Monthly Archive for January, 2010

Page 3 of 13

Admission that IPCC report was deliberately dramatised

Reiner Grundmann found a somewhat surprising revelation:

The Mail on Sunday has the following story:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

[From Admission that IPCC report was deliberately dramatised]

Comparing Energy Subsidies

Here is an excellent bit of homework by Patrick at Nuclear Dialogues, who has rebutted the propaganda about loan guarantees with the 2007 EIA tabulation of subsidies per energy class per megawatthour.

(…)

Rankings of subsidies and support based on absolute amount and amounts per megawatthour of generation differ widely, reflecting substantial differences in the amount of generation across fuels.
Subsidies and Support to Electric Production by Selected Primary Energy Sources
Primary Energy Source FY 2007 Net Generation (billion kilowatthours) Subsidies and Support Allocated to Electric Generation (million FY 2007 dollars) Subsidies and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour)
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 919 227 0.25
Coal 1,946 854 0.44
Hydroelectric 258 174 0.67
Biomass 40 36 0.89
Geothermal 15 14 0.92
Nuclear 794 1,267 1.59
Wind 31 724 23.37
Solar 1 174 24.34
Refined Coal 72 2,156 29.81
Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007, SR/CNEAF/2008-1 (Washington, DC, 2008).

(…)

Please continue reading Comparing Energy Subsidies.

UAE orders 5.5 GW of nuclear power from South Korea

Barry Brook offers some short comments on the UAE contract for four APR-1400 nuclear plants.

(…) What do I find most interesting about this? Easy. The UAE chose to build 4 x APR-1400 reactors rather than 220+ Andasol-1 solar thermal power plants. If nuclear were so uneconomic, and solar thermal such an obvious choice, I wonder why that would be? It’s not as though the UAE lacks the solar resource — there is a hot desert right on their doorstep, unlike most nations (so long transmissions lines are less of a concern). To me, this speaks volumes about the relative economic uncompetitiveness of unsubsidised renewables. Welcome to the real world.

(…) Secondly, and more importantly, to answer the issue of lowering of costs over time: I say absolutely. Most of us only think in terms of inflationary aspect of new builds given US and general world history. But if we pay attention to the actual standardized reactor design and new modular builds for that same standard component manufacturing and assembly, I would BET costs come down for not just the APR-1400 from the ROK but also the AP1000 as the learning curve at every level gets better and better. For once costs CAN come down for nuclear because of Gen III.

I’ve noted on blogs all over the place that the antis are deathly afraid of this. This is why the only time “they” ever talk about the AP1000 or other deisgns is he ONE unit they like to point to: FPL’s proposal for a two unit plant in south Florida which is up to 14 billion or more. Why? Because it’s the most expensive. They don’t look world wide, they dont’ even look to other cheaper US proposals.

The UAE, China, Japan and India are scarring the crap out of NIRS and the Greenpeace types because as the new Chinese units come on line, pro-nuclear advocates will have a new slogan:

“¡Sî Se Puede!”

MIT prof. Ernie Moniz on Copenhagen

Gail Marcus offers selected comments by MIT prof. Ernie Moniz:

(…)  Most of all, my impression was that he felt it was a positive development that agreement was finally reached by moving away from a negotiation of the entire body of over 190 countries. The final accord was struck by only 5 countries–the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. He sees the future of the negotiations moving toward the major economies.

(…) In response to a question about what we might see by 2020, Ernie made the following “predictions”: We will be seeing more of all energy-producing technologies in the future, as well as more efficiency. However, he cautioned that several areas, including nuclear power, are not likely to grow as much and as fast as some are hoping. He specifically said that there would be sequestration, but it would be limited, and that wind power will grow, but not as robustly as some project. With respect to nuclear power, he expects to see around 5 or 6 new nuclear power plants in the US by 2020. Worldwide, he saw much higher growth, of the order of 200 GW.

(…) • In the energy area, the main goal of innovation is cost reduction. This is different than the goal of innovation in other industries.

(…) • The investment in energy R&D as a percentage of the economy is very small. Percentage-wise, he said, the dog-food industry spends more!

[From One More Take on Copenhagen:]

Missing the Target

Harvard economist Marty Feldstein rates Obamanomics:

Unfortunately, despite the talented team of economists in the administration, most of the president’s economic policies have done little to help the problem. And indeed, many of these policies have created even more problems than they solved.

For starters, the president allowed congressional Democrats to design the $787 billion stimulus package. The result was an unnecessarily large increase in the national debt for a very modest rise in gross domestic product, with too much emphasis on redistributing income and preserving public-sector jobs and not enough on raising economic activity. Only about one-fourth of the nearly $800 billion will be used for government spending that adds directly to GDP. In contrast, the funds given to households will be largely saved or used to pay down existing debts. And the dollars that went to state governments relieved pressure to use their “rainy day” funds or levy temporary tax increases.

Better Ways to Go

The flaw in the stimulus package wasn’t, as some say, that it was too small. It was that it was poorly targeted. Instead, Congress and the president could have gotten more stimulus from accelerating the repairing and replacing of equipment in the civilian and defense sectors. Long-term reductions in marginal tax rates of the type used by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan would also have been better than temporary tax cuts that have no positive incentive effects.

Other programs by the administration have had similar failings. “Cash for clunkers,” for instance, was successful in raising auto buying and gave a temporary boost to GDP, since two-thirds of the third-quarter GDP rise was motor-vehicle production. The credit for first-time home buyers also gave a temporary boost to the housing market. But both programs just borrowed demand from the future.

(…) Because the new health law would require insurance companies to ignore pre-existing medical conditions, millions of middle-income individuals would have a strong incentive to drop their current coverage, pay a small fine for being uninsured and buy insurance only when they need expensive care.

(…) Moreover, nothing was done to reduce the incentive to default among the 15 million homeowners whose mortgages now exceed the value of their homes. And nothing has been done to deal with the $1.5 trillion of distressed commercial real-estate loans that will have to be rolled over during the next five years.

(…) Although solving the banking and real-estate problem is key to recovery, the president’s focus on his health legislation and the public’s concern about future deficits appears to have stopped him from dealing with these problems.

(…) The enormous increase in budget deficits and in the national debt is one of the most worrying aspects of the Obama administration’s first year. The Medicaid expansion and health-insurance subsidies would add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Only by combining this spending with increased taxes and an implausible promise to cut Medicare outlays by $500 billion could the legislation be officially “scored” as a net reduction in the national debt.

Und so weiter…

Obama State of the Union: mentions safe, clean nuclear power

Rod Adams listened carefully to the SOU, finding one sentence that he liked:

During the State of the Union address on January 27, 2010, President Barack Obama stressed the importance of energy innovation investments in his discussion about leading an economic recovery through infrastructure construction. Here is what he said at the very top of his list:

“But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”

Please continue reading…

We’ll read the address as soon as we Telecom decides to give us reliable wireless broadband again. Nice words are nice. What is needed is the specifics. Does Obama mean that he intends to secure funding for the NRC so that they have enough staff to efficiently process their backlog of new plant applications, AND enough resources to expedite the upcoming small modular new reactor designs? Does Obama mean that he will finally dynamite out of DOE the 2005-but-not-yet granted loan guarantees? Does Obama mean that he will direct his budget director Peter Orzag to stop blocking every nuclear-related program?

Whither the Wind

This doesn’t seem to require any comment (other than yes this is exactly correct):

Production of Inefficient Wind Energy Linked to Government Subsidies, Costly Mandates

IER Prez: Picking winners and losers in the market—the cornerstone of this Administration’s energy agenda—is the quickest path to increasing our dependence on imported energy and driving costs up even further.”

Washington, DC – Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-oriented Institute for Energy Research (IER) issued the following statement today on wind energy and the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) year-end report:

“Using taxpayer subsidies and mandates, the Obama Administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have all but guaranteed that wind energy will be part of our nation’s energy portfolio. But to force the use of technologies that have yet to pass the market test is shortsighted and will lead to increased electricity costs across the board.

“AWEA announced today that installed wind generating capacity in 2009 broke previous records. But big wind misses the point. As much as proponents of wind energy want to ignore the facts, wind is an inefficient and unreliable power source. And, even more importantly, wind is unable to deliver the affordable and reliable electricity this nation needs to drive economic growth.

“The government can waste taxpayer resources to cover the United States with windmills if it so chooses, but it cannot force mother nature to turn those turbines. And while replacing coal or natural gas with the power of the wind might make for a good talking point, this industry will fail in the marketplace as soon as government subsidies dry up.

“That said, I look forward to the day when renewable energy plays a meaningful role in helping to meet our nation’s energy needs. But in the meantime, the government should not prohibit exploration for homegrown fossil fuels and increase the regulatory burden on domestic energy production. Picking winners and losers in the market – the cornerstone of this Administration’s energy agenda – is the quickest path to increasing our dependence on imported energy and driving costs up even further.”

Read more about wind energy:

#####

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

[From Whither the Wind]

Kodak, Bill Gates and efficient markets

It happens that I’m reading a good bit of Bill Gates musings these days, so I was amused to see this note from John Hempton recognizing that sometimes Mr. Gates has had good instincts on future trends. I need to see if we can get Alice Schroder’s book from the Northland library – I’m not hopeful that will be in the New Zealand collection.

(…) I just want to share a single throw-away observation.

Warren Buffett has a group of his best investing friends get together once a year. He originally called it the Graham group in honour of his mentor Ben Graham who presented at the first annual meeting in 1968. By 1991 the group had expanded somewhat to include not only the original fabulous stock pickers but some business luminaries who could help enlighten the group on the nitty-gritty of their industries. One regular attendee was Bill Gates of Microsoft fame. From here I will quote Alice Schroder:

After a while Buffett asked everyone to pick their favourite stock.

What about Kodak? asked Bill Ruane. He looked back at Gates to see what he would say.

“Kodak is toast,” said Gates.

Nobody else in the Buffett Group knew that the internet and digital technology would make film cameras toast. In 1991, even Kodak didn’t know it was toast.

Gates was right of course – and since 1991 Kodak has been a terrible stock – and I would have counted Bill Gate’s comments as “knowledge” in as much as a statement about markets and technology could be knowledge. But it would be an awful long time before that “knowledge” would be reflected in stock prices. Here is a graph of the stock price since 1 Jan 1990.

Please continue reading…

Bingaman and Gates Back Chu on Energy R&D

More Bill Gates from Roger Pielke, Jr.

(…) And then, as if on cue, the world’s most famous billionaire, Bill Gates, announced that having taken a deep dive into the energy and climate issue — reading eminent energy expert Vaclav Smil’s books, and talking with outspoken climate and energy scientists Ken Caldeira (Stanford) and Nate Lewis (Cal-Tech) — he’s come to believe that the world has been wasting time by focusing on energy efficiency.

The key, Gates said, is technology innovation to make clean energy cheap — the goal shared by Google, which has called for Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal (RE < C), and by the Breakthrough Institute.

In one of four audio dialogues, which he posted on his new website, Gates Notes, Gates was blunt:

I looked at Waxman Markey [cap and trade climate legislation] and the research thing was miniscule. Getting CO2 to zero — I’ve never seen something more clear that has ‘breakthrough’ all over it… This ARPA-E thing is good but is too small….To get to zero carbon it’s a question of using technologies that don’t exist today.

Gates went on to call the lack of private sector funding for R&D to be a market failure, adding that it was especially low in energy. He connected it to his Foundation’s public health investments:

You think about how to help the poorest people, if they can have cheap energy where they are, it means they can have fertilizer, transport, clean water… places to keep medicines refrigerated.

[From Bingaman and Gates Back Chu on Energy R&D]

Keep in mind that Bill Gates is a major backer of Terrapower, who is commercializing an innovative traveling wave Gen IV nuclear reactor design.

Beware the Zero Sum Game

Cool, Roger Pielke, Jr. is also reading Bill Gates. In this post both Gates and Pielke are (quite properly) echoing The Copenhagen Consensus — let’s be sure we do the most cost-effective things first. Emphasis mine.

(…) Bill Gates appears to be getting more active in the climate debate, and from what he is writing, this looks like a good thing. In his second annual letter from the Gates Foundation (PDF) he discusses the uncomfortable implications of fungible aid commitments:

Deficits are not the only reason that aid budgets might change. Governments will also be increasing the money they spend to help reduce global warming. The final communiqué of the Copenhagen Summit, held last December, talks about mobilizing $10 billion per year in the next three years and $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries, which is over three quarters of all foreign aid now given by the richest countries.

I am concerned that some of this money will come from reducing other categories of foreign aid, especially health. If just 1 percent of the $100 billion goal came from vaccine funding, then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases.

Should funding for developing countries under climate policies be taken from already-existing aid? If not, should funding under climate policies be subject to a test of additionality? Obviously, 700,000 dead kids per $1 billion is a big, big number. What is climate policy worth to you in such terms?

[From Beware the Zero Sum Game]




Bad Behavior has blocked 2668 access attempts in the last 7 days.