installed at a capital cost of about $18 billion. Biomass energy produced was 33.5 TWh, or 5.5% of production. Plans are to add 1,400 MW of biomass plants in future years which, when fully implemented, would produce about 8.6 TWh/yr.   Solar: At the end of 2010, about 17,320 MW of PV solar was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $100 billion. PV solar energy produced was 12 TWh, or 2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into the electricity costs of rate payers was about $80 billion during the past 11 years.   Most solar panels are in southern Germany (nation-wide solar CF 0.095). When skies are clear, the solar production peaks at about 7 to 10 GW. Because of insufficient capacity of transmission and quick-ramping gas turbine plants, and because curtailment is not possible, part of the solar energy, produced at a cost to the German economy of about 30 to 50 eurocent/kWh is “sold” at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to France which has significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable solar energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany  

Hydro: At the end of 2010, about 4,700 MW of hydro was installed. Hydro energy produced was 19.5 TWh, or 3.2% of production. Hydro growth has been stagnant during the past 20 years. See below website.   As it took about $150 billion of direct investment, plus about $130 billion excess energy cost during the past 11 years to achieve 8.2% of total production from solar and wind energy, and assuming hydro will continue to have little growth, as was the case during the past 20 years (almost all hydro sites have been used up), then nearly all of the renewables growth by 2020 will be mostly from wind, with the remainder from solar and biomass. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011   Wind and Solar Energy Depend on Gas: Wind and solar energy is variable and intermittent. This requires quick-ramping gas turbine plants to operate at part-load and quickly ramp up with wind energy ebbs and quickly ramp down with wind energy surges; this happens about 100 to 200 times a day resulting in increased wear and tear. Such operation is very inefficient for gas turbines causing them to use extra fuel/kWh and emit extra CO2/kWh that mostly offset the claimed fuel and CO2 reductions due to wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent  

Wind energy is often sold to the public as making a nation energy independent, but Germany will be buying gas mostly from Russia supplied via the newly constructed pipeline under the Baltic Sea from St. Petersburg to Germany, bypassing Poland.   GERMANY WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY   A study performed by The Breakthrough Institute concluded to achieve the 40% CO2 emissions reduction target and the decommissioning of 21,400 MW of nuclear power plants by 2022, Germany’s electrical energy mix would have to change from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear and 17% renewables in 2010 to 43% fossil and 57% renewables by 2020. This will require a build-out of renewables, reorganization of Europe’s electric grids (Europe’s concurrence will be needed) and acceleration of energy efficiency measures.   According to The Breakthrough Institite, Germany would have to reduce its total electricity consumption by about 22% of current 2020 projections AND achieve its target for 35% electricity generated from renewables by 2020. This would require increased energy efficiency measures to effect an average annual decrease of the electricity consumption/GDP ratio of 3.92% per year, significantly greater than the 1.47% per year decrease assumed by the IEA's BAU forecasts which is based on projected German GDP growth and current German efficiency policies.

The Breakthrough Institute projections are based on electricity consumption of 544  and 532 TWh  in 2008 and 2020, respectively; the corresponding production is 604 TWh in 2008 and 592 TWh in 2020.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/germany2007.pdf   Build-out of Wind Energy: If it is assumed the current wind to solar energy ratio is maintained at 3 to 1, the wind energy build-out will be 80% offshore and 20% onshore, and the electricity production will be 592 TWh, then the estimated capital cost of the offshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.8 offshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.35) = 0.0533 TW offshore wind turbines @ $4 trillion/TW = $213 billion and of the onshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.2 onshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.167) = 0.279 TW of wind turbines @ $2 trillion/TW = $56 billion, for a total of $272 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy for 9 years, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $150 billion offshore + $50 billion onshore, for a total of $200 billion.    

Note: The onshore build-out will at least double Germany’s existing onshore wind turbine capacity, plus required transmission systems; i.e., significant niose, environmental and visual impacts over large areas.   Recent studies, based on measured, real-time, 1/4-hour grid operations data sets of the Irish, Colorado and Texas grids, show wind energy does little to reduce CO2 emissions. Such data sets became available during the past 2 to 3 years. Prior studies, based on assumptions, estimates, modeling scenarios, and statistics, etc., significantly overstate CO2 reductions.  http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent   Build-out of PV Solar Energy: The estimated capital cost of the PV solar capacity will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 1/4]/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.095) = 0.082 TW @ $4.5 trillion/TW = $369 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $250 billion.   Reorganizating Electric Grids: For GW reasons, a self-balancing grid system is needed to minimize CO2 emissions from gas-fired CCGT balancing plants. One way to implement it is to enhance the interconnections of the national grids with European-wide HVDC overlay systems (owning+O&M costs, including transmission losses), and with European-wide selective curtailment of wind energy, and with European-wide demand management and with pumped hydro storage capacity. These measures will reduce, but not eliminate, the need for balancing energy, at greater wind energy penetrations during high-windspeed weather conditions, as frequently occur in Iberia (Spain/Portugal).  

European-wide agreement is needed, the capital cost will be in excess of $150 billion and the adverse impacts on quality of life (noise, visuals, psychological), property values and the environment will be significant over large areas.    Other Capital Costs: The capacity of the quick-ramping CCGT balancing plants was estimated at 25,000 MW; their capital cost is about 25,000 MW x $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion. The capital costs of decommissioning and restoring the sites of the 23 nuclear plants will be about $23 billion.   Increased Energy Efficiency: Increased energy efficiency would be more attractive than major build-outs of renewables, because it provides the quickest and biggest "bang for the buck", AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it has minimal environmental impact, AND it usually reduces at least 3 times the CO2 per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the jobs per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the energy reduction per invested dollar, AND it does all this without public resistance and controversy.   Rebound, i.e., people going back to old habits of wasting energy, is a concept fostered by the PR of proponents of conspicuous consumption who make money on such consumption. People with little money love their cars getting 35-40 mpg, love getting small electric and heating bills. The rebound is mostly among people who do not care about such bills.

A MORE RATIONAL APPROACH   Global warming is a given for many decades, because the fast-growing large economies of the non-OECD nations will have energy consumption growth far outpacing the energy consumption growth of the slow-growing economies of the OECD nations, no matter what these OECD nations do regarding reducing CO2 emissions of their economies.   It is best to PREPARE for the inevitable additional GW by requiring people to move away from flood-prone areas (unless these areas are effectively protected, as in the Netherlands), requiring new  houses and other buildings to be constructed to a standard such as the Passivhaus standard* (such buildings stay cool in summer and warm in winter and use 80 to 90 percent less energy than standard buildings), and requiring the use of new cars that get at least 50 mpg, and rearranging the world's societies for minimal energy consumption; making them walking/bicycling-friendly would be a good start.   If a nation, such as the US, does not do this, the (owning + O&M) costs of its economy will become so excessive (rising resource prices, increased damage and disruptions from weather events) that its goods and services will become less competitive and an increasing percentage of its population will not be able to afford a decent living standard in such a society.   For example: In the US, the median annual household income (inflation-adjusted) was $49,445, a decline of 7% since 2000. As the world’s population increases to about 10 billion by 2050, a triage-style rationing of resources will become more prevalent. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

* A 2-year-old addition to my house is built to near-Passivhaus standards; its heating system consists of a thermostatically-controlled 1 kW electric heater, set at 500 W, that cycles on/off on the coldest days for less than 100 hours/yr. The addition looks inside and out entirely like standard construction. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

In the WEO’s central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90% of the growth in non-OECD economies. China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: it consumes nearly 70% more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States. The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81% today to 75% in 2035. Renewables increase from 13% of the mix today to 18% in 2035; the growth in renewables is underpinned by subsidies that rise from $64 billion in 2010 to $250 billion in 2035, support that in some cases cannot be taken for granted in this age of fiscal austerity. By contrast, subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $409 billion in 2010.

Here’s the summary of the main points, released today by the agency: “Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies. The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge.”

The use of coal – which met almost half of the increase in global energy demand over the last decade – rises 65% by 2035. Prospects for coal are especially sensitive to energy policies – notably in China, which today accounts for almost half of global demand. More efficient power plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could boost prospects for coal, but the latter still faces significant regulatory, policy and technical barriers that make its deployment uncertain.Fukushima Daiichi has raised questions about the future role of nuclear power. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear output rises by over 70% by 2035, only slightly less than projected last year, as most countries with nuclear programmes have reaffirmed their commitment to them. But given the increased uncertainty, that could change. A special Low Nuclear Case examines what would happen if the anticipated contribution of nuclear to future energy supply were to be halved. While providing a boost to renewables, such a slowdown would increase import bills, heighten energy security concerns and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change.

The future for natural gas is more certain: its share in the energy mix rises and gas use almost catches up with coal consumption, underscoring key findings from a recent WEO Special Report which examined whether the world is entering a “Golden Age of Gas”. One country set to benefit from increased demand for gas is Russia, which is the subject of a special in-depth study in WEO-2011. Key challenges for Russia are to finance a new generation of higher-cost oil and gas fields and to improve its energy efficiency. While Russia remains an important supplier to its traditional markets in Europe, a shift in its fossil fuel exports towards China and the Asia-Pacific gathers momentum. If Russia improved its energy efficiency to the levels of comparable OECD countries, it could reduce its primary energy use by almost one-third, an amount similar to the consumption of the United Kingdom. Potential savings of natural gas alone, at 180 bcm, are close to Russia’s net exports in 2010.

In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative CO2 emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5°C. China’s per-capita emissions match the OECD average in 2035. Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of 6°C.“As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the “lock-in” of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals,” said Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist. The WEO presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

The Integrated Resource Plan process also developed various possible strategies that TVA might use to meet the region's future power needs. Each strategy was analyzed to create 20-year power generation portfolios -- or combinations of electricity resources -- for TVA to consider. Each portfolio was rated using factors such as cost, risk and environmental impact

"TVA's Integrated Resource Plan process is a rigorous one that is supportive of TVA's renewed vision and will guide the corporation as it leads the region and the nation toward a cleaner and more secure energy future, relying more on nuclear power and energy efficiency and less on coal," said Van Wardlaw, TVA's executive vice president of Enterprise Relations, who is leading the Integrated Resource Plan effort

The TVA Board of Directors has adopted a renewed vision for the federal corporation to be one of the nation's leading providers of cleaner low-cost energy by 2020, increasing its use of nuclear power and energy efficiency and improving its environmental performance

TVA completed its previous Integrated Resource Plan, titled "Energy Vision 2020," in 1995. The new plan will update the earlier study, based upon changes in regulations and legislation, the marketplace for electric generating utilities and customer demand.

4. Brief Overview of Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing (from June 16 hearing charter)  Nuclear reactors generate about 20 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the U.S. since 1973, but there is renewed interest in nuclear energy both because it could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and because it produces no greenhouse gas emissions.  One of the barriers to increased use of nuclear energy is concern about nuclear waste. Every nuclear power reactor produces approximately 20 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste every year. Today, that waste is stored on-site at the nuclear reactors in water-filled cooling pools or, at some sites, after sufficient cooling, in dry casks above ground. About 50,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel is being stored at 73 sites in 33 states. A recent report issued by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that this stored waste could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Under the current plan for long-term disposal of nuclear waste, the waste from around the country would be moved to a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which is now scheduled to open around 2012. The Yucca Mountain facility continues to be a subject of controversy. But even if it opened and functioned as planned, it would have only enough space to store the nuclear waste the U.S. is expected to generate by about 2010.  Consequently, there is growing interest in finding ways to reduce the quantity of nuclear waste. A number of other nations, most notably France and Japan, ''reprocess'' their nuclear waste. Reprocessing involves separating out the various components of nuclear waste so that a portion of the waste can be recycled and used again as nuclear fuel (instead of disposing of all of it). In addition to reducing the quantity of high-level nuclear waste, reprocessing makes it possible to use nuclear fuel more efficiently. With reprocessing, the same amount of nuclear fuel can generate more electricity because some components of it can be used as fuel more than once.

The greatest drawback of reprocessing is that current reprocessing technologies produce weapons-grade plutonium (which is one of the components of the spent fuel). Any activity that increases the availability of plutonium increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.  Because of proliferation concerns, the U.S. decided in the 1970s not to engage in reprocessing. (The policy decision was reversed the following decade, but the U.S. still did not move toward reprocessing.) But the Department of Energy (DOE) has continued to fund research and development (R&D) on nuclear reprocessing technologies, including new technologies that their proponents claim would reduce the risk of proliferation from reprocessing.

The report accompanying H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which the House passed in May, directed DOE to focus research in its Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program on improving nuclear reprocessing technologies. The report went on to state, ''The Department shall accelerate this research in order to make a specific technology recommendation, not later than the end of fiscal year 2007, to the President and Congress on a particular reprocessing technology that should be implemented in the United States. In addition, the Department shall prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for implementation beginning in fiscal year 2007, including recommendation of an advanced reprocessing technology and a competitive process to select one or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.''

During floor debate on H.R. 2419, the House defeated an amendment that would have cut funding for research on reprocessing. In arguing for the amendment, its sponsor, Mr. Markey, explicitly raised the risks of weapons proliferation. Specifically, the amendment would have cut funding for reprocessing activities and interim storage programs by $15.5 million and shifted the funds to energy efficiency activities, effectively repudiating the report language. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 110–312.

But nuclear reprocessing remains controversial, even within the scientific community. In May 2005, the American Physical Society (APS) Panel on Public Affairs, issued a report, Nuclear Power and Proliferation Resistance: Securing Benefits, Limiting Risk. APS, which is the leading organization of the Nation's physicists, is on record as strongly supporting nuclear power. But the APS report takes the opposite tack of the Appropriations report, stating, ''There is no urgent need for the U.S. to initiate reprocessing or to develop additional national repositories. DOE programs should be aligned accordingly: shift the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative R&D away from an objective of laying the basis for a near-term reprocessing decision; increase support for proliferation-resistance R&D and technical support for institutional measures for the entire fuel cycle.''  Technological as well as policy questions remain regarding reprocessing. It is not clear whether the new reprocessing technologies that DOE is funding will be developed sufficiently by 2007 to allow the U.S. to select a technology to pursue. There is also debate about the extent to which new technologies can truly reduce the risks of proliferation.

 It is also unclear how selecting a reprocessing technology might relate to other pending technology decisions regarding nuclear energy. For example, the U.S. is in the midst of developing new designs for nuclear reactors under DOE's Generation IV program. Some of the potential new reactors would produce types of nuclear waste that could not be reprocessed using some of the technologies now being developed with DOE funding.

5. Brief Overview of Economics of Reprocessing

The economics of reprocessing are hard to predict with any certainty because there are few examples around the world on which economists might base a generalized model.  Some of the major factors influencing the economic competitiveness of reprocessing are: the availability and cost of uranium, costs associated with interim storage and long-term disposal in a geologic repository, reprocessing plant construction and operating costs, and costs associated with transmutation, the process by which certain parts of the spent fuel are actively reduced in toxicity to address long-term waste management.

Costs associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-powered plants could help make nuclear power, including reprocessing, economically competitive with other sources of electricity in a free market.

 It is not clear who would pay for reprocessing in the U.S.

Three recent studies have examined the economics of nuclear power. In a study completed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003, The Future of Nuclear Power, an interdisciplinary panel, including Professor Richard Lester, looked at all aspects of nuclear power from waste management to economics to public perception. In a study requested by the Department of Energy and conducted at the University of Chicago in 2004, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power, economist Dr. Donald Jones and his colleague compared costs of future nuclear power to other sources, and briefly looked at the incremental costs of an advanced fuel cycle. In a 2003 study conducted by a panel including Matthew Bunn (a witness at the June 16 hearing) and Professor Steve Fetter, The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, the authors took a detailed look at the costs associated with an advanced fuel cycle. All three studies seem more or less to agree on cost estimates: the incremental cost of nuclear electricity to the consumer, with reprocessing, could be modest—on the order of 1–2 mills/kWh (0.1–0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour); on the other hand, this increase represents an approximate doubling (at least) of the costs attributable to spent fuel management, compared to the current fuel cycle (no reprocessing). Where they strongly disagree is on how large an impact this incremental cost will have on the competitiveness of nuclear power. The University of Chicago authors conclude that the cost of reprocessing is negligible in the big picture, where capital costs of new plants dominate all economic analyses. The other two studies take a more skeptical view—because new nuclear power would already be facing tough competition in the current market, any additional cost would further hinder the nuclear power industry, or become an unacceptable and unnecessary financial burden on the government.

6. Background

One final idea, which does not involve money going to or from government, is simply requiring that cleaner sources provide a certain fraction of our overall power generation. The many state Renewable Portfolio Standards (that do not include nuclear) and the Clean Energy Standard being considered by Congress and the Obama administration (which does include nuclear) are examples of this policy. While better than nothing, such policies are not ideal in that they are crude, and don’t involve a quantitative incentive based on real external costs. An energy source is either defined as “clean,” or it is not. Note that the definition of “clean” would be decided politically, as opposed to objectively based on tangible external costs determined by scientific studies (nuclear’s exclusion from state Renewable Portfolio Standards policies being one outrageous example). Finally, there is the fact that any such policy would require legislation.

Well, if we can’t tax pollution, how about encouraging the use of clean sources by giving them subsidies? This has proved to be more popular so far, but this idea has also recently run into trouble, given the current situation with the budget deficit and national debt. Events like the Solyndra bankruptcy have put government clean energy subsidies even more on the defensive. Thus, it seems that neither policies involving money flowing to the government nor policies involving money flowing from the government are politically viable at this point.

All of the above begs the question whether there is a policy available that will encourage the use of cleaner energy sources that is revenue-neutral (i.e., does not involve money flowing to or from the government), does not involve the outright (political) selection of certain energy sources over others, and does not require legislation. Enter the Dispatch Queue

There must be enough power plants in a given region to meet the maximum load (or demand) expected to occur. In fact, total generation capacity must exceed maximum demand by a specified “reserve margin,” to address the possibility of a plant going offline, or other possible considerations. Due to the fact that demand varies significantly with time, a significant fraction of the generation capacity remains offline, some or most of the time. The dispatch queue is a means by which utilities, or independent regional grid operators, decide which power plants will operate in order to meet demand at any given instant. A good discussion of dispatch queues and how they operate can be found in this Department of Energy report.

The general goal of the methodology used to set the dispatch queue order is to minimize overall generation cost, while staying in compliance with all federal or state laws (environmental rules, etc.). This is done by placing the power plants with the lowest “variable” cost first in the queue. Plants with the highest “variable” cost are placed last. The “variable” cost of a plant represents how much more it costs to operate the plant than it costs to leave it idle (i.e., it includes the fuel cost and maintenance costs that arise from operation, but does not include the plant capital cost, personnel costs, or any fixed maintenance costs). Thus, one starts with the least expensive plants, and moves up (in cost) until generation meets demand. The remaining, more expensive plants are not fired up. This ensures that the lowest-operating-cost set of plants is used to meet demand at any given time

As far as who makes the decisions is concerned, in many cases the local utility itself runs the dispatch for its own service territory. In most of the United States, however, there is a large regional grid (covering several utilities) that is operated by an Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), and those organizations, which are independent of the utilities, set the dispatch queue for the region. The Idea

As discussed above, a plant’s place in the dispatch queue is based upon variable cost, with the lowest variable cost plants being first in the queue. As discussed in the DOE report, all the dispatch queues in the country base the dispatch order almost entirely on variable cost, with the only possible exceptions being issues related to maximizing grid reliability. What if the plant dispatch methodology were revised so that environmental costs were also considered? Ideally, the public health and environmental costs would be objectively and scientifically determined and cast in terms of an equivalent economic cost (as has been done in many scientific studies such as the ExternE study referenced earlier). The calculated external cost would be added to a plant’s variable cost, and its place in the dispatch queue would be adjusted accordingly. The net effect would be that dirtier plants would be run much less often, resulting in greatly reduced pollution.

This could have a huge impact in the United States, especially at the current time. Currently, natural gas prices are so low that the variable costs of combine-cycle natural gas plants are not much higher than those of coal plants, even without considering environmental impacts. Also, there is a large amount of natural gas generation capacity sitting idle.

More specifically, if dispatch queue ordering methods were revised to even place a small (economic) weight on environmental costs, there would be a large switch from coal to gas generation, with coal plants (especially the older, dirtier ones) moving to the back of the dispatch queue, and only running very rarely (at times of very high demand). The specific idea of putting gas plants ahead of coal plants in the dispatch queue is being discussed by others.

The beauty of this idea is that it does not involve any type of tax or government subsidy. It is revenue neutral. Also, depending on the specifics of how it’s implemented, it can be quantitative in nature, with environmental costs of various power plants being objectively weighed, as opposed certain sources simply being chosen, by government/political fiat, over others. It also may not require legislation (see below). Finally, dispatch queues and their policies and methods are a rather arcane subject and are generally below the political radar (many folks haven’t even heard of them). Thus, this approach may allow the nation’s environmental goals to be (quietly) met without causing a political uproar. It could allow policy makers to do the right thing without paying too high of a political cost.

Questions/Issues The DOE report does mention some examples of dispatch queue methods factoring in issues other than just the variable cost. It is fairly common for issues of grid reliability to be considered. Also, compliance with federal or state environmental requirements can have some impacts. Examples of such laws include limits on the hours of operation for certain polluting facilities, or state requirements that a “renewable” facility generate a certain amount of power over the year. The report also discusses the possibility of favoring more fuel efficient gas plants over less efficient ones in the queue, even if using the less efficient plants at that moment would have cost less, in order to save natural gas. Thus, the report does discuss deviations from the pure cost model, to consider things like environmental impact and resource conservation.

I could not ascertain from the DOE report, however, what legal authorities govern the entities that make the plant dispatch decisions (i.e., the ISOs and RTOs), and what types of action would be required in order to change the dispatch methodology (e.g., whether legislation would be required). The DOE report was a study that was called for by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which implies that its conclusions would be considered in future congressional legislation. I could not tell from reading the report if the lowest cost (only) method of dispatch is actually enshrined somewhere in state or federal law. If so, the changes I’m proposing would require legislation, of course.

The DOE report states that in some regions the local utility runs the dispatch queue itself. In the case of the larger grids run by the ISOs and RTOs (which cover most of the country), the report implies that those entities are heavily influenced, if not governed, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. In the case of utility-run dispatch queues, it seems that nothing short of new regulations (on pollution limits, or direct guidance on dispatch queue ordering) would result in a change in dispatch policy. Whereas reducing cost and maximizing grid reliability would be directly in the utility’s interest, favoring cleaner generation sources in the queue would not, unless it is driven by regulations. Thus, in this case, legislation would probably be necessary, although it’s conceivable that the EPA could act (like it’s about to on CO2).

In the case of the large grids run by ISOs and RTOs, it’s possible that such a change in dispatch methodology could be made by the federal executive branch, if indeed the FERC has the power to mandate such a change

Effect on Nuclear With respect to the impacts of including environmental costs in plant dispatch order determination, I’ve mainly discussed the effects on gas vs. coal. Indeed, a switch from coal to gas would be the main impact of such a policy change. As for nuclear, as well as renewables, the direct/immediate impact would be minimal. That is because both nuclear and renewable sources have high capital costs but very low variable costs. They also have very low environmental impacts; much lower than those of coal or gas. Thus, they will remain at the front of the dispatch queue, ahead of both coal and gas.

"The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge," van der Hoeven said.

Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions, the agency told reporters today. CO2 emissions have rebounded to a record high, the energy efficiency of global economy worsened for second straight year and spending on oil imports is near record highs.

World Energy Outlook's central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90 percent of the growth in non-OECD economies. In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5 degrees C. "Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of six degrees C. The IEA projects that China will consolidate its position as the world's largest energy consumer. It consumes nearly 70 percent more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States. The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81 percent today to 75 percent in 2035.

Light radioactive gases are being released in steam from the turbine building.

Some 80 percent of homes have solar panels that heat water. It is “the first” in the world with solar power, says Shoshana Dann, an associate at the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. That’s where extraordinary work is going on near the graves of David and Paula Ben-Gurion and a few miles from their humble home at Kibbutz Sde Boker, where hangs a 1955 statement of Ben-Gurion: “In the Negev the creative ingenuity and pioneering vitality of Israel will be tested. Scientists must develop... applied solar energy [and] wind-power for producing energy.”

Dr. David Faiman is director of the center where this dream is being realized. His main project is using sunlight to produce electricity. There’s a huge parabolic plate that focuses 1,000 times more sunlight on a photovoltaic panel than what usually powers a panel. This provides enormous efficiency in harvesting solar energy. Faiman’s rotating solar collector converts more than 70% of incoming solar energy into electricity, compared to industry norms of 10-25%. The center is collaborating with the Israeli company ZenithSolar in marketing solar collectors based on Faiman’s design. Faiman, who made aliya from the UK in 1973, says the way is now clear to manufacture solar energy systems that will compete with conventional technologies. His work in using concentrated sunlight more efficiently constitutes a great boost to solar photovoltaic power.

However, the fast neutron reactors also have potential drawbacks, including a potentially riskier cooling system.

This sets the context for nuclear energy ambitions across Asia.

The Chinese intend to roll out the grandest nuclear power plant building program seen in history. Countries in Southeast Asia with no prior experience in large scale, nuclear power generation — Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand — plan to build their first plants.

Post-Fukushima, Beijing has called for a pause in order to re-look at safety issues. Other Asians however continue to push time lines, notably Vietnam and Malaysia. In many cases, their own citizens are not consulted, despite public concerns over environmental protection, human health and safety.

The overarching context of energy policy seems lost in the anxiety to push ahead with nuclear plants. Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia continue to subsidize energy, increasing government burdens as oil prices rise. Their artificially low energy prices increases waste and destroys incentives to build new capacity, and invest in energy efficiency and alternative technologies.

Moreover, aside from China, others in Asia project only small percentages of their total energy needs will come from nuclear power. Indonesia targets to meet just 5 percent of their needs from nuclear by 2025. In Vietnam, the plan is for 14 plants by 2030, providing a modest 8 percent of power needs. Given safety and security concerns, the Southeast Asian nations seem to be risking a considerable amount for relatively small returns.

In contrast, studies suggest that energy efficiency measures can achieve at least the equivalent savings in power needs with safe, off-the-shelf technology at a much lower cost. Renewable energy currently costs more but with technological advances may prove viable in the medium term.

A Department of Energy analysis revealed the budget for 75 of the first plants was about $45 billion, but cost overruns ran that to $145 billion. The last nuclear power plant completed was the Watts Bar plant in eastern Tennessee. Construction began in 1973 and was completed in 1996. Part of the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, the Watts Bar plant cost about $8 billion to produce 1,170 mw of energy from its only reactor. Work on a second reactor was suspended in 1988 because of a lack of need for additional electricity. However, construction was resumed in 2007, with completion expected in 2013. Cost to complete the reactor, which was about 80 percent complete when work was suspended, is estimated to cost an additional $2.5 billion. The cost to build new power plants is well over $10 billion each, with a proposed cost of about $14 billion to expand the Vogtle plant near Augusta, Ga. The first two units had cost about $9 billion.

Added to the cost of every plant is decommissioning costs, averaging about $300 million to over $1 billion, depending upon the amount of energy the plant is designed to produce. The nuclear industry proudly points to studies that show the cost to produce energy from nuclear reactors is still less expensive than the costs from coal, gas, and oil. The industry also rightly points out that nukes produce about one-fifth all energy, with no emissions, such as those from the fossil fuels. For more than six decades, this nation essentially sold its soul for what it thought was cheap energy that may not be so cheap, and clean energy that is not so clean. It is necessary to ask the critical question. Even if there were no human, design, and manufacturing errors; even if there could be assurance there would be no accidental leaks and spills of radioactivity; even if there became a way to safely and efficiently dispose of long-term radioactive waste; even if all of this was possible, can the nation, struggling in a recession while giving subsidies to the nuclear industry, afford to build more nuclear generating plants at the expense of solar, wind, and geothermal energy?

Many ICS have lifespans of 30 years and mitigation and compensation measures to help them mesh with the newer technologies are creating additional weak links and vulnerabilities.

Another worrisome change involves tens of millions of wireless "smart meters" being installed in homes and businesses for faster, more efficient two-way communications with local utilities via the Internet. Utilities, in turn, are networked with the big transmission operators and bulk power generators. More than 300,000 smart meters are installed in Ottawa homes and small businesses.The concern is that they potentially expose the system to hackers and other cyber attacks.

Solar power. While sunlight is renewable -- for at least another four billion years -- photovoltaic panels are not. Nor is desert groundwater, used in steam turbines at some solar-thermal installations. Even after being redesigned to use air-cooled condensers that will reduce its water consumption by 90 percent, California's Blythe Solar Power Project, which will be the world's largest when it opens in 2013, will require an estimated 600 acre-feet of groundwater annually for washing mirrors, replenishing feedwater, and cooling auxiliary equipment.

Geothermal power. These projects also depend on groundwater -- replenished by rain, yes, but not as quickly as it boils off in turbines. At the world's largest geothermal power plant, the Geysers in California, for example, production peaked in the late 1980s and then the project literally began running out of steam.

Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium -- rare earth metals that are rare because they're found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.

Biomass.

t expanding energy crops will mean less land for food production, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In many parts of the world where biomass is already used extensively to heat homes and cook meals, this renewable energy is responsible for severe deforestation and air pollution

Hydropower.

"renewable energy" is a meaningless term with no established standards.

The amount of concrete and steel in a wind-tower foundation is nothing compared with Grand Coulee or Three Gorges, and dams have an unfortunate habit of hoarding sediment and making fish, well, non-renewable.

All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it

the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant.

meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium.

hydroelectric power from dams is a proved technology. It already supplies about 16 percent of the world's electricity, far more than all other renewable sources combined.

None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven't discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.

Long did the math for California and discovered that even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources, California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990 levels -- far less than its 80 percent target. Long says reaching that target "will take new technology."

it will also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology