Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    19 May '09 17:02
    Nuclear plants are unlikely to built for reasons of cost --

    from trade press:

    snip

    The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told nuclear industry executives today that the construction of new nuclear and coal generating plants was a possible scenario for meeting U.S. electric power needs -- an effort to tame a tempest that followed his comments last month on electric power's future.

    At a meeting with reporters then, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said he thought coal and nuclear baseload generating plants may not be needed in the future. "I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism. ... We may not need any, ever," he said.

    As the comment made the industry rounds, it got distilled into a prediction that new coal and nuclear plants likely were out of the picture, prompting widespread criticism from the industry.

    Today he faced a ballroom full of nuclear industry officials at a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Assembly and did not mention the controversy in his brief, off-the-cuff remarks. He paused a moment for questions, and when none came, he prepared to leave.

    But Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel finally took up a microphone to ask what was arguably on everyone's mind in the room.

    "I can't let this question go by," Fertel said, adding, "you've been quoted [as saying] you didn't see a need for baseload, either coal or nuclear, if we could just get distributed generation and renewables" added at a sufficient scale.

    "I didn't say that," Wellinghoff replied. His point, he said, was that renewable energy, energy demand management, new technologies and other strategies could create "a new paradigm" for the industry.

    "It is conceivable in this scenario that you may not need large central station plants," he said. "That's one scenario. That doesn't mean that scenario is in fact going to occur. But it is a scenario that is rational.

    "There may be other scenarios that are rational, as well, including incorporating significant nuclear and coal into our system. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter what might be a rational or irrational scenario. What matters is what the markets will do."

    Last month, Wellinghoff did offer a prediction on that outcome, saying that he thinks new nuclear power plants appear to be cost-prohibitive. "I don't see anybody building these things," he said, "until costs get to a reasonable level."

    unsnip
  2. 19 May '09 22:36
    Originally posted by Scriabin


    Last month, Wellinghoff did offer a prediction on that outcome, saying that he thinks new nuclear power plants appear to be cost-prohibitive. "I don't see anybody building these things," he said, "until costs get to a reasonable level."

    unsnip
    or until fossil fuels are no longer cheap like they are now
  3. Subscriber Crowley
    Not Aleister
    20 May '09 09:52
    Where is the debate, or are we to comment on your amazing copy and paste prowess?
  4. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    20 May '09 16:18
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Where is the debate, or are we to comment on your amazing copy and paste prowess?
    Oh, I do beg your pardon for providing background information. I'm sorry you don't want to know something about the subject matter in order to react to the first line of the OP containing an assertion with which some might want to take issue.

    but of course, it was inconsiderate in the extreme of me to expect you actually to read something longer than a sentence or two.

    thank heavens nuclear power doesn't involve issues as complex as rocket science.
  5. 20 May '09 17:54
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    Nuclear plants are unlikely to built for reasons of cost --

    from trade press:

    snip

    The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told nuclear industry executives today that the construction of new nuclear and coal generating plants was a possible scenario for meeting U.S. electric power needs -- an effort to tame a tempest that followed ...[text shortened]... hings," he said, "until costs get to a reasonable level."

    unsnip
    I belielve that is Obama's position is it not? We will see if this is a wise approach to the issue or if the nation will wake up one day and find itself in an energy crisis like California.
  6. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    20 May '09 18:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    I belielve that is Obama's position is it not? We will see if this is a wise approach to the issue or if the nation will wake up one day and find itself in an energy crisis like California.
    I think in addition to the cost of construction, the immense inertia of the regulatory process makes progress on nuclear plants very unlikely in the near term.

    That regulatory burden is, no doubt, excessive assuming such plants would be sited sensibly, constructed correctly, and operated safely. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that any of these conditions would be met at this time, making regulatory relief unlikely, as well.

    One might ask whether the profit motive can be made consistent with the necessity to avoid truly catastrophic short term and long term problems associated with improper siting, construction, and/or operation of nuclear plants.

    This also ignores the longstanding problem of what to do with spent fuel, or nuclear waste.

    In the short term, investing in renewable and sustainable sources of elecrical generation while building an more up to date electricity grid is the policy choice that has been made. These moves allow the private sector to take the lead.

    I would ask whether nuclear power and the management of the risks involved wouldn't be better handled by a professional, federally run effort. That, too, is an idea that would expose all of us to the risk of poor contractual oversight for the many private sector contractors such an effort would require.

    I don't see a simple fix.
  7. 20 May '09 18:43
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    I don't see a simple fix.[/b]
    Sure there is, its called cap in trade.
  8. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    20 May '09 21:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Sure there is, its called cap in trade.
    Even in a wisecrack, you demonstrate your inability to deal with the complexity of the subject.

    I am also disappointed no one has picked up on the issue of whether baseload generation, either coal or nuclear, is for any reason preferable over distributed generation and renewables.

    The quote was to point out that FERC's leadership believes that a new paradigm, distributed generation and renewables, is now in the mix, but that market forces will determine what kind of cake we'll bake.

    Against that backdrop, is it any wonder the cap and trade idea, as opposed to a European style carbon tax, is the centerpiece of Administration policy development? They want to avoid a straight out tax while still pricing baseload generation high enough to allow distributed generation and renewables to become competitive.

    They will argue that they are merely intervening through policy and law to make the markets for power reflect the true societal costs of using traditional baseload generation.

    I'm sure the arguments on the side of baseload generation and against accounting for the "societal costs" of burning fossil fuels or generating nuclear waste are equally interesting.

    Too bad no one in favor of those latter arguments wants to take the time or has the knowlege to enlighten us with them.
  9. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    21 May '09 15:11
    Originally posted by Scriabin

    Too bad no one in favor of those latter arguments wants to take the time or has the knowlege to enlighten us with them.
    This idea of distributive generation sounds more like political pandering. Talk. Where is the action? Where are the programs to get distributive running? Small gen facilities will likely not be able to compete without guaranteed rates of return per kilowatt hour. In the absence of a publicly run facility, private companies will shy away from this type of venture unless they are given solid price rates and/or pre-signed contracts to sell that power to green-minded users/corporations.

    In short, it sounded to me like a pandering to the greenies to keep them happy.
  10. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    21 May '09 15:24
    Originally posted by uzless
    This idea of distributive generation sounds more like political pandering. Talk. Where is the action? Where are the programs to get distributive running? Small gen facilities will likely not be able to compete without guaranteed rates of return per kilowatt hour. In the absence of a publicly run facility, private companies will shy away from this type of ...[text shortened]... corporations.

    In short, it sounded to me like a pandering to the greenies to keep them happy.
    Did you do any fact checking before reacting to how it "sounds?"

    snip

    Chesapeake Green (C-Green) is a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags&rdquo from wind farms situated across the United States, bundled together and supplied by Washington Gas Energy Services, a licensed retail energy supplier in MD and DC. This bundled product helps fight global warming by offsetting the carbon emissions from your electricity use with clean, renewable wind power.

    Clean Currents rates cover all Generation and Transmission charges. The rate is the same at all times for the length of your contract. Distribution is still a regulated market (you do not have a choice). Your Distribution charges will stay with the utility in your area (Pepco or BGE). Your utility is still responsible for the reliability of your power, power line maintenance, and billing.

    Chesapeake Green current rates are lower than Pepco AND BGE's Summer rates!

    If one elects to use 50% of one's electricity needs using Clean Currents wind power as a provider, Maryland BGE customers and Maryland and DC Pepco customers pay 11.1¢ per kWh and 11.7¢ per kWh for 100%.

    SPECIAL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD RESIDENTS (where I live)

    The Montgomery County Clean Energy Rewards Program gives county residents a reward of a 1/2 cent per kWh (.5¢ or $.005) for up to 20,000 kWh of clean energy purchased. Clean Currents was a founding member of the program with RECs and C-Green.

    100% wind power will be 0.5¢ less, 50% wind power will be 0.25¢ less per kWh during the duration of the program's funding.

    see http://www.cleancurrents.com/index.php/C-Green-Overview?_kk=4dfd5927-b15b-4028-bb81-b31a8a61eb2f&_kt=3021909887&_vsrefdom=we&gclid=COuVyJjazZoCFQq3sgod6RP82Q

    end snip
  11. 21 May '09 15:37
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Where is the debate, or are we to comment on your amazing copy and paste prowess?
    Do you ever have anything of substance to contribute or are you content to simply troll around the forums and act like a prick?
  12. 24 May '09 18:12
    I see the use of electricity as the energy medium possibly increasing in demand if we start using it more for transportation. The tesla roadster is a good example of existing technology for cars. I know that solar cells are not the answer in producing electricity yet, but solar panels that heat water inside might be. I have not looked into geothermal energy much, but maybe it could be a possibility. I worked in the oil patch for a number of years and I was impressed with how much heat energy was in the mud when it returned. If oil and gas continue to be so profitable I can't see how electricity will take on a greater roll. Probably staus quo for a while longer.
  13. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    25 May '09 17:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    Did you do any fact checking before reacting to how it "sounds?"

    snip

    Chesapeake Green (C-Green) is a new carbon neutral electricity option for people in the Chesapeake region. C-Green combines standard electricity from the Mid Atlantic grid (the PJM grid) with Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs” or “green tags&rdquo from wind farms situated across the Unite bb81-b31a8a61eb2f&_kt=3021909887&_vsrefdom=we&gclid=COuVyJjazZoCFQq3sgod6RP82Q

    end snip
    You quoted a national spokesperson but then list local examples? Where are the fed programs to back local initiatives?

    The point I was making was about the national spokesperson's comment to a nuclear industry group. Just explaining why he might make such comments to a nuclear group. He knew damn well the greenies would be listening in and would be looking for hints as to the future direction of electricity industry. I give him points for cleverness but it's a tired old trick to use one platform to pander to another competing platform. Used to great effect on tv shows like The West Wing back in the day....

    This is one of the bigger players in my neck of the woods.

    http://www.bullfrogpower.com/
  14. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    25 May '09 17:32
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    . The tesla roadster is a good example of existing technology for cars.
    heheh, how much cash do you have?

    Dodge has version of this called the "Circuit"
  15. 26 May '09 03:19
    Originally posted by uzless
    heheh, how much cash do you have?

    Dodge has version of this called the "Circuit"
    I mentioned the roadster because the technology is superior to anything else by far. It would be great if chrysler made as good a car but for less $. I would like to get one if the price was lower.