Greens want every possible intervention except one which “solves” their useful crisis
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
‘Drill Bit Dana’ has been at it again, trying to claim that we don’t “accept the science”, because we are ideologically opposed to their solution – massive government intervention.
There is just one problem with this argument – its an utter falsehood. The reason its a falsehood, is massive government intervention is not the only, or by any measure the best, route to reducing CO2 emissions. Most skeptics are supporters of power generation solutions which would, as a byproduct, significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
We have no reason to reject alarmist science, other than we think it is wrong.
Take the example of America. The USA has substantially reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade, because of fracking – the switch from coal to gas, even though energy use has gone up, has reduced the amount of carbon which is burned to produce that energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/
Of course, America’s coal producers are still mining as much coal as they ever did – and exporting it to Europe, whose disastrous policy failures have increased costs and CO2 emissions.
In the case of fracking, the reduction of CO2 emissions might have been incidental, but fracking has produced results. Surely when it comes to CO2, results are what count?
But the real elephant in the room, with regard to emissions reduction, is the nuclear option.
James Hansen likes nuclear power.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html
George Monbiot likes nuclear power. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Anthony Watts likes nuclear power.
James Delingpole likes nuclear power.
Jo Nova likes nuclear power.
The Heartland Institute likes nuclear power.
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/global-warmings-mt-rushmore-wisely-embraces-nuclear-power/
So why isn’t nuclear power the main focus of everyone’s attention? Why do far too many alarmists persist with antagonising us, by pushing their absurd carbon taxes and government intervention, when they could be working with us? Why do alarmists keep trying to force us to accept solutions which we find utterly unacceptable, when there are obvious solutions which we could all embrace?
Perhaps some alarmists are worried about the risk of nuclear accidents – but, if climate change is as serious as they say, how can the risk of a nuclear meltdown or ten possibly compare to what alarmists claim is an imminent risk to the survival of all humanity?
Why do alarmists persist with pushing falsehoods about the motivation of their opponents, when they could, right now, be taking positive, substantial steps to promote policies which actually would reduce CO2 emissions?
What was the motivation of Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, when he wrote the following Climategate email:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt
“Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/ Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. … He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.”
Does Phil Jones really think that nuclear safety is more of an issue than global warming?
The easy answer to this dilemma is that most alarmists are being dishonest – that they don’t really believe CO2 is an important issue, that its simply a convenient excuse to push their political agenda. But surely they can’t all be bent? Monbiot seems sincere about embracing nuclear power. Hansen, and the authors of the open letter, seem sincere about promoting nuclear power. Are they really the only honest participants on the alarmist side of the debate? Surely this can’t be the case.
What am I missing?
I’ve been working nuclear construction and nuclear operations for thirty-five years and naturally have some opinions about this topic. Some random thoughts are posted below:.
Economic Competitiveness of Nuclear Power:
The biggest roadblock by far to expanded nuclear construction in the United States is the high upfront capital cost of nuclear power which must be amortized over the life of the plants. As stated in inflation-corrected dollars, the capital cost of a nuclear megawatt in the United States is roughly double what it was two decades ago. These high capital costs have put an end to the nascent American nuclear renaissance as lower prices for natural gas erase the cost advantage nuclear generation had over gas-fired generation in terms of total lifecycle cost.
For nuclear to become economically competitive with natural gas in unregulated power markets, the price of natural gas must go high in the near term and then stay high for decades on end.
The reasons for why capital costs for nuclear are so high in the US in comparison with China, for one example, include: (1) the general decline of the US industrial sector for nearly all those industrial capabilities that are important in supporting successful nuclear construction projects; (2) lack of nuclear-capable job skills among both managers and skilled craft; (3) high labor costs for both managers and for skilled craft labor that are far above the global norm; (4), higher taxes and civil infrastructure support costs in the US, and (5) competition for land and for civil support infrastructure from other private and commercial projects.
Effect of NRC Oversight on Capital Costs:
Nuclear construction is different from coal or natural gas construction in that an excellent job must be done from one end of the project to the other. What the NRC requires in terms of their approval processes and in terms of their quality assurance requirements for plant construction and operation is perfectly reasonable and appropriate given the risks of nuclear power. The NRC’s oversight processes and procedures are about as efficient in terms of time and cost to implement as they can be relative to the requirements they must impose.
The Thorium Fuel Cycle:
The commercial nuclear industry in the United States sees no cost advantages for the thorium fuel cycle over the existing uranium fuel cycle. Thorium is a policy wonk hobby horse for those who think there is a magic technology solution to the deeply entrenched factors which affect the high costs and lack of acceptance of nuclear power in the United States. Thorium isn’t going to happen in this country.
Nuclear Waste Issues:
The NRC’s draft safety analysis report for Yucca Mountain – which for political reasons, the Obama Administration refused to publish as a final report — determined that Yucca Mountain was a safe place to store nuclear waste. That issue aside, there is a serious problem with Yucca Mountain’s costs. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) is deeply flawed in that it requires that the spent nuclear fuel stored in any geologic repository must be retrievable for eventual reprocessing, should fuel reprocessing ever become economic.
But including the fuel retrieval option greatly increases the construction costs and the future operating costs of any deep geologic repository, regardless of where it is sited.
The policy problem here is that if there is any future possibility at all that any particular store of spent nuclear fuel will be reprocessed, that store of spent fuel will never be placed into a geologic repository, it will stay in its casks above ground for decades on end. Why pay greatly increased costs for including a retrieval capability in a geologic repository when that capability will never, ever be used? The NWPA must be revised to eliminate this deal-killing policy issue before productive work on a geologic repository can be resumed.
If the fuel retrieval requirement is eliminated from the NWPA, then disposal sites which are significantly less costly to construct and to operate than Yucca Mountain will be under current NWPA requirements now become very much more attractive as a place to dispose of radioactive material which is, and always will be under any conceivable future circumstances, “waste” as opposed to “resource.”
If the NWPA were ever to be revised to correct this important policy flaw, the salt deposits of southeastern New Mexico then become the most attractive disposal site both from a nuclear safety perspective and from a waste management cost control perspective.
Because obsessive compulsive psychos have crippled every facet of the industry from R&D to construction to operation to public relations? Seriously. What EXTRAORDINARY chutzpah is demonstrated by nuclearphobes that purposely and methodically destroyed this industry by making every step as expensive as possible and later open their mouthes and ask why ‘it isn’t taking off’ or ‘is too expensive’. This is the same plan being implemented from the AGW cabal by demanding carbon taxes that jack up fossil fuel costs, and they’ll play the same game this anti-nuke-kook is by saying coal and NG plants are too expensive, and other garbage. P.S. Skimming through the comments I see that others have already hit this exact point. Kudos to them all.
So we’ve heard, ditto for mobile Ohio and other subs, land-based missile silos, AF and other bases stocked with live nuke warheads and uncountable amounts of conventional high explosives, ammo and fuel. Is it too difficult to imagine new reactors built on or near secured bases? Or do we race to the bottom following this rabbit hole right back to ludditeville? Actually it is not unknown that some bases already have operational reactors already, as do most carriers and subs. And don’t doubt that even in the middle of DC there are not several as well. Securing these things is most definitely NOT the major impediment to implementation.
Right! It seems to be the most common WMD in use these days.
Indeed, the father of the current Governor up here in NY was the person that killed the fully constructed Shoreham plant shortly before it was to be brought online, and an enormous expenditure of money was flushed down the toilet. That same fool also took the death penalty off the books and blocked a USN homeport in NYC. ( Guilliani gets blame here too. Interestingly, while people ponder terrorism events such as 9/11 in relation to a local nuke power plant they always fail to mention that missing homeport and the high probability that either or both planes that were hijacked would have been intercepted rather than the infamous futile chase from a faraway base in Massachusetts. ) An undefended NYC is indeed a safe NYC!
Gary Pearse says: “Loan guarantees? These cost money only when they are not paid back.”
No. Any guarantee is a liability on the balance sheet of the guarantor. And it is equally an asset on the balance sheet of the guaranteed.
Each guarantee given by a private enterprise or government will reduce its creditworthiness. This results in increasing cost of funding when it looks for cash to support ongoing business.
In the extreme, an over-indebted balance sheet results an loss of credit worthiness and inability to raise funding. At this point, insolvency/bankruptcy is almost a certainty.
Tom :
Huh? is the right expression.You have apparently uncovered the diesel powered co-generaters now extant in the US. I would estimate that only a minute portion of our elec is generated by these. The exception proves the rule :Public utilities do not use oil for power generation.
Peter Taylor says:
August 10, 2014 at 9:14 am
“their critical faculties when it comes to energy policy, development, economic growth and above all, nuclear power.
And then there is another issue – the one sceptics share with the greenies in equal measure – a willful blindness to anything that does not fit with their worldview.”
Peter, respectfully, you do not understand serious skeptics. You lump them in with antideluvian, agenda-driven, unbending, scientific illiterates because that is who the warmists identify as “den_iers” or flat;_earthers and they lump us in with them. Would you be surprised that, like Patrick Moore, the scientifically literate sceptic in most cases actually believed the mainstream cli sci story until, upon examination of the science, they began to critique it. Indeed, that’s Anthony Watt’s story and what brought to you this best on the blog site.
Now, Ill let you speak for the greenies but you are dead wrong about real sceptics. If you had read more of the posts on this site you would be surprised to learn that the sceptics I have defined here are angry about the neglect of real environmental issues that have been left under-funded and short on the policy end because of the overarching mania about CO2 and the trillions of dollars it is costing. The permits to kill millions of bats and birds by medieval engineering that isn’t delivering 15% of its electrical capacity, not to mention the uglification of the environmment by these expensive monsters, curdles the blood of true sceptics.
Now look, Peter, you are a rare bird indeed to fly over this site with any appreciation at all – it makes you an honorary sceptic since you haven’t come to disrupt. The nuclear issue is an emotional, not an engineering or even environmental issue. After all, two horrible bombs were dropped that wiped out populations of two cities and that essentially is the source of the hyperbole over nuclear energy. In France, there has only been one death of a nuclear plant worker and no civilians in the most nuclear-bound country in the world. This is a record that no other industry in the world can claim. The rest of the world’s nuclear electrical industry has killed ~70 people, 47 in Chernobyl, one of the negligently designed Soviet plants (please don’t drag out the UN expected deaths from it). If it weren’t for the hiatus in research that extends decades back of the electronic revolution, we would probably have clean, reliable, small-footprint plants.
Why do we brand lefty-greenies as we do? Do you know Maurice Strong? The Canadian rabid socialist (now living permanently in China) who created the UN framework on environment (yada yada) and the Kyoto protocol and the mission of the IPCC to find a link between human CO2 and planetary disaster? No? Well that’s a good place to start. The purpose, of course is world gov. run by elitists – sounds like “Gold Member” or what ever the spoof was called but this is not light comedy. You have to ask yourself what is in it for guys like Anthony Watts who takes abuse everyday – he is indeed the one saving the planet if there is such a project. Having come this far, I trust you don’t think he’s getting fat checks from big oil. Oh and he has solar panels on his roof, LED lights and drives an electric car, don’t you know.
Sorry about your book not being mentioned, but, believe you me, there has been no shortage of dragons to slay in this government-UN Ma_lthusian-climate science industrial complex.
Roger Sowell,
Are you going to sue everyone who disagrees with you? If so, better put me on the list.
I think there is a place for nuclear power. It doesn’t scare me. France generates four-fifths of its electricity from nuke plants, and I don’t see any big problems with that. What scares me is a lack of electricity.
Your targets should be the anti-coal and anti-fracking enviro crowd. They are the real problem. With cheap coal and gas, there wouldn’t be any need for nukes.
Roger Sowell says: August 10, 2014 at 10:55 am
To eric1skeptic who say at August 10, 2014 at 10:28 am
Your libelous statement above is noted, saved, filed, and may be the subject of a defamation lawsuit.
_____________________________
How does one defame a lawyer? I thought they had already defamed themselves, by the profession they chose. Is that not so, Mr Sowell (esq).
Never yet met an honest lawyer. Never yet met a lawyer who used the law, instead of a campaign of dirty tricks and naked threats. Never yet met a layer who bothered about little things, like the truth. Never yet met a lawyer with an ounce of morality. Never yet met a lawyer who was not the school prat. Never yet met a lawyer who has not turned into a legalized bully, to get his own back for the bullying he received at school.
Is that you, Mr Sowell (esq) ? Sure sounds like it to me.
Ralph
Steve P says:
August 9, 2014 at 9:11 am
“We don’t need nuclear power, nor do we need wind and solar polar. All of these power generation technologies cost far more than they are worth and entail various liabilities often swept under the carpet, i.e. Fukushima. ”
Steve, if Fukushima had been a coal fired plant, just as many people would have died and destruction would have been as bad.
richardscourtney says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:25 am
What I suggested was that folks who think wind, solar, waves and so on can power the world should try the calculations for themselves. The word “transition” as I used it may have misdirected you. Sorry for that. I actually meant “on paper” because in the real world I don’t think any such transition is possible. When one considers the low power density of wind and the spatial requirements for each tower the necessary land area for “wind farms” becomes quite surprisingly high.
Again, sorry for the poorly written phrase.
Come, come dbstealey, Sowell is entitled to serve notice when he feels that he has been slandered here. We all are. One can go too far and Sowell was attacked professionally.
If by nuclear we are talking about thorium, Im on board. If we are talking about plants with the potential for meltdowns I find them one of the most short sighted things humans have ever embraced.
Brian says: ” … if you’ll forgive me for being blunt, you’re just an ignorant shill lawyer who is paid by fossil fuel companies to say this stuff …”
eric1skeptic says: “I agree with Brian, you are incompetent….”
ralfellis says: “Never yet met an honest lawyer. Never yet met a lawyer who used the law, instead of a campaign of dirty tricks and naked threats. Never yet met a layer who bothered about little things, like the truth. Never yet met a lawyer with an ounce of morality. Never yet met a lawyer who was not the school prat. Never yet met a lawyer who has not turned into a legalized bully, to get his own back for the bullying he received at school.”
—————————————
Somebody pass me a bucket, I think I’m gonna be sick.
Guys – you are handing ammunition to the opposition. If this is REALLY the best you have to say, please do everybody a big favour and stop posting it here.
Thank you in anticipation..
Gary Pearse says:
August 10, 2014 at 12:41 pm
The critical distinction is that the crisis at Fukushima has not been resolved. Any disaster at a coal fired plant would have local effects of a limited duration.
A lump of coal can be picked up by hand anywhere any time, except when it’s burning; then you need to use tongs.
Coriums, I gather, are a little more challenging.
Roger Sowell (August 10, 2014 at 10:55 am) “Your libelous statement above is noted, saved, filed, and may be the subject of a defamation lawsuit.”
I presume you wrote this blog post here: http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-science-free-speech-and-legal.html That is, unless someone else wrote it or you merely cut and pasted from some other source without actually reading what you cut and pasted.
The blog post states ” Examples of intentionally false would be “he has no training”, “he is incompetent,” “he makes things up,” “he takes money from oil companies,” and such. ”
In a lame attempt to deflect from your lack of knowledge about nuclear power you have apparently also published in your blog a voluminous series (at least 30 parts) on the dangers, bad economics and just general badness of nuclear power. That series is full of errors, but it doesn’t matter to you since you are fully aware as a lawyer that the inanimate object “nuclear power” can’t sue you back for defamation.
Your goal with the series is two-fold. First it is to establish a beachhead against nuclear power in the United States leveraging your climate skeptic credentials. Your series adds to the large amount of similarly false statements about nuclear power made at sites and organizations written by greenies. The second reason is you wish to present yourself as an expert in nuclear power so you can use that “expertise” and “online reputation” as a plaintiff in lawsuits against supporters of nuclear power like “Brian” in this thread.
That blog post further states “Next, the false statement must have injured the plaintiff’s reputation. Injury to reputation is shown that because of the facts and circumstances known to the reader of the statement (the third party), the false statement tended to injure plaintiff in his occupation, or expose him to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or shame, or to discourage others from associating or dealing with him. This can be shown by testimony, by business records showing a decline, by statements showing hatred or contempt or ridicule, by plaintiff testifying to feelings of shame, or that others were discouraged or actually stopped associating or dealing with plaintiff.”
When I read that post, it occurred to me that such business records, statements, testimony, etc. could be quite voluminous. It is August and heating season using my wood stove starts in late October here at my home on Stony Bottom Road in Front Royal Virginia. I would very much appreciate if such records, statements, and testimony could be delivered on paper. I prefer higher quality, heavy weight office paper. Please do not send any chemically treated or glossy paper.
At that point in time, I will make an obviously foolish, belated effort to enhance your reputation as a competent lawyer on this blog (WUWT) by making measurements and a taking photograph of the stack of paper after it arrives at my house, and posting a link to it those in a suitable thread of your or my choosing. I realize that my effort to uphold your reputation will be construed as being further damaging to your reputation, but I am prepared to accept that risk if it results in further deliveries of printed material.
Sincerely,
Eric Peterson
Jordan @1:02 pm:
You wonder why such comments don’t prompt a response from the moderator. It is impossible to imagine such comments being allowed against one or two of the most prominent posters featured at this blog.
mpainter says:
August 10, 2014 at 6:00 am
Gareth Phillips:
Regarding solar panels instead of power generation, you will need electricity at night and on cloudy days; solar panels are limited in their usefullness, unfortunately.
mpainter. I think you will note that I pointed out we will always need conventional power generation to cover the shortfall at night. I also understand that less power is consumed at night though there would have to be a reserve of capacity.
Gamecock August 9, 2014 at 11:16 am:
“[Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)… haven’t] been developed. You ascribe to it imaginary properties.
Maybe the Chinese will get it to work. Even if they do, it’s not economically feasible at this time. Your declaration “If China is allowed to pursue LFTR development exclusively” sounds like a certain president telling us “we can’t let China get ahead of us in developing solar power.” ”
You are not keeping up with the times, in all your superiority, Gamecock. The Indians have a Thorium reactor designed and have been proceeding to procure parts for it since springtime. A 300Mw system, with a larger one to follow. That first one they plan on having online in 2016 – only 2 years from now.
Besides which Alvin Weiner in the 1960s completely “developed” the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. And who is Weiner? Just the same exact guy who developed the light water reactor that is used in most nuclear plant around the world.
You also do not seem to be aware that it is not only China “developing” Thorium reactors. About 20 to 30 countries are working on developing them, if not ore. The world doesn’t need the USA to do this. The rest of the world’s physicists see the value and benefit in the technology and are going ahead with it. China alone has more than FOUR HUNDRED scientists working on it, though, so they are taking it seriously perhaps the most.
The world has entered the Thorium age, whether you think so or not.
Renewables create harmonics on the grid, requiring $10 Trillion to upgrade. Green Energy’s waste stream of Rare Earth Elements tosses away enough of the super fuel Thorium yearly that can power the planet in molten salt reactors. MSRs due to no pressure domes, simplified with no backup systems needed for Walk away safe shut down brings a great solution to distributed power. The US, DoE and NRC are fools allowing China to walk away with a $6 Trillion market. http://www.energyfromthorium.com. For the nearly $1 Billion a day spent on AGW and renewables, we could build 600 MWs of MSRs daily. No emissions, 99% fuel burn and for greenies no CO2.
Unlike AGW, which is a theory being used as leverage to enable various social engineering schemes, Nuclear is all about the hard fact and hard science and basic engineering.
If it is practical, it will eventually be done, if not here, than elsewhere. If it is not practical, than the various projects under construction will prove that as well
I’m going to be paying a lot of attention in the next few years to the various construction and research projects underway right now. Actual hard, real world applications that will refute, or confirm the arguments for and against Nuclear. I’m looking forward to reading about them here as they come online.
In some ways it’s very refreshing to be talking about something that at the bottom is hard science and not massaged data and, If, maybe, could be, theory.
There is no way on earth we will ever be able to prove that the AGW theory is false.
You can’t prove a null. Is that the correct phrase?
Steve P says:
August 10, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Gary Pearse says:
August 10, 2014 at 12:41 pm
“The critical distinction is that the crisis at Fukushima has not been resolved. Any disaster at a coal fired plant would have local effects of a limited duration.”
Nevertheless, had Fukushima been a coal fired plant, the same number of people would have died. I’m sure you understand that the disaster was a Tsunami and activists are notoriously opportunistic. If a pizza oven had blown up next door, that would be enough for several eco blogs to point to Fukushima. Steve, the fact that nuclear electric plants, despite early experimental aspects to the tech of the 1950s and the negligently designed Soviet plants, have killed only 70 people (47 at Chernobyl should tell you something). France, where the tech is newest has lost only one worker who had an accident (I don’t believe a radioactive one) in melting spent fuel rods. Meanwhile, China was killing people in coal mines at 6-7000 a year!!! until recently -certainly more than 100,000 deaths in a couple of decades!
Steve, do your own thinking on a blog of this caliber. Most of the information available on the subject of nuclear is from activists – it isn’t worth reading the predictions or even thoughts of the political scientists, lawyers and ecologists who spout this stuff. Roger Sewell on this blog, for example, is a lawyer and believes he should be educating engineers and physicists on this topic. A
Also, think about this. If CO2 is going to kill a billion people and all the animals, getting rid of CO2 by going nuclear will kill perhaps one person a year. The activists are against it. They don’t really want a solution to problems, whatever they are. They’ve bought into the world gov’t line.
Guys, something to consider in the discussion about nuclear power safety. The people I quoted are *not* suggesting that the current method of producing nuclear power is the last word in nuclear safety.
For example, from James Hansen’s open letter:
… As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. …
Fukishima has created ongoing problems because it required active safety – if the electricity ever failed (which it did, when the diesel backup generators were washed away by the Tsunami), meltdown was inevitable.
I would not want to live near such a power plant.
The kind of power systems Watts and Hansen support are *passive* safe systems – systems which are designed from the ground up to never melt down, no matter what goes wrong with the support equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
For example, with LFTR reactors, the core, which can only sustain a chain reaction when in contact with its moderator rods, is held in place by a plug of solidified salt, which is kept solid by an active cooling system (a small electric fan). If the active system fails, or if the core overheats, the plug of salt melts, and the core drains into a holding tank, away from its moderator rods. When the core is separated from its moderator by draining away into the holding tank, the nuclear chain reaction stops, and the core cools back to safe temperatures.
Similarly, with Pebble Bed reactors, the reactor core is a collection of graphite balls at the bottom of a bucket. If the Pebble Bed core overheats, the graphite balls expand. The expansion of the core degrades the nuclear chain reaction, and stabilises the reactor core temperature at a level well below the melting point of the graphite.
Brian said- “Who profits?”
Fossil-fuel companies under your preferred energy portfolio. I thought that would be obvious, Steve.
The first thing that I thought when I heard of GHE almost 30 years ago is that someone wants to sell more nuclear power plants. That was reinforced by the “Who killed the electric car” BS. We were being conned into needing more electricity that couldn’t be supplied by renewable sources.
I was 100% convinced when watching a documentary made by Jason, an organisation started by quantum physicists who had worked on the Manhattan Project. It was on Intelligent Design but instead of any usefull insight into pro/con points of view it took the opportunity to equate belief of it with denying climate change. The mother of all ad hom attacks.
Do I prefer coal or nuclear. Go fossil until there really is a need for an alternative. I would hate to make these bastards rich.
Gary Pearse says:
August 10, 2014 at 4:22 pm
You’re dealing in hypotheticals, and dodging reality.
Fukushima is not a coal plant. Can we agree on that? Nor is the crisis there over.
Until such time as the situation is resolved at Fukushima Dai-ichi, it is impossible to calculate the final costs, either human or material.
As an electrical consumer of limited means, my interest is that power utilities use the most cost efficient fuels and methods to generate power, so that my cost may be lower, and my service uninterrupted.
There is no need to limit CO2. Upstream…
richardscourtney says:
August 9, 2014 at 10:10 am
It’s a scam. Coal is the most cost-effective fuel, and we have it in abundance. Failure to use all we need is to submit to the scam.
mpainter says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:32 am
Tom :
Huh? is the right expression.You have apparently uncovered the diesel powered co-generaters now extant in the US. I would estimate that only a minute portion of our elec is generated by these. The exception proves the rule :Public utilities do not use oil for power generation.
……….
Evidently you are not satisfied with the hole you have dug for yourself, and insist on digging deeper. Take a look at the first one on the list below. Do you have any idea how the output of that plant compares to the typical coal-fired power plant? Plant Scherer, which is just north of Macon, Georgia, the largest coal-fired plant in the US, produces 3,500 megawatts of power. That’s enough electricity to power three cities the size of Macon. The Martin Oil Plant in Florida produces 4,175 MWe.
There are oil-fueled power plants all over New England. Many public utilities use oil-fueled power plants. Your are simply wrong, and clearly are speaking from ignorance.
BTW, outside the US, the 15th largest plant in the world uses fuel oil, and is larger than any coal-fired plant.
The list below is a SMALL sampling of twenty oil-fueled power plants. In addition to dozens of smaller plants not shown are all the plants in states that follow NY in the alphabet, and some of them are twice the size of the average coal plant (you can look for yourself. I’ve wasted enough time trying to cure your lack of knowledge.)
Martin Oil Plant FL USA is located at Martin County, FL, USA. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 4175.1 MWe. It has 13 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1980 and the last in 2005. It is operated by Florida Power
Lincoln Combustion Oil Plant NC USA is located at Lincoln County, NC, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 35.4317, Longitude= -81.0347. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1753.6 MWe. It has 16 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1995 and the last in 1996. It is operated by Duke Carolinas LLC.
Roseton Generating Station Oil Plant NY USA is located at Orange County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.5711, Longitude= -73.9739. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1242 MWe. It has 2 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1974 and the last in 1974. It is operated by Dynegy Inc.
Ravenswood Oil Power Plant NY USA is located at Queens County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 40.7605, Longitude= -73.9447. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 2625 MWe. It has 21 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1963 and the last in 1969. It is operated by TransCanada.
Oswego Harbor Power Oil Plant NY USA is located at Oswego County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 43.46, Longitude= -76.53. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1895.6 MWe. It has 2 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1975 and the last in 1979. It is operated by NRG Energy
Northport Oil Plant NY USA is located at Suffolk County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 40.9231, Longitude= -73.3417. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1564 MWe. It has 5 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1968 and the last in 1967. It is operated by National Grid (KeySpan Generation).
Newington Oil Plant NH USA is located at Rockingham County, NH, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 43.0986, Longitude= -70.7842. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 414 MWe. It has 1 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1974. It is operated by Public Service Co of NH.
Astoria Generating Station Oil Plant NY USA is located at Queens County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 40.7869, Longitude= -73.9122. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1345 MWe. It has 4 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1954 and the last in 1962. It is operated by U S Power Generating Company LLC.
PSEG Salem Generating Station Oil Plant NJ USA is located at Salem County, NJ, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 39.4625, Longitude= -75.5333. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 2381.8 MWe. It has 3 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1977 and the last in 1971. It is operated by PSEG Nuclear LLC.
Baxter Wilson Oil Plant MS USA is located at Warren County, MS, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 32.2831, Longitude= -90.9306. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1327.6 MWe. It has 2 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1967 and the last in 1971. It is operated by Entergy Mississippi Inc.
Canal Oil Plant MA USA is located at Barnstable County, MA, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.7694, Longitude= -70.5097. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1165 MWe. It has 2 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1968 and the last in 1976. It is operated by Mirant Corp.
Blue Lake Oil Plant MN USA is located at Scott County, MN, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 44.7869, Longitude= -93.4267. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 616.8 MWe. It has 6 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1974 and the last in 2005. It is operated by Northern States Power Co.
Fermi Oil Plant MI USA is located at Monroe County, MI, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.9267, Longitude= -83.5456. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1281 MWe. It has 5 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1988 and the last in 1966. It is operated by Detroit Edison Co.
Stony Brook Oil Plant MA USA is located at Hampden County, MA, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 42.1953, Longitude= -72.5156. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 530.6 MWe. It has 7 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1982 and the last in 1981. It is operated by Massachusetts Mun Whls Elec Co.
Millinocket Mill Oil Plant ME USA is located at Penobscot County, ME, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 45.657, Longitude= -68.6809. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 110.7 MWe. It has 4 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1957 and the last in 1970. It is operated by Brookfield Power USA.
Turkey Point Oil Plant FL USA is located at Miami-Dade County, FL, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 25.4356, Longitude= -80.3308. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 2337.5 MWe. It has 9 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1972 and the last in 1968. It is operated by Florida Power
Bowline Point Oil Plant NY USA is located at Rockland County, NY, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.2044, Longitude= -73.9689. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 1110 MWe. It has 2 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1972 and the last in 1974. It is operated by Mirant Corp.
Manatee Oil Plant FL USA is located at Manatee County, FL, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 27.6058, Longitude= -82.3456. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 2479.4 MWe. It has 7 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1976 and the last in 2005. It is operated by Florida Power
Middletown Oil Plant CT USA is located at Middlesex County, CT, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.5508, Longitude= -72.5689. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 846.4 MWe. It has 5 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1954 and the last in 1966. It is operated by NRG Energy.
Montville Station Oil Plant CT USA is located at New London County, CT, USA. Location coordinates are: Latitude= 41.4189, Longitude= -72.0858. This infrastructure is of TYPE Oil Power Plant with a design capacity of 495.3 MWe. It has 4 unit(s). The first unit was commissioned in 1954 and the last in 1967. It is operated by NRG Energy.
Eric
I like nuclear power. There are two things people don’t like about nuclear power.
1. Nuclear accidents
2. Nuclear wastes
Nuclear accidents are relatively rare. Car accidents are much more common. Yet we do not ban auto manufacturing. It’s all hype, no substance. The worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, killed less than 300 people – directly attributed to nuclear radiation. The thousands of deaths you always read about Chernobyl are exaggerated projections, not actual dead body counts. Mind you that < 300 deaths are over a period of 20 years. There are more Americans getting struck by lightning (about 40 per year) than the death toll of the worst nuclear accident in history.
If I have it my way, I’ll throw nuclear wastes in the Mariana trench. Harmful radiation cannot escape 35,000 ft. under the sea. In nuclear plants, the radioactive wastes are stored in just 26 ft. underwater in cooling pools. The Pacific ocean is so huge, larger than all the continents put together, it will dilute the radioisotopes to safe level. Scare mongers claim there is no safe level of radiation. Rubbish. I was injected with radioisotope in nuclear medicine 14 years ago. No harmful effect except my body glows in the dark :-0