Nuclear vs Nuclear vs Nuclear

Published February 3, 2012 Nuclear Power 1 Comment
Tags: , ,

Another terrific George Monbiot essay. David MacKay has gone public with burning the UK nuclear ‘waste’. George explains that we have three technology choices to elect for waste: bury it, MOX recycle, IFR full recycle. George favors the GE Hitachi full reprocessing package; i.e., the IFR design.

Here’s a quick excerpt — more tomorrow.

We can’t wish nuclear waste away: we must choose one of three options for dealing with it.

By George Monbiot. Published on the Guardian’s website, 2nd February 2012

Duncan Clarke’s article in the Guardian today should cause even the most determined anti-nuclear campaigner to think long and hard about the choices that confront us. He reveals that David McKay, chief scientific adviser to the government’s energy department and author of Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air, has endorsed a remarkable estimate. The UK’s stockpile of nuclear waste could be used to generate enough low-carbon energy to run this country for 500 years.

If the material we have seen until now as waste is instead seen as fuel, it has the potential to solve three problems at once: the UK’s contribution to climate change, possible future energy shortfalls and a significant component of the massive bill – and massive headache – associated with cleaning up the current nuclear mess.

The technology with the potential to solve these problems is the fast reactor, ideally the integral fast reactor (IFR), about which I wrote in December. It exploits the fact that conventional nuclear power plants use just 0.6% of the energy contained in the uranium that fuels them. IFRs, once loaded with nuclear waste, can, in principle, keep recycling it until only a small fraction remains, producing energy as they do so.

(…) GE Hitachi has offered to build a fast reactor to consume the plutonium stockpile at Sellafield, though not yet the whole kit (the integral fast reactor). It has offered to do it within five years, and to carry the cost if it doesn’t work out. This is the proposal the government is now considering. I would like to see it go further and examine the case for the full works: an integral fast reactor (incorporating a reprocessing plant) that generates much more energy from the waste pile.

Read the whole thing »

I confess to being a bit excited to see George taking up this vital issue. And the extent of the commentary he is generating. Read the comments – see what you think. So far I would rate about 25% of the comments as being constructive and engaged. And less than 50% are of the typical unthinking anti-nuclear sort. Those are usually being multiply-refuted.

American Airlines Wants to Terminate Its Pension Plan, Lay Off 13,000

Published February 2, 2012 Economics 1 Comment
Tags:

Interesting. Somehow these deals have to be recut or the jobs just go away. Megan McArdle:

Details of the American Airlines bankruptcy are emerging. And the details are that AMR wants all of its creditors to take a deep haircut, especially the workers:

The company aims to cut labor costs 20% under bankruptcy protection, and will soon begin negotiations with its three major unions. Some management jobs would also be cut.

AMR also proposes to end its traditional pension plans. The move has been strongly opposed by the airline’s unions and the U.S. pension-insurance agency.

CEO Thomas Horton said the company hopes to return to profitability by cutting spending more than $2 billion per year and raising revenue by $1 billion per year.

. . . Horton said cost-cutting will include restructuring debt and aircraft leases, grounding older planes, and changing labor contracts.

This is just the opening salvo in what promises to be a bruising negotiation with the unions. It’s not clear that the company actually expects to be allowed to terminate the pension plan. But the threat certainly gives them leverage with the unions, especially the pilots, because if the plan is terminated and taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, the payouts will be capped at around $50,000 a year–far less than pilots get from the current plan.

(…)

Read the whole thing »

High renewables penetration means eye-watering costs and massive overbuilding

Published February 2, 2012 Energy Policy Leave a Comment

Figure 5: Solar capacity is 21% of the wind capacity. Weekly snapshot.

In comments on Steve Skutnik’s “Interminable innumeracy” Frank Eggers made the case for a real-world instrumented test of the popular thesis that “smart grids and geographic dispersion” will allow large scale deployment of unreliable renewables:

(…) As I see it, to prove that, it would be necessary to have sensors at all locations (or at least a large number of locations) where it would be reasonably possible to have wind and solar power installations. The data would have to be transmitted, in real-time, to a central location where it would be continuously analyzed to see how much power would be available reliably with no interruptions. So far as I know, that has never been done.

Thanks Frank, all good comments. Germany is well-situated to perform your instrumented experiment – but do you think they would want the results to be public? E.g., see Eye-watering cost of renewable revolution.

While not as good as real-world instrumentation, but in my view very persuasive, are the simulations published by Finnish physicist Jani-Petri Martikainen at BraveNewClimate. I think his two guest posts are an important contribution to the study of how costly will be large scale wind and solar deployment. There are two posts, intended to be read in the following order, where the first analysis examines unreliable wind added to an existing reliable grid, the second analysis adds solar to the mix:

[1] Geographical wind smoothing, supergrids and energy storage

[2] Solar combined with wind power: a way to get rid of fossil fuels?

Based upon real-world data sets, with the data chosen to be extremely favorable to wind and solar, the simulations indicate that an idealized case of optimal solar/wind deployment requires a massive overbuilding of dispatchable power sources. The total magnitude of the dispatchable power will need to be about 90% of peak demand. This supports the rough rule of thumb that high unreliable penetration will require overbuilding capacity by about 2x. Given the speed at which such as Germany are spending on wind/solar, that reliable power will be mostly fossil. Policies such as Germany’s are a creating an enormous fossil lock-in and hence a climate train wreck.

To summarize Dr. Martikainen’s conclusions I will cherry-pick from concluding paragraphs:

Only scenarios which are based on reliable energy sources from the beginning seem to avoid the problems discussed here. Scenarios based on unreliable sources become progressively harder as their share of electricity supply increase. Reducing GHG emissions sufficiently requires, in practice, total decarbonization of the electricity supply, and the emissions reductions achieved by the time erratic sources run into trouble are far too low. I cannot avoid the conclusion that approaches based on renewables will mainly, at a very large expense, end up delaying the real decisions we must eventually make to lower emissions to acceptable levels. The alternative zero-carbon baseload source seems rather obvious…

(…) How about choosing the solar capacity to be the “optimal” 0.21 of wind power capacity? Then we need reliable power plants with a capacity of 89% of peak demand. They will have a capacity factor of 14% and amount to 19% of total production. So, yes! Adding solar power to the mix can sometimes help, by reducing the electricity produced with fossil fuels from 21% to 19%. Unfortunately, the required capacity of reliable power plants is actually slightly higher than with wind only. I will not dare to compute the cost of CO2 abatement under such a scenario.

(…) To conclude, I note that adding solar power and wind without massive storage to the mix does next to nothing to remove the need for fossil fuel based energy infrastructure. Scenarios based on wind and solar power are fundamentally reliant on fossil fuels and sooner this is understood the better it is for climate. Currently the mirage of purely unreliables based energy production essentially maintains the use of fossil fuels for as long as the eye can see both for technical and financial reasons.

While doing these exercises I occasionally get a feeling that I am fencing with a tetraplegic. You might say this is not sportsmanlike, but unfortunately the political reality is that the mirage of solar and wind based solutions is a tetraplegic which hampers us from confronting the real and difficult issues with respect to climate change. By offering an easy “alternative” this mirage effectively acts as a cover for the damage anti-nuclear activities are causing for attempts to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately fencing must continue since this cover must be removed.

Eye-watering cost of renewable revolution

Published February 2, 2012 Energy Policy , Nuclear Power 1 Comment
Tags:

WNN summarizes Siemens projections of the cost of Germany’s massive renewable deployment.

Germany’s energy policy could cost some €1.4 trillion ($1.8 trillion) by 2030 even before the cost of the nuclear shutdown is taken into account.

Neckarwestheim (EnBW)
Germany is to forego 14 years of
low-cabon generation from Neckarwestheim 2 (Image: EnBW)

The figures were announced by the head of Siemens’ energy division, Michael Suess, at the Energiewirtschaft 2012 event organised by the Handelsblatt newspaper in Berlin and later confirmed to World Nuclear News by Siemens spokesmen.

For several years the country has planned an ‘energy revolution’ designed to tackle climate change and establish renewable technologies at the centre of a new power supply system. Two years before nuclear generation ends in 2022, Germany wants to have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, doubled renewables to supply 35% of electricity and cut primary energy consumption by 20%.

Siemens’ calculation of the total investment in generation and transmission to do this came to €1.418 trillion ($1.848 trillion) in the period from 2011 to 2030.

(…)

Two immediate effects of the nuclear shutdown have been a rush to finish building 10 GWe of fossil power plants, and short-term reliance on an oil-fuelled plant in Austria. A Deutsche Bank report estimated that the carbon dioxide increase from the permanent shutdown of the seven reactors and the early phase-out of the rest would result in the emission of 370 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020. Before the shutdown, Germany’s nuclear sector had been the biggest source of low-carbon power.

Read the whole thing »

Interminable innumeracy: ‘renewables’ versus nuclear

Published February 2, 2012 Energy Policy 2 Comments

201202021533.jpg

In an effort to help the all-renewables advocates correct their innumeracy, Steve Skutnik wrote one of my favorite posts for the month (January).

(…) Whenever the topic of renewable energy sources comes up, invariably a spurious comparison to the generating capacity to nuclear plants will come up. For example, identified resources for say, offshore wind will be identified somewhere in the realm of tens of gigawatts, to which the guest will inevitably state, “That’s the equivalent of dozens of nuclear plants!” (…)

A basic unfamiliarity with these concepts (i.e., the scale of individual energy generators and their respective availability factors) tends to produce a pervasive level of innumeracy, which in turn leads to genuinely terrible energy policy positions, such attempting to displace some or all of baseload capacity (including nuclear) with intermittent sources. In an effort to combat this epidemic (and inspired by the old Total cereal commercials which used to air back when I was growing up) I’ve put together an infographic to demonstrate just how many of these types of generators one needs to replace just one baseload unit.

(…)

Please refer to Steve’s original post for his full explanation. My main comment is that the infographic doesn’t account for the overbuilding required to compensate for the intermittency. Should these intermittent sources grow a total size exceeding about 15% of interconnected market peak demand, then a dispatchable capacity of the same size will have to be built to cover demand when the renewable sources are “off duty” for days at a time.

Bits Blog: Obama and Romney Campaigns Adopt Square for Funding

Published February 2, 2012 Technology Leave a Comment

Nick Bilton:

(…) Mobile payments could be a transformational technology for the 2012 election, as Square is becoming popular in campaigns by President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

(…) “It’s now easier than ever to give to campaigns of any political stripe,” Mr. Rubin said. “At a campaign, or any political event, donors will be able to give on the spot. They won’t have to run home and get a check or fill out long paper forms.”

Mr. Rubin said: “In 2008, online donations were really a game-changer for the election. With Square, mobile payments will be the game-changer for 2012.”


[From Bits Blog: Obama and Romney Campaigns Adopt Square for Funding]

Egypt is Down to $10 Billion in Reserves

Published February 2, 2012 Middle East Leave a Comment

David Goldman on Egypt — over the past year, David has not been afraid to forecast meltdown. Excerpt:

It’s not often that a country of 80 million people goes belly up, but that’s what I’ve been predicting in Asia TImes for the past year. Today theNew York Times reports that Egypt’s foreign exchange reserves have fallen to just $10 billion–about a month and a half of imports–from $36 billion before the fall of Hosni Mubarak, “after certain obligations.” The Central Bank claims it has $18 billion, and the Times doesn’t report what those “certain obligations”: are. But the likely conclusion is that the military government has looted the central bank’s reserves and placed them in untraceable accounts and property outside the country.

The economic meltdown of Egypt promises to be a crisis of biblical proportions; the way things are going, frogs and flaming hail wouldn’t surprise me. Somali-style food shortages and chaos might bring to mind the slaughter of the first born.

I hope the Biblical allusions turn out to be overwrought.

Nosedive in Budapest: The Political Origins of Hungary’s Economic Crisis

Published February 1, 2012 Politics Leave a Comment
Tags:

(…) “Anyone who has cash at the moment can buy a lot of things for very little money in Hungary.” Signs that read “eladó” (For Sale) hang on houses, ruined buildings and cars all over the country. But there are no buyers.

This is a followup to my last post on Hungary based on the essays by Jakab Andor. Today Spiegel Online posted an informative analysis by Clemens Höges, who describes the process by which Hungarians lost their democracy. Lesson don’t elect a 2/3 majority who can rewrite the constitution to keep power. Excerpts:

Not Abiding by Deficit Rules

Hungary is running out of money — and the economy is faltering badly. Rating agencies have downgraded the country’s sovereign bonds to junk status, and creditors are now charging the government about 10 percent in interest on new loans. Last week, the European Commission even threatened to withhold funds in 2013, arguing that Budapest is not abiding by the deficit rules.

But the country’s real problem is Viktor Orbán. The German newspaper Die Welt has called the right-wing nationalist prime minister of European Union member state Hungary, whose Fidesz Party holds a two-thirds majority in parliament, a “Puszta Putin,” a reference to the plains of Hungary. A new constitution, which guarantees him a frightening amount of power, has been in effect since Jan. 1. Orbán has removed the word “Republic” from the country’s official name, which is now simply “Hungary.” His supporters are staunchly behind his “national revolution.”

A new media law intimidates critical journalists, and some have already been fired. Orbán has also enacted new laws that have forced the courts to bend to his will. He has reduced the powers of the country’s Constitutional Court, and judges are now appointed by an agency headed by the wife of a fellow party member. Orbán now wants to force older judges — in other words, those who were not appointed by his party — into early retirement.

The calamity began in May 2006. Gyurcsány, still a Socialist at the time, had just won the parliamentary elections in another coalition with the liberals. His government ran the country for four years “using the social democratic method,” he says, “raising taxes and spending money.” For example, civil servants received a 50-percent pay raise, and Hungarians were led to believe that this was how things would continue. It was also what Gyurcsány had promised during his election campaign. But he knew that, in fact, this was not a sustainable situation.

To address his concerns, he invited members of his parliamentary group and a few experts to a government retreat on Lake Balaton. He told them how things stood with the country’s finances. “But they didn’t understand me. They kept insisting and after three hours, I couldn’t take it anymore.” Then, he erupted. With the doors closed and no journalists in the room, Gyurcsány said that he and the party had lied to the people. “We lied in the morning, in the evening and at night.”

In the ensuing weeks, he forgot exactly what he had said at the retreat, but someone had brought along a recording device, and it all came out in September. It was a massive scandal, bringing protesters into the streets and giving Orbán numerous opportunities to humiliate the prime minister. But Gyurcsány had been elected, and he followed through with his austerity program. Then came the economic crisis, and Gyurcsány had to save even more money.

(…) If Gyurcsány had called for new elections earlier, at least Orbán would not have achieved the two-thirds majority that has allowed him to rewrite the constitution as if it were a piece of scrap paper, says András Vértes. “As a result, we now have more of a political than an economic problem.” Vértes, who is not aligned with any party, was considered as a transitional premier after Gyurcsány’s resignation. But he told the members of parliament that if he were appointed to the position, he would only bring experts into his government, not politicians. He also insisted that every member of his parliamentary group sign a pledge stating that they would not vote against these experts for an entire year.

It killed his prospects. Vértes laughs, as he sits between palm trees in the offices of GKI, the economic research institute he heads. The country’s largest, it works primarily for the European Union, with Vértes and his team keeping Brussels informed about what is happening in Hungary.

‘We’re at an Impasse’

Orbán is unpredictable, his policies are arbitrary, and he is playing around with the economy, of which he has little understanding, says Vértes. For example, Orbán imposed a special tax on banks that “practically eliminates their profitability.” The tax appeals to many Orbán supporters, because they already see bankers as gangsters. The premier is forcing a crisis tax on major companies mostly in the telecommunications and energy sector — also a popular idea, because it mainly affects foreign companies. Orbán has introduced a 16 percent flat income tax which, says Vértes, benefits high income earners and is disadvantageous to ordinary citizens.

The consequences, says economist Vértes, are that the banks no longer lend money, the telecommunications companies are hardly investing anymore, and consumer spending is taking a hit. “Now we’re at an impasse.”

Read the whole thing »

The Economics of Piracy

Published February 1, 2012 Economics Leave a Comment

Some evidence that the film and music industries are not much impacted by internet piracy. Do keep in mind that even if you know that 100 of your movies were pirated, it does not follow that you lost 100 times the price. You may have actually gained from the indirect publicity and promotion by those who enjoyed the pirated films. It is complicated.

(…) In short, piracy is certainly one problem in a world filled with problems. But politicians and journalists seem to have been persuaded to take it largely on faith that it’s a uniquely dire and pressing problem that demands dramatic remedies with little time for deliberation. On the data available so far, though, reports of the death of the industry seem much exaggerated.

Deleveraging: Nordic cure for a hangover

Published January 31, 2012 Financial Crisis Leave a Comment

McKinsey reckons America’s households are between a third and halfway through their debt-reduction process. They think the household-debt hangover could end by mid-2013.

The Economist on the deleveraging progress in the OECD economies.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers