From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm:
Sorry, Kadaka, wrong on your part. The financial backers had already withdrawn their support, before the date (April 30) of your citation above.
Strange, “backers” is a plural, you point to only one backer and say the backers, plural, withdrew their financial support.
But what you just said was already covered in what I quoted:
Regulators took issue with NRG’s decision two years ago to pull back its investment in expanding the existing two reactors at the South Texas Project facility. At the time electricity prices were falling rapidly with the tapping of vast domestic reserves of natural gas.
Since then the licensing process, which takes years to complete, has been wholly funded by Toshiba in the form of a loan, an NRG spokesman said.
It’s right there, a loan from Toshiba has been funding this, NRG Energy pulled back in 2011.
Oh, I just noticed you made a grave mistake in your September 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm comment. You said “And another source, April 19, 2013:”
Except the date is actually 2011, not 2013. You’ve confirmed what I quoted. Oh no, I checked your 5:41 pm link which you said was from “April 20, 2013”. Bold added:
Updated: 10:58 a.m. Wednesday, April 20, 2011 | Posted: 7:47 p.m. Tuesday, April 19, 2011
You’ve confirmed me twice, after getting the year wrong twice.
Now that you’ve slipped into this Jimmy Hansen “I’m dong this for my grandchildren!” mode of thought, except rabidly anti-nuke instead of rabidly anti-coal/CAGW, the quality of your presentations has slipped.
Jeff Crowder
September 24, 2013 3:07 am
Hello Brad.
To answer your questions:
1. He’s a self-described independent.
2. I’m not sure about his education but he is employed as an insurance adjuster.
If you didn’t catch the initial post what it basically said was that we live on the Space Coast in Florida and we’ve been inundated with whitefly infestations (which are killing our palms). We both grew up here and neither of us have seen them in this area to this extent…they are all over the place. He blamed the infestation on Climate Change (very matter-of-fact about it). But, when I pressed him on this he basically admitted that he really didn’t know if that was true…but to him it seemed like the most logical explanation.
After I mentioned a number of other possible reasons (which I admitted to him to be just speculative) he agreed that these were just as plausible. So my post was about my personal frustration with Climate Change becoming the knee-jerk answer for whatever new thing that crops up. That is just so lazy imho. But I also think that the average Joe get’s conditioned, or has an adjusted filter based on the one-sided bombardment of this issue in the media. I actually suggested this site to him as I believe it to be highly educational.
Friends, consider the notorious question:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
I submit that the person who wrote these words didn’t know enough about science to hate it, let alone to impersonate a practitioner of it. These are the words of a literal (ha ha) scientific illiterate.
This suggests to me that both the antiscience and the pseudoscience models of the climate movement will always be incomplete, at least as regards the foot-soldiers—or the dumber foot-soldiers, at least; people like the hapless Professor Jones, above.
I appreciate that this doesn’t prove or disprove any theory about the IPCC’s agenda, given that its corporate “IQ” is at least a digit higher than Jones’; but I’m throwing it out there for thought.
Not that anyone asked, but my current thinking is that the climate movement represents the inevitable, 30-years-in-the-making ascension to cultural and discursive power of a clade of parasciences—which I hope I won’t offend anyone by enumerating broadly as the ecological, environmental, Carsonian or (grandiosely) “systems” sciences—a retarded cousin of actual science. Considering how pathological, how oncological, these “disciplines” are I’d say they’ve done less damage to the world than they might have, being until recently (largely) preoccupied with calculating the angels on the head of a pin, the thousands of “species” that “go extinct” every minute, or some other variant on the kind of fantasy-football league that consumes the office hours of Arts academics.
With the advent of the climate movement, however, these parasciences, which were previously only in a position to immiserate, impoverish and kill a few million brown and black people, are now beginning to seriously inconvenience white folk.
They must be stopped! *
But even if “para-” turns out to be le préfixe juste, it doesn’t mean that the climate movement itself isn’t also pseudoscientific.
In fact (and at the risk of obviousness), “pseudo-” doesn’t exclude “sub-“, “pre-,” “a-“, “anti-“, “praeter-“, “counter-“, “neo-,” “mal-“, etc. It is, at least when I say it!, simply a functional acknowledgment of the fact that half the population has managed to confuse the non-science of climate eschatology with actual, you know, science… which is a whole nother rant. Thanks for reading!
* Yes, for the benefit of any SS kidz designated to read this thread: that was meant to be a sick joke.
suffolkboy
September 24, 2013 4:26 am
Reports that Dr Pachauri would disappear completely by 2015 have been denied by the IPCC. “It was the result of an unfortunate typographical error”, said a spokesman. “We should have said that it was highly likely that he will be gone by 2150”. “In the end, he will just melt away quite suddenly,” added Professor Wadhams.
So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.
To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
Roger Sowell;
To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well obviously energy density trumps regulatory requirements (SARC!). Are you totally and completely daft? Or are you just so certain that as a lawyer you are so much smarter than anyone else in the room that you can throw out complete stupidity and expect it to be believed? You are the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name, a mean trick in this day and age.
phlogiston
September 24, 2013 8:53 am
The Sowell diatribe about nuclear is undermined by a simple fact. 90% of the “costs” of nuclear are artificial, not real. These costs are created by cynical obstruction by activists, the decades long inquiries and appeals, abusive radiation protection practices based on the scientifically bankrupt LNT fallacy, obstruction of all nuclear related activities etc.
Take this (appropriate) analogy. Lets say that if a woman wished to get a job for an employer, then that woman is obliged to pay 100, 000 dollars to a lawyer to prove she is not a witch. If as a result of this there were fewer women in work, it would be simple for lawyers to explain why. “Its just not economic”.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 24, 2013 11:41 am
From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 7:29 am:
So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.
What a sad attack from an attorney caught misrepresenting evidence. Of course supplying the wrong years in your presentation may have been an unintended mistake, that you just happened to do twice in quick succession while pressing a point built on those dates. Heat of the moment, haste makes waste, etc. The law has allowances for stabbing someone twice with a butter knife when you thought you had grabbed a steak knife, yes? You said on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:
If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion.
I said it was never abandoned, and backed it with evidence. The permitting process was not canceled, the partnership behind the expansion was not dissolved, thus the project was not abandoned. As read in the article I provided, as mentioned by an NRG Energy spokesman, new nuclear may become economically viable in the future. Keep watch of what happens with future natural gas prices.
Well, as can be read in this Sept 23, 2013 Motley Fool piece, natural gas prices in the US are temporarily very cheap:
…
That’s an important fact to keep in mind. While oil is a global commodity, the domestic natural gas industry, for the most part, is not. For example, BP highlighted in its annual energy review that up until about 2008, U.S. natural gas prices were in line with those from around the world.
At the end of 2012, however, U.S. gas was trading at massive discounts to foreign gas because the supply glut brought about by new drilling methods overwhelmed demand in the largely insulated market. Prices in the United Kingdom were closest at over three times U.S. prices.
…
The big change will be increased domestic demand from utilities and others coupled with, perhaps more importantly, increased export capacity. Competing with foreign gas directly will shift the pricing dynamic of natural gas the world over. Like WTI and Brent, prices will likely converge higher than where domestic natural gas is trading hands today. Even if that shift is just a few dollars, the percentage increase from recent gas prices in the mid-$3 range would be huge.
…
Etc. The US NG exports are limited by lack of shipping terminals, which are now being built, approved, going online. Domestic use is increasing. The excess supply will be put to use, 2013 prices are already notably up from 2012 lows (see article).
The US natural gas prices shall rise.
NRG Energy has their green credentials, they have solar farm assets. They have convinced rabid anti-nuke activists they have abandoned their nuclear plant expansion plans, and casual investors that they are not spending money on furthering the project.
But if they win their appeal and this stage of permitting successfully concludes, once natural gas prices rise as they must and new nuclear becomes economically viable, NRG Energy can move right back into investing and getting those reactors built.
I am not the one who is wrong. The expansion was not abandoned as you had said, it was not canceled as you now say. In response to unprecedented and ultimately transitory lows in domestic natural gas prices, it continued stealthily onward in a manner acceptable to the public and investors. When it rises into public view again, don’t call it a zombie as it was never dead.
Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.
If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.
Now, Kadaka having lost the atlrgument, switches the topic to an un-knowable future where gas prices are high. Nice try!
By the way, did you notice what happened the last time gas prices temporarily rose? Yep…technology advances allowed production of vast reservoirs of natural gas.
Nuclear power is dead, and for excellent reasons. It can never compete economically; even if it is the most “energy dense” fuel.
It’s clear that you cannot argue the economics, so you try to change the subject to irrelevant issues like “energy density”. Next, you try the “yeah, well you just wait until natural gas prices increase!” argument.
I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!
Roger Sowell,
While I agree with much of what you write, I can’t accept that nuclear power is ‘ignorant’, or that it is promoted by a chorus of ‘true believers’.
If it was, then how do you explain the U.S. Navy’s extremely successful nuclear powered submarine fleet, which has been operating with a superb safety record since the 1950’s?
Our boy served on the USS Helena for six years as a nuclear reactor technician. [I would explain more, but then I would have to kill you for your own safety. ☹ /sarc!]
I don’t understand your visceral opposition to nuclear power. Your arguments appear to be emotion-based, not fact-based. Compared with windmills, for example, nukes are about a million times more efficient. And as many folks have pointed out, more Americans have been killed by Senator Kennedy than by nuclear power, making it one of the safest energy sources in existence.
Roger Sowell;
I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger, seriously? You’ve descended from making yourself look stupid to pure dogmatic drivel. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the difference between cost and economics, or that you don’t understand that economics is in part, but not exclusively, a function of energy density. Yet here you are making statement after statement that demonstrates that my disbelief may be poor judgment on my part. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse in support of your dogmatic anti-nuclear belief system, or that you suffer from a natural occurring incidence of the malady. Either way you have shot your credibility so completely full of holes there is little point carrying on a discussion with you. You’re not even worth the time it takes to write an insult.
richardscourtney
September 24, 2013 2:45 pm
dbstealey:
re your post at September 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm.
Please do not encourage Roger Sowell to desist.
I ask because I am enjoying the Punch and Judy show.
Sowell has had his ‘accident’ with the ‘baby’ of truth and he is still beating up on the ‘Judy’ of reason.
You have arrived like the constable to restore order but too soon.
Sowell has yet to deal with the sausages and I eagerly await the surreal form of the crocodile.
Please allow him to continue to his traditional self destruction. Remember, if he continues then the hangman awaits.
Richard
phlogiston
September 24, 2013 3:53 pm
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.
If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.
Actually I joined this particular chorus back in the 90’s when I completed a masters degree in radiation biophysics including nuclear power essentials, followed by a PhD in radionuclide dosimetry and biological effects. While more focused on the biology side I do understand 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation reactor design. I developed a way to measure alpha particle environmental contamination (e.g. U, Pu, Am etc.) which is being used by Ukraine’s nuclear-environmental agency to this day. I have a photo of standing with a group of Ukrainian radiation scientists a few yards from reactor 4 in Chernobyl, good times – no fear! I researched Canadian caribou which have up to 3000 x more natural alpha radioactivity (210Pb/210Po) in their bones than humans – have done so for millions of years with no humans and no ill effects. It was researching this inconvenient truth that led to me being approached by an anonymous UK government official at a conference and told to stop drawing attention to high and safe natural radioactivity in animals or have my research funding stopped. (The agency in question was pursuing an alarmist agenda.) I ignored her warning and had to change careers.
You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.
The problems of nuclear safety and attendant costs are as artificial as the nuclides bred in the fast-breeder reactors. It is based on the illusion of harmful effect of radiation at very low dose. I am familiar with the substantial literature on animal and human exposure to all radiation modalties that shows a vaccuum of evidence for such risk. Like global warming, it is an artificially modelled entity at odds with real world scientific data. LNT is a fallacy crafted to destroy the nuclear industry. AGW is much more ambitious – it is crafted to degrade the entire world economy.
Nonscientists / engineers taking control of scientific / technical issues has given us a legacy of disaster in the UK:
– destruction of our nuclear industry and expertise so we now have to buy reactors from France
– sky high energy prices from Luddite environmental energy policies
– emigration of our best aerospace engineers to Boeing in the 60’s when government cancelled the TSR2 aircraft project
– destruction of our pharmaceutical industry and research base by animal rights activism
– a chief government scientist announcing that breeding pairs of humans need to be sent to Antarctica to preserve the human race from global warming
Its not a winning formula.
richardscourtney on September 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm @John Whitman
I am replying to your post at September 22, 2013 at 12:19 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423797
Your reply to says
Your idea on pseudo-science, however can be viewed as biased science awaiting the scientific self correction process to play out, but still within the historic experience and relevant purview of science. If viewed that way it still leaves the question open as to what pseudo-science is as it exists independent of science.
I suggest pseudo-science is that which merely mimics scientific processes / scientists / scientific vocabulary. It is ceremony, ritual, acting, ‘going through the motions’. The intent of pseudo-science in that case is to gain the benefits of appearing to be scientists or appearing to have scientific products. Would that view of pseudo-science bear on what the IPCC is doing?
No. That is wrong on all counts.
I remind that I said in my post you have replied
Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.
Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.
Simply, pseudoscience is the antithesis of science. But pseudoscience pretends to be science, and pseudoscientists often think they are scientists: (If you don’t believe that pseudoscientists often think they are scientists then ask an astrologer or a homeopath.)
Science starts from uncertainty and attempts reduce it because science recognises that all knowledge is uncertain.
Pseudoscience starts from certainty and attempts bolster acceptance of it.
So, both obtain and use evidence but they use it in different ways for different purposes.
Science is – given sufficient time and effort – self-correcting because it seeks to overturn existing understanding and to reduce uncertainty.
Pseudoscience is immune to scientific correction because an asserted certainty cannot be corrected.and has no uncertainty to be reduced. However, pseudoscientists act to reduce the uncertainty of the information it uses to bolster acceptance of the certainty.
The IPCC exists to conduct pseudoscience. Indeed, it is tasked to do that. I explain this in my post at September 22, 2013 at 11:08 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423732
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Finally able to re-engage. It is enjoyable to do so.
I am very careful to give unto science that which the history of science shows is within the messy self-correction process of science. The IPCC’s manifold incorrect (for whatever reason) science processes are being identified by the broader science community and should be eventually discredited / refuted, as historically happened to incorrect science. I find no useful meaning of a new concept to form around pseudo-science within that context.
What is not being corrected by science, and which I think science cannot remedy, is the part of the IPCC that adheres to irrationalism as the basis of its activities. While publicly trying to appear scientific, they are actually trying to undermine science. Think post-modernism and post-normalism and philosophical pragmatism and the dual epistemological/ metaphysics of Hegel/Kant. Those systems cut science off from fundamentally knowing our physical reality and it is intentional /premeditated. That is irrationalism which, when used as a basis for IPCC processes and discussed in scientific sounding vocabulary, appears as science. It is profoundly anti-science. That is where I think there is a meaningful concept of pseudo-science. Anti-science mimicking science.
Therefore, my concept of pseudo-science is not what yours is. But I do find what you describe is a complete and accurate description of the criteria for identifying incorrect science.
I wonder if Feynman’s cargo cult science parable and Crichton’s similar kind of descriptions would indicate they had some similar thoughts as my concept of pseudo-science? I think they did.
John
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 24, 2013 4:17 pm
From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm:
Now, Kadaka having lost the atlrgument, switches the topic to an un-knowable future where gas prices are high. Nice try!
…
It’s clear that you cannot argue the economics, so you try to change the subject to irrelevant issues like “energy density”. Next, you try the “yeah, well you just wait until natural gas prices increase!” argument.
…
When does one call it misrepresenting the evidence, instead of just outright lying?
I have never argued “energy density” in this thread, I have never tried to change the subject to it, I have not even argued the economics of nuclear power.
You asked why the expansion was abandoned when they saw the cost, I conclusively showed it wasn’t abandoned. I won.
Now, what is the legal terminology for what you are doing? Are you giving false testimony, are you misrepresenting the evidence, or just outright lying?
It is sad to see you resort to such tactics, as you languish deep in the throes of your anti-nuke rabidity.
It is disheartening your illness keeps you from accepting basic economics. The producers of natural gas will naturally want to maximize their profits. There is no competition from foreign imports, domestic is far cheaper. After allowing more build-up of the user base to increase reliance, the producers will reduce available supplies to increase prices. This is normal business practice, there are needy shareholders they must keep fed.
The natural gas price shall rise.
The price abroad for natural gas is much more than in the US. It is profitable to buy US natural gas even with the transportation costs. Foreign buyers will spur American exports, reducing domestic supply.
The natural gas price shall rise.
Large price disparities get naturally corrected. Will you save money switching to natural gas heat over fuel oil? Market analysis will show how high the natural gas price can be before people stop considering switching, it takes too long to recoup the capital investment. Natural gas distributors will want their prices to be just under that point, where profits are maximized.
The natural gas price shall rise.
Everything points to the prices going up. There is money to be made. The natural gas companies are not willing to go bankrupt trying to sell too much product too cheaply in pursuit of market share like the solar PV panel makers are doing. If a product is still cheap at twice the price, blink and it will be twice the price.
The natural gas price will rise. The nuclear plant expansion project has not been abandoned. You are avoiding the truth as a rabid creature avoids water, the condition getting worse as you descend deeper into your personal madness.
tadchem on September 23, 2013 at 7:41 am
For John Whitman, and anyone else interested: The difference between “science” and “pseudo-science” is found in the process called “critical thinking.” James Lett has produced an excellent description of exactly what comprises it in his “Field Guide to Critical Thinking”, published by CSICOP on their website. He reduces it to 6 words summarizing rules to follow when considering any claim: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Recommended reading…
– – – – – – – –
tadchem,
I appreciate you joining the discussion.
Thank you for that reference. I will look it up in the San Jose State University library when I return home to the SF Bay Area in mid Oct. I am currently enjoying my yearly month long pilgrimage to the old Whitman homestead in the Adirondack Mtns in upstate NY for the changing of the leaves to brilliant color.
As you can see from my other comments in this thread, I am initiating a new conception of pseud-science, centered around philosophical irrationalism’s attack on science.
John
Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 7:29 am
So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.
To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
– – – – – – – –
Roger Sowell,
You are correct that the STNP cancelation was some years ago.
The relatively recent NRC statement on foreign ownership will be resolved diplomatically / politically in Toshiba’s favor.There are several reasons. First Toshiba is the sole owner of Westinghouse Nuclear corporation who certainly is a US company with a history of licensing nuclear plants not only in the USA but also in Japan under partnership with Mitsubishi.
Second, virtually all the components for any US reactor would come from Asia. So, the NRC’s outdated anti/global looking concept is defacto implausible.
NEW SUBJECT => you stated that nuclear is dead. Yet it looks like the US electric utility Dominion may have preliminary deliberations about some new nuclear generating capacity. I heard it in pasting from some old nuclear colleagues recently, but have not confirmed it.
ANOTHER SUBJECT => whether any nuclear plants in Japan will restart will be on a strictly political basis. Any change in politic leadership will yield some change in attitude on restart. Right now it does not look good for restart.
FINALLY => China and Korea and the French aren’t with you on ‘nuclear is dead’. They are in expansion.
John
Wijnand Schoutem: Let’s assume that you are from the Netherlands, where you pay extremely high electricity prices. Is wind helping bring down your country’s electric rates?
@ur momisugly kadaka, re gas price increasing. Sorry, but your economic ignorance is showing.
You wrote, “The natural gas price shall rise” and gave a few scenarios.
The real world works in a very simple way. For natural gas, which is priced on a $/SCF or $/Million Btu in the US, competitive ceilings exist from fuel switching. Natural gas price will not, for long, exceed the value of fuel oil. At present, fuel oil is somewhat below $16 / Million Btu. Even if gas were to rise to $16, from its present $4, nuclear power will be woefully un-competitive.
Yet another ceiling exists for natural gas, which is the production of synthetic natural gas from coal .
So, if you are pinning your nuclear power hopes on natural gas prices increasing, it is a false hope.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 24, 2013 9:15 pm
From John Whitman on September 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm (bold added):
First Toshiba is the sole owner of Westinghouse Nuclear corporation…
It is Westinghouse Electric Company.
It is majority owned by Toshiba, not solely owned.
The Wikipedia Westinghouse Electric Company entry has the current breakdown: Toshiba (87%) (majority owner)
KazAtomProm (10%)
IHI (3%)
Toshiba’s own literature says it is majority owner, and uses the correct name:
Westinghouse Electric Company, majority owned by Toshiba Corporation (TKY:6502), is the world’s pioneering nuclear energy company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world.
(BTW, the link is about Toshiba, Westinghouse, and Exelon Nuclear Partners collaborating on nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.)
As reported on January 11, 2013 at this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, Toshiba was looking to sell off part of the ownership:
…
The Tokyo company is looking to shed potentially up to 36 percent of its majority stake in Westinghouse, a move that would deliver billions to a cash-strapped Toshiba.
It’s hard to say what effect a sale might have on Westinghouse’s Cranberry headquarters, especially since Toshiba would still own at least 51 percent of Westinghouse. (…)
@ur momisugly phlogiston, you are very wrong.
You wrote: “You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.”
I am indeed a lawyer, and am very happy and proud to be one. I also, which I suspect you did not know until now, hold a B.S. in chemical engineering, and practiced and consulted world-wide in that field for more than two decades, primarily in oil refining, petrochemicals, natural gas processing, basic chemicals, and power generation. I also have formal training at university level in nuclear power plant processes and design. I also have formal training at university level in economics, especially engineering economics of large projects. My projects over the years have ranged in size from multiple billions in US$ to projects under $1 million. I have performed detailed economic analyses of large nuclear power plants with multiple reactors ($10 to $25 billion), small and large oil refineries of simple fuels production and complex fully-integrated petrochemicals complexes (over $10 billion), power plant designs and economic cost/benefit analyses of coal-fired, natural gas-fired, hydroelectric, pumped storage hydroelectric, wind, solar both PV and thermal with and without storage, and cogeneration plants using various forms of biomass. I am a professional speaker on these and other matters.
I submit to you that I do know whereof I speak in engineering, some aspects of science, and the economics. I have the credentials and satisfied customers and clients to back it up.
Since there seem to be, even at this late date on this thread, a number of pro-nuclear activists who want to argue, I will give a brief outline of why nuclear power is dead and shall remain so. This is an outline of sorts, of a more detailed article I am preparing that I hope will be posted by WUWT.
Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others. I plan to address each of those issues in future articles, but the issue of prime importance, aside from all the others above-mentioned, is nuclear power economics. Multiple, unbiased, economic studies have shown that fully-costed nuclear power must sell for at least $250 to $300 per MWH (25 to 30 cents per kWh) at the wholesale level. New safety requirements add another few cents per kWh. To a residential customer, that nuclear-based power must have added to it transmission and distribution costs of at least another 7 to 10 cents per kWh. I referenced one such study in a comment above, from 2009 and the California Energy Commission cost comparison study. It is obvious from observing the recent efforts to build new nuclear power plants in the US that per-reactor costs are at least $8 billion, and will likely reach $10 billion or more.
My basic premise is that those of us who can have an impact on such issues as electrical power generation choices, should engage and bring the facts to light. I strongly believe that it is very wrong, unconscionable even, to build an electric power system such that the poor, elderly, and those who barely get by month to month have higher electric bills than are absolutely necessary. With fully-costed nuclear power to residential customers priced at 40 cents per kWh, when it should and could be only 10 to 12 cents, is simply wrong. Those who presently pay $200 per month for electricity must pay $800 per month, on average. In peak consumption months, their bill will be much higher. That forces them to make hard choices between using electricity and buying food.
My article will show that the two other major categories of electrical customers, commercial users and industrial users, will face far greater increases in their power prices than would the residential customer, if nuclear power is fully endorsed. Industrial users will face price increases of 8 to 10 times what they pay at present. That forces them into extremely non-competitive postures, especially where electricity is a substantial portion of their operating costs.
But, nuclear power is far worse, economically, than 40 cents per kWh. My article will address this, and discuss several reasons why nuclear power plants cost such incredible amounts at present. The costs have nothing to do with spurious lawsuits, as some have stated. Sound engineering and basic nuclear physics are the primary reasons.
Finally, I receive, as here, numerous slanders and insults. That really does not bother me, as I receive far worse in daily practice as an attorney. I actually laugh at such insults, as it shows me that those hurling the insults have lost.
I look forward to finishing my first article on nuclear economics, and hopefully having it posted here for all to dissect and discuss. I suspect it will bring forth an entire chorus of bad-mouthing and insults. The timing is not good this week and for the next several weeks, with the IPCC report being front and center at the moment.
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm
“Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others.”
+++++++++++
First you go on telling us you’re an engineer and then you produce opinions (many political and opinionated by not based in substance). You’ve raise some points that cannot go without comment.
Each on of your points quoted below is not from an engineering perspective. However, if you told me you were preaching from a political perspective, I’d be more understanding of your confusion of the facts.
Safety:
As far as safety record, nuclear’s record is far better than other energy industries. Look at injuries, accidents that lead to death and give me some numbers. Please don’t go on obfuscating scary make believe things with hand waiving. One could make the assertion that the airline industry suffers most of these “potential” problems like planes blowing up and melting. How about using this “rational thinking” of yours and make the case for ridding autos since they are a dangerous mode of transportation?
“Environmental damage”
Compared to what (in a per kWh produced)?
“Perpetual Toxic Waster stewardship”
The spent fuel rods have over 80% of their value in them, France knows this and reprocesses. We do not for political reasons.
“Risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown”
Really, what risk? Are you talking about hydrogen gas build up? Define catastrophic and compare damage to other industries. And what is the risk associated with that catastrophe?
“Unjustified use of water”
Compared to what? Where does the water go? It evaporates and comes back down again as precipitation.
“production of bomb-making material”
If we want to make bombs, we could. Are you suggesting we dump nuclear because it can reduce U235 into bomb making isotopes and then we could make bombs?
“and others”
Please give something from an engineering perspective, Mr. Lawyer.
Janice Moore
September 24, 2013 10:41 pm
GO, MARIO!
Excellent refutation of that ignorant zealot’s spew.
Hope you are now HOME!
RACookPE1978
Editor
September 24, 2013 11:00 pm
Notice that the NRC, the agency solely responsible for declaring the Toshiba-holding company “illegal” to continue construction and design at the South Texas Project, IS a political organization in Obama’s denial government. The NRC is NOT run by an engineer or even a physics or science major, but is run by Nevada Senator Harry Reid former legislative admin assistant. He was specifically put in charge of the NRC to ensure that the Nevada open-air nuclear bomb test site was not approved as the long-term disposal site for burying encapsulated nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.
There are right now NO qualified companies in the United States able to make reactor pressure vessels, nuclear steam generators, or any other major primary containment equipment.
You started debate of this subject so it would be helpful if you were to engage in the debate instead of merely iterating your disputed opinion. If you disagree with what I said then please say, but don’t pretend it was not said.
Your reply (at September 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm) was to evade that complaint by arrogantly saying to me
Please wait your turn..
Well, I did “wait {my} turn” and have obtained your post which I am answering and it is ‘more of the same’.
I defined science and pseudoscience. You avoid those definitions saying
I am very careful to give unto science that which the history of science shows is within the messy self-correction process of science. The IPCC’s manifold incorrect (for whatever reason) science processes are being identified by the broader science community and should be eventually discredited / refuted, as historically happened to incorrect science. I find no useful meaning of a new concept to form around pseudo-science within that context.
Bollocks! There is nothing new in identifying pseudoscience!
Astrology, palmistry, phrenology and etc. are NOT new.
You are using the Oldberg method of obfuscation to pretend the IPCC is a scientific enterprise that has made some mistakes which “is within the messy self-correction process of science”.
Simply, you are propagandising in support of the IPCC. To refute that nonsense I can do no better than to copy a post I provided on another thread and another post on that thread I provided earlier today. They are as follows.
The first is at September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1424570
{quote}
Several people have posted comments which suggest the IPCC AR5 should not be a political document but should be a scientific document.
That suggestion displays ignorance of the official nature and purpose of the IPCC.
The stipulated nature and purpose of the IPCC is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern IPCC work. These are at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that IPCC document says
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” that would be “policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.
This “Role” is pure politics acting behind a mask which resembles science; i.e. Lysenkoism.
{end of quote}
The second of my posts I am copying from the other thread is at September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am. It is awaiting moderation presumably because of its many links (so I suppose this post will also go to moderation).
It is addressed to Richard Verney and includes this.
{quote} The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
This is clearly and unambiguously stated as being the “Role” of the IPCC as stated in the IPCC “Principles”. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Importantly, throughout the entire existence of the IPCC, the Signatories to the UN FCCC and the IPCC have adopted, confirmed and enacted that “Role”.
The IPCC was created to have three Working Groups (WG). These WGs operate simultaneously and provide their Reports at the same time. Their duties are Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/ Working Group III: Mitigation, Synthesis Report. http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/ A scientific operation of those WGs would be for the contents of a WG1 Report to be used by WG2 in its deliberations, and then the contents of a WG2 Report to be used by WG3 in its deliberations of “mitigation”.
The IPCC has NEVER done that.
In accordance with the IPCC Role,
WG1 collates and reports scientific information supportive of AGW
WG2 assesses ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ to AGW, and
WG3 proposes options for mitigation of AGW.
Importantly, they operate and report simultaneously with each WG accepting as a given – and in accordance with the IPCC Role – that AGW does have a “science base”, is sufficient to provide impacts that require adaption because of vulnerability so demand options for mitigation.
The Synthesis Report is then compiled from the contents of the WG1, WG2 and WG3 Reports. This is a purely political process for purely political reasons. Indeed, the Report of each IPCC WG is approved ‘line by line’ by politicians and/or the representatives of politicians. Scientific reports are reviews by scientists and are NOT approved by politicians. .
This purely political – definitely NOT scientific – Role of the IPCC is deliberate and it is frequently reviewed to ensure it is maintained. The most recent approvals by FCCC Signatory governments are
at Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
and amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
approved at the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
again approved at the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)
Your claims that these demonstrable realities area “cynical view” are spin without foundation. The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
{end quote}
Richard
From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm:
Strange, “backers” is a plural, you point to only one backer and say the backers, plural, withdrew their financial support.
But what you just said was already covered in what I quoted:
It’s right there, a loan from Toshiba has been funding this, NRG Energy pulled back in 2011.
Oh, I just noticed you made a grave mistake in your September 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm comment. You said “And another source, April 19, 2013:”
Except the date is actually 2011, not 2013. You’ve confirmed what I quoted.
Oh no, I checked your 5:41 pm link which you said was from “April 20, 2013”. Bold added:
You’ve confirmed me twice, after getting the year wrong twice.
Now that you’ve slipped into this Jimmy Hansen “I’m dong this for my grandchildren!” mode of thought, except rabidly anti-nuke instead of rabidly anti-coal/CAGW, the quality of your presentations has slipped.
Hello Brad.
To answer your questions:
1. He’s a self-described independent.
2. I’m not sure about his education but he is employed as an insurance adjuster.
If you didn’t catch the initial post what it basically said was that we live on the Space Coast in Florida and we’ve been inundated with whitefly infestations (which are killing our palms). We both grew up here and neither of us have seen them in this area to this extent…they are all over the place. He blamed the infestation on Climate Change (very matter-of-fact about it). But, when I pressed him on this he basically admitted that he really didn’t know if that was true…but to him it seemed like the most logical explanation.
After I mentioned a number of other possible reasons (which I admitted to him to be just speculative) he agreed that these were just as plausible. So my post was about my personal frustration with Climate Change becoming the knee-jerk answer for whatever new thing that crops up. That is just so lazy imho. But I also think that the average Joe get’s conditioned, or has an adjusted filter based on the one-sided bombardment of this issue in the media. I actually suggested this site to him as I believe it to be highly educational.
Friends, consider the notorious question:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
I submit that the person who wrote these words didn’t know enough about science to hate it, let alone to impersonate a practitioner of it. These are the words of a literal (ha ha) scientific illiterate.
This suggests to me that both the antiscience and the pseudoscience models of the climate movement will always be incomplete, at least as regards the foot-soldiers—or the dumber foot-soldiers, at least; people like the hapless Professor Jones, above.
I appreciate that this doesn’t prove or disprove any theory about the IPCC’s agenda, given that its corporate “IQ” is at least a digit higher than Jones’; but I’m throwing it out there for thought.
Not that anyone asked, but my current thinking is that the climate movement represents the inevitable, 30-years-in-the-making ascension to cultural and discursive power of a clade of parasciences—which I hope I won’t offend anyone by enumerating broadly as the ecological, environmental, Carsonian or (grandiosely) “systems” sciences—a retarded cousin of actual science. Considering how pathological, how oncological, these “disciplines” are I’d say they’ve done less damage to the world than they might have, being until recently (largely) preoccupied with calculating the angels on the head of a pin, the thousands of “species” that “go extinct” every minute, or some other variant on the kind of fantasy-football league that consumes the office hours of Arts academics.
With the advent of the climate movement, however, these parasciences, which were previously only in a position to immiserate, impoverish and kill a few million brown and black people, are now beginning to seriously inconvenience white folk.
They must be stopped! *
But even if “para-” turns out to be le préfixe juste, it doesn’t mean that the climate movement itself isn’t also pseudoscientific.
In fact (and at the risk of obviousness), “pseudo-” doesn’t exclude “sub-“, “pre-,” “a-“, “anti-“, “praeter-“, “counter-“, “neo-,” “mal-“, etc. It is, at least when I say it!, simply a functional acknowledgment of the fact that half the population has managed to confuse the non-science of climate eschatology with actual, you know, science… which is a whole nother rant. Thanks for reading!
* Yes, for the benefit of any SS kidz designated to read this thread: that was meant to be a sick joke.
Reports that Dr Pachauri would disappear completely by 2015 have been denied by the IPCC. “It was the result of an unfortunate typographical error”, said a spokesman. “We should have said that it was highly likely that he will be gone by 2150”. “In the end, he will just melt away quite suddenly,” added Professor Wadhams.
So, Kadaka, you admit you are wrong, that STNP expansion was cancelled due to the project being financially unviable. That was TWO YEARS before the no-foreign-ownership ruling.
To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
Roger Sowell;
To the main point, if “energy density” was important, the nuclear plant expansion would not be cancelled until the NRC ruled on foreign ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well obviously energy density trumps regulatory requirements (SARC!). Are you totally and completely daft? Or are you just so certain that as a lawyer you are so much smarter than anyone else in the room that you can throw out complete stupidity and expect it to be believed? You are the kind of person who gives lawyers a bad name, a mean trick in this day and age.
The Sowell diatribe about nuclear is undermined by a simple fact. 90% of the “costs” of nuclear are artificial, not real. These costs are created by cynical obstruction by activists, the decades long inquiries and appeals, abusive radiation protection practices based on the scientifically bankrupt LNT fallacy, obstruction of all nuclear related activities etc.
Take this (appropriate) analogy. Lets say that if a woman wished to get a job for an employer, then that woman is obliged to pay 100, 000 dollars to a lawyer to prove she is not a witch. If as a result of this there were fewer women in work, it would be simple for lawyers to explain why. “Its just not economic”.
From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 7:29 am:
What a sad attack from an attorney caught misrepresenting evidence. Of course supplying the wrong years in your presentation may have been an unintended mistake, that you just happened to do twice in quick succession while pressing a point built on those dates. Heat of the moment, haste makes waste, etc. The law has allowances for stabbing someone twice with a butter knife when you thought you had grabbed a steak knife, yes?
You said on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:
I said it was never abandoned, and backed it with evidence. The permitting process was not canceled, the partnership behind the expansion was not dissolved, thus the project was not abandoned. As read in the article I provided, as mentioned by an NRG Energy spokesman, new nuclear may become economically viable in the future. Keep watch of what happens with future natural gas prices.
Well, as can be read in this Sept 23, 2013 Motley Fool piece, natural gas prices in the US are temporarily very cheap:
Etc. The US NG exports are limited by lack of shipping terminals, which are now being built, approved, going online. Domestic use is increasing. The excess supply will be put to use, 2013 prices are already notably up from 2012 lows (see article).
The US natural gas prices shall rise.
NRG Energy has their green credentials, they have solar farm assets. They have convinced rabid anti-nuke activists they have abandoned their nuclear plant expansion plans, and casual investors that they are not spending money on furthering the project.
But if they win their appeal and this stage of permitting successfully concludes, once natural gas prices rise as they must and new nuclear becomes economically viable, NRG Energy can move right back into investing and getting those reactors built.
I am not the one who is wrong. The expansion was not abandoned as you had said, it was not canceled as you now say. In response to unprecedented and ultimately transitory lows in domestic natural gas prices, it continued stealthily onward in a manner acceptable to the public and investors. When it rises into public view again, don’t call it a zombie as it was never dead.
Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.
If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.
Now, Kadaka having lost the atlrgument, switches the topic to an un-knowable future where gas prices are high. Nice try!
By the way, did you notice what happened the last time gas prices temporarily rose? Yep…technology advances allowed production of vast reservoirs of natural gas.
Nuclear power is dead, and for excellent reasons. It can never compete economically; even if it is the most “energy dense” fuel.
It’s clear that you cannot argue the economics, so you try to change the subject to irrelevant issues like “energy density”. Next, you try the “yeah, well you just wait until natural gas prices increase!” argument.
I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!
Roger Sowell,
While I agree with much of what you write, I can’t accept that nuclear power is ‘ignorant’, or that it is promoted by a chorus of ‘true believers’.
If it was, then how do you explain the U.S. Navy’s extremely successful nuclear powered submarine fleet, which has been operating with a superb safety record since the 1950’s?
Our boy served on the USS Helena for six years as a nuclear reactor technician. [I would explain more, but then I would have to kill you for your own safety. ☹ /sarc!]
I don’t understand your visceral opposition to nuclear power. Your arguments appear to be emotion-based, not fact-based. Compared with windmills, for example, nukes are about a million times more efficient. And as many folks have pointed out, more Americans have been killed by Senator Kennedy than by nuclear power, making it one of the safest energy sources in existence.
Roger Sowell;
I can’t wait to hear your next line of BS!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger, seriously? You’ve descended from making yourself look stupid to pure dogmatic drivel. I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand the difference between cost and economics, or that you don’t understand that economics is in part, but not exclusively, a function of energy density. Yet here you are making statement after statement that demonstrates that my disbelief may be poor judgment on my part. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse in support of your dogmatic anti-nuclear belief system, or that you suffer from a natural occurring incidence of the malady. Either way you have shot your credibility so completely full of holes there is little point carrying on a discussion with you. You’re not even worth the time it takes to write an insult.
dbstealey:
re your post at September 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm.
Please do not encourage Roger Sowell to desist.
I ask because I am enjoying the Punch and Judy show.
Sowell has had his ‘accident’ with the ‘baby’ of truth and he is still beating up on the ‘Judy’ of reason.
You have arrived like the constable to restore order but too soon.
Sowell has yet to deal with the sausages and I eagerly await the surreal form of the crocodile.
Please allow him to continue to his traditional self destruction. Remember, if he continues then the hangman awaits.
Richard
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Now, “phlogiston” joins the chorus of ignorant nuclear power true-believers.
If you understood nuclear power, design limitations, and the regulatory process, you would not make such foolish statements.
Actually I joined this particular chorus back in the 90’s when I completed a masters degree in radiation biophysics including nuclear power essentials, followed by a PhD in radionuclide dosimetry and biological effects. While more focused on the biology side I do understand 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation reactor design. I developed a way to measure alpha particle environmental contamination (e.g. U, Pu, Am etc.) which is being used by Ukraine’s nuclear-environmental agency to this day. I have a photo of standing with a group of Ukrainian radiation scientists a few yards from reactor 4 in Chernobyl, good times – no fear! I researched Canadian caribou which have up to 3000 x more natural alpha radioactivity (210Pb/210Po) in their bones than humans – have done so for millions of years with no humans and no ill effects. It was researching this inconvenient truth that led to me being approached by an anonymous UK government official at a conference and told to stop drawing attention to high and safe natural radioactivity in animals or have my research funding stopped. (The agency in question was pursuing an alarmist agenda.) I ignored her warning and had to change careers.
You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.
The problems of nuclear safety and attendant costs are as artificial as the nuclides bred in the fast-breeder reactors. It is based on the illusion of harmful effect of radiation at very low dose. I am familiar with the substantial literature on animal and human exposure to all radiation modalties that shows a vaccuum of evidence for such risk. Like global warming, it is an artificially modelled entity at odds with real world scientific data. LNT is a fallacy crafted to destroy the nuclear industry. AGW is much more ambitious – it is crafted to degrade the entire world economy.
Nonscientists / engineers taking control of scientific / technical issues has given us a legacy of disaster in the UK:
– destruction of our nuclear industry and expertise so we now have to buy reactors from France
– sky high energy prices from Luddite environmental energy policies
– emigration of our best aerospace engineers to Boeing in the 60’s when government cancelled the TSR2 aircraft project
– destruction of our pharmaceutical industry and research base by animal rights activism
– a chief government scientist announcing that breeding pairs of humans need to be sent to Antarctica to preserve the human race from global warming
Its not a winning formula.
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Finally able to re-engage. It is enjoyable to do so.
I am very careful to give unto science that which the history of science shows is within the messy self-correction process of science. The IPCC’s manifold incorrect (for whatever reason) science processes are being identified by the broader science community and should be eventually discredited / refuted, as historically happened to incorrect science. I find no useful meaning of a new concept to form around pseudo-science within that context.
What is not being corrected by science, and which I think science cannot remedy, is the part of the IPCC that adheres to irrationalism as the basis of its activities. While publicly trying to appear scientific, they are actually trying to undermine science. Think post-modernism and post-normalism and philosophical pragmatism and the dual epistemological/ metaphysics of Hegel/Kant. Those systems cut science off from fundamentally knowing our physical reality and it is intentional /premeditated. That is irrationalism which, when used as a basis for IPCC processes and discussed in scientific sounding vocabulary, appears as science. It is profoundly anti-science. That is where I think there is a meaningful concept of pseudo-science. Anti-science mimicking science.
Therefore, my concept of pseudo-science is not what yours is. But I do find what you describe is a complete and accurate description of the criteria for identifying incorrect science.
I wonder if Feynman’s cargo cult science parable and Crichton’s similar kind of descriptions would indicate they had some similar thoughts as my concept of pseudo-science? I think they did.
John
From Roger Sowell on September 24, 2013 at 1:29 pm:
When does one call it misrepresenting the evidence, instead of just outright lying?
I have never argued “energy density” in this thread, I have never tried to change the subject to it, I have not even argued the economics of nuclear power.
You asked why the expansion was abandoned when they saw the cost, I conclusively showed it wasn’t abandoned. I won.
Now, what is the legal terminology for what you are doing? Are you giving false testimony, are you misrepresenting the evidence, or just outright lying?
It is sad to see you resort to such tactics, as you languish deep in the throes of your anti-nuke rabidity.
It is disheartening your illness keeps you from accepting basic economics. The producers of natural gas will naturally want to maximize their profits. There is no competition from foreign imports, domestic is far cheaper. After allowing more build-up of the user base to increase reliance, the producers will reduce available supplies to increase prices. This is normal business practice, there are needy shareholders they must keep fed.
The natural gas price shall rise.
The price abroad for natural gas is much more than in the US. It is profitable to buy US natural gas even with the transportation costs. Foreign buyers will spur American exports, reducing domestic supply.
The natural gas price shall rise.
Large price disparities get naturally corrected. Will you save money switching to natural gas heat over fuel oil? Market analysis will show how high the natural gas price can be before people stop considering switching, it takes too long to recoup the capital investment. Natural gas distributors will want their prices to be just under that point, where profits are maximized.
The natural gas price shall rise.
Everything points to the prices going up. There is money to be made. The natural gas companies are not willing to go bankrupt trying to sell too much product too cheaply in pursuit of market share like the solar PV panel makers are doing. If a product is still cheap at twice the price, blink and it will be twice the price.
The natural gas price will rise. The nuclear plant expansion project has not been abandoned. You are avoiding the truth as a rabid creature avoids water, the condition getting worse as you descend deeper into your personal madness.
– – – – – – – –
tadchem,
I appreciate you joining the discussion.
Thank you for that reference. I will look it up in the San Jose State University library when I return home to the SF Bay Area in mid Oct. I am currently enjoying my yearly month long pilgrimage to the old Whitman homestead in the Adirondack Mtns in upstate NY for the changing of the leaves to brilliant color.
As you can see from my other comments in this thread, I am initiating a new conception of pseud-science, centered around philosophical irrationalism’s attack on science.
John
– – – – – – – –
Roger Sowell,
You are correct that the STNP cancelation was some years ago.
The relatively recent NRC statement on foreign ownership will be resolved diplomatically / politically in Toshiba’s favor.There are several reasons. First Toshiba is the sole owner of Westinghouse Nuclear corporation who certainly is a US company with a history of licensing nuclear plants not only in the USA but also in Japan under partnership with Mitsubishi.
Second, virtually all the components for any US reactor would come from Asia. So, the NRC’s outdated anti/global looking concept is defacto implausible.
NEW SUBJECT => you stated that nuclear is dead. Yet it looks like the US electric utility Dominion may have preliminary deliberations about some new nuclear generating capacity. I heard it in pasting from some old nuclear colleagues recently, but have not confirmed it.
ANOTHER SUBJECT => whether any nuclear plants in Japan will restart will be on a strictly political basis. Any change in politic leadership will yield some change in attitude on restart. Right now it does not look good for restart.
FINALLY => China and Korea and the French aren’t with you on ‘nuclear is dead’. They are in expansion.
John
Wijnand Schoutem: Let’s assume that you are from the Netherlands, where you pay extremely high electricity prices. Is wind helping bring down your country’s electric rates?
@ur momisugly kadaka, re gas price increasing. Sorry, but your economic ignorance is showing.
You wrote, “The natural gas price shall rise” and gave a few scenarios.
The real world works in a very simple way. For natural gas, which is priced on a $/SCF or $/Million Btu in the US, competitive ceilings exist from fuel switching. Natural gas price will not, for long, exceed the value of fuel oil. At present, fuel oil is somewhat below $16 / Million Btu. Even if gas were to rise to $16, from its present $4, nuclear power will be woefully un-competitive.
Yet another ceiling exists for natural gas, which is the production of synthetic natural gas from coal .
So, if you are pinning your nuclear power hopes on natural gas prices increasing, it is a false hope.
From John Whitman on September 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm (bold added):
It is Westinghouse Electric Company.
It is majority owned by Toshiba, not solely owned.
The Wikipedia Westinghouse Electric Company entry has the current breakdown:
Toshiba (87%) (majority owner)
KazAtomProm (10%)
IHI (3%)
Toshiba’s own literature says it is majority owner, and uses the correct name:
(BTW, the link is about Toshiba, Westinghouse, and Exelon Nuclear Partners collaborating on nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.)
As reported on January 11, 2013 at this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, Toshiba was looking to sell off part of the ownership:
36% + 51% = 87%, not 100%.
@ur momisugly phlogiston, you are very wrong.
You wrote: “You however are part of a much larger team of antinuke cheerleaders. You are a lawyer. You do not understand science and cannot. To fantasise that you do is a dangerous illusion.”
I am indeed a lawyer, and am very happy and proud to be one. I also, which I suspect you did not know until now, hold a B.S. in chemical engineering, and practiced and consulted world-wide in that field for more than two decades, primarily in oil refining, petrochemicals, natural gas processing, basic chemicals, and power generation. I also have formal training at university level in nuclear power plant processes and design. I also have formal training at university level in economics, especially engineering economics of large projects. My projects over the years have ranged in size from multiple billions in US$ to projects under $1 million. I have performed detailed economic analyses of large nuclear power plants with multiple reactors ($10 to $25 billion), small and large oil refineries of simple fuels production and complex fully-integrated petrochemicals complexes (over $10 billion), power plant designs and economic cost/benefit analyses of coal-fired, natural gas-fired, hydroelectric, pumped storage hydroelectric, wind, solar both PV and thermal with and without storage, and cogeneration plants using various forms of biomass. I am a professional speaker on these and other matters.
I submit to you that I do know whereof I speak in engineering, some aspects of science, and the economics. I have the credentials and satisfied customers and clients to back it up.
Since there seem to be, even at this late date on this thread, a number of pro-nuclear activists who want to argue, I will give a brief outline of why nuclear power is dead and shall remain so. This is an outline of sorts, of a more detailed article I am preparing that I hope will be posted by WUWT.
Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others. I plan to address each of those issues in future articles, but the issue of prime importance, aside from all the others above-mentioned, is nuclear power economics. Multiple, unbiased, economic studies have shown that fully-costed nuclear power must sell for at least $250 to $300 per MWH (25 to 30 cents per kWh) at the wholesale level. New safety requirements add another few cents per kWh. To a residential customer, that nuclear-based power must have added to it transmission and distribution costs of at least another 7 to 10 cents per kWh. I referenced one such study in a comment above, from 2009 and the California Energy Commission cost comparison study. It is obvious from observing the recent efforts to build new nuclear power plants in the US that per-reactor costs are at least $8 billion, and will likely reach $10 billion or more.
My basic premise is that those of us who can have an impact on such issues as electrical power generation choices, should engage and bring the facts to light. I strongly believe that it is very wrong, unconscionable even, to build an electric power system such that the poor, elderly, and those who barely get by month to month have higher electric bills than are absolutely necessary. With fully-costed nuclear power to residential customers priced at 40 cents per kWh, when it should and could be only 10 to 12 cents, is simply wrong. Those who presently pay $200 per month for electricity must pay $800 per month, on average. In peak consumption months, their bill will be much higher. That forces them to make hard choices between using electricity and buying food.
My article will show that the two other major categories of electrical customers, commercial users and industrial users, will face far greater increases in their power prices than would the residential customer, if nuclear power is fully endorsed. Industrial users will face price increases of 8 to 10 times what they pay at present. That forces them into extremely non-competitive postures, especially where electricity is a substantial portion of their operating costs.
But, nuclear power is far worse, economically, than 40 cents per kWh. My article will address this, and discuss several reasons why nuclear power plants cost such incredible amounts at present. The costs have nothing to do with spurious lawsuits, as some have stated. Sound engineering and basic nuclear physics are the primary reasons.
Finally, I receive, as here, numerous slanders and insults. That really does not bother me, as I receive far worse in daily practice as an attorney. I actually laugh at such insults, as it shows me that those hurling the insults have lost.
I look forward to finishing my first article on nuclear economics, and hopefully having it posted here for all to dissect and discuss. I suspect it will bring forth an entire chorus of bad-mouthing and insults. The timing is not good this week and for the next several weeks, with the IPCC report being front and center at the moment.
Roger Sowell says:
September 24, 2013 at 9:57 pm
“Nuclear power can be, and is, opposed by rational, thinking and good-intentioned people for a number of excellent reasons: including safety, environmental damage, perpetual toxic waste stewardship, risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown, unjustifiable use of precious and scarce fresh water, production of bomb-making material, and others.”
+++++++++++
First you go on telling us you’re an engineer and then you produce opinions (many political and opinionated by not based in substance). You’ve raise some points that cannot go without comment.
Each on of your points quoted below is not from an engineering perspective. However, if you told me you were preaching from a political perspective, I’d be more understanding of your confusion of the facts.
Safety:
As far as safety record, nuclear’s record is far better than other energy industries. Look at injuries, accidents that lead to death and give me some numbers. Please don’t go on obfuscating scary make believe things with hand waiving. One could make the assertion that the airline industry suffers most of these “potential” problems like planes blowing up and melting. How about using this “rational thinking” of yours and make the case for ridding autos since they are a dangerous mode of transportation?
“Environmental damage”
Compared to what (in a per kWh produced)?
“Perpetual Toxic Waster stewardship”
The spent fuel rods have over 80% of their value in them, France knows this and reprocesses. We do not for political reasons.
“Risk of catastrophic explosion and meltdown”
Really, what risk? Are you talking about hydrogen gas build up? Define catastrophic and compare damage to other industries. And what is the risk associated with that catastrophe?
“Unjustified use of water”
Compared to what? Where does the water go? It evaporates and comes back down again as precipitation.
“production of bomb-making material”
If we want to make bombs, we could. Are you suggesting we dump nuclear because it can reduce U235 into bomb making isotopes and then we could make bombs?
“and others”
Please give something from an engineering perspective, Mr. Lawyer.
GO, MARIO!
Excellent refutation of that ignorant zealot’s spew.
Hope you are now HOME!
Notice that the NRC, the agency solely responsible for declaring the Toshiba-holding company “illegal” to continue construction and design at the South Texas Project, IS a political organization in Obama’s denial government. The NRC is NOT run by an engineer or even a physics or science major, but is run by Nevada Senator Harry Reid former legislative admin assistant. He was specifically put in charge of the NRC to ensure that the Nevada open-air nuclear bomb test site was not approved as the long-term disposal site for burying encapsulated nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.
There are right now NO qualified companies in the United States able to make reactor pressure vessels, nuclear steam generators, or any other major primary containment equipment.
John Whitman:
I understand your post at September 24, 2013 at 4:08 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1425719
to consist solely of evasion and obfuscation.
I complained to you in an earlier post (at September 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm) saying
Your reply (at September 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm) was to evade that complaint by arrogantly saying to me
Well, I did “wait {my} turn” and have obtained your post which I am answering and it is ‘more of the same’.
I defined science and pseudoscience. You avoid those definitions saying
Bollocks! There is nothing new in identifying pseudoscience!
Astrology, palmistry, phrenology and etc. are NOT new.
You are using the Oldberg method of obfuscation to pretend the IPCC is a scientific enterprise that has made some mistakes which “is within the messy self-correction process of science”.
Simply, you are propagandising in support of the IPCC. To refute that nonsense I can do no better than to copy a post I provided on another thread and another post on that thread I provided earlier today. They are as follows.
The first is at September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1424570
{quote}
Several people have posted comments which suggest the IPCC AR5 should not be a political document but should be a scientific document.
That suggestion displays ignorance of the official nature and purpose of the IPCC.
The stipulated nature and purpose of the IPCC is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern IPCC work. These are at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that IPCC document says
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” that would be “policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.
This “Role” is pure politics acting behind a mask which resembles science; i.e. Lysenkoism.
{end of quote}
The second of my posts I am copying from the other thread is at September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am. It is awaiting moderation presumably because of its many links (so I suppose this post will also go to moderation).
It is addressed to Richard Verney and includes this.
{quote}
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
This is clearly and unambiguously stated as being the “Role” of the IPCC as stated in the IPCC “Principles”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Importantly, throughout the entire existence of the IPCC, the Signatories to the UN FCCC and the IPCC have adopted, confirmed and enacted that “Role”.
The IPCC was created to have three Working Groups (WG). These WGs operate simultaneously and provide their Reports at the same time. Their duties are
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis.
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
Working Group III: Mitigation, Synthesis Report.
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/
A scientific operation of those WGs would be for the contents of a WG1 Report to be used by WG2 in its deliberations, and then the contents of a WG2 Report to be used by WG3 in its deliberations of “mitigation”.
The IPCC has NEVER done that.
In accordance with the IPCC Role,
WG1 collates and reports scientific information supportive of AGW
WG2 assesses ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ to AGW, and
WG3 proposes options for mitigation of AGW.
Importantly, they operate and report simultaneously with each WG accepting as a given – and in accordance with the IPCC Role – that AGW does have a “science base”, is sufficient to provide impacts that require adaption because of vulnerability so demand options for mitigation.
The Synthesis Report is then compiled from the contents of the WG1, WG2 and WG3 Reports.
This is a purely political process for purely political reasons. Indeed, the Report of each IPCC WG is approved ‘line by line’ by politicians and/or the representatives of politicians. Scientific reports are reviews by scientists and are NOT approved by politicians. .
This purely political – definitely NOT scientific – Role of the IPCC is deliberate and it is frequently reviewed to ensure it is maintained. The most recent approvals by FCCC Signatory governments are
at Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
and amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
approved at the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
again approved at the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)
Your claims that these demonstrable realities area “cynical view” are spin without foundation.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
{end quote}
Richard