After yesterday’s announcement that Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant would close after a back room deal was forged between PG&E and environmental groups, a schism has developed
By Robert Bradley Jr. from Master Resource – reprinted by invitation
Finally, the energy literate on the Left understand that politically correct energies for electricity (wind and solar–not nuclear and hydro) are no recipe for anthropogenic greenhouse-gas mitigation.
They know that to the extent that the climate movement is more successful at closing nuclear plants than erecting wind farms and installing solar panels, the alleged problem of climate change is worsened. James Hansen led the charge, and now an organization and movement is mobilizing at this very late date to save a handful of running nuclear dinosaurs from extinction.
Are the climate alarmists bluffing about their cause? Because if they really believed, they would have embraced, before now, the one major emission-free source of central-station electricity: nuclear power. But even Joe Romm said ‘no’ to nuclear because it was too expensive, as if he cared about consumers, much less taxpayers. Something rang wrong.
Nuclear is the only non-fossil-fuel way to mass produce electricity to still have modern industrial life–and this was exactly what many deep ecologists and others evidently did not (and do not) want. Add some postmodernism–that we can have a renewables world if we all want andthink it (a ‘shared narrative’), what James Hansen likened to “almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
The New Challenge
Michael Shellenberger will have none of it.
His new organization, Environmental Progress, released a manifesto of fight yesterday, Why Diablo Canyon Will Live — And the Corrupt NRDC-PG&E-IBEW Proposal Will Fail. A subtitle might have been, “Crony environmentalism + crony capitalism = increased emissions.”
The piece below is emphatic, heartfelt, and strategically written as a ‘last chance’ with the anti-nuclear supertanker going in the opposite direction. Can a quarter-century of mainstream environmental opposition, with the end almost in sight, complete its mission? Probably so.
Having seen the ugly alliance between anti-energy environmentalists and crony business, I hope that Shellenberger and Environmental Progress can take the next step by questioning the whole global warming scare given the ecological goodness of carbon dioxide emissions and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations–and the positives of a moderately warmer and wetter world. It will take courage for some to widen the environmental split, but a case for green fossil fuels is intellectually grounded.
Understanding government failure and private-side corruption in the quest to correct global ‘market failure’ is also part of a Come to Jesus moment for open-minded, real environmentalists.
Here is yesterday’s press release, which represents an eruption moment within modern environmentalism regarding energy policy. The statement below about the ‘back-room Diablo Canyon deal’ concerns anew agreement to close California’s last nuclear power plant.
Statement by Environmental Progress and Mothers for Nuclear (June 21, 2016)
The back-room Diablo Canyon deal — negotiated by corrupt institutions behaving unethically and perhaps illegally — will fail.
It will fail because it will would put our children and grandchildren at risk. It will be rejected by the people of California, policymakers and the courts because of the human suffering and environmental harm it would cause. It will fail because everyone now knows — and Sierra Club and NRDC have admitted — that closing nuclear plants will increase fossil fuels and carbon emissions.
It will fail because when people understand that the proposal is based on a big lie — that Diablo can be closed without increasing fossil fuel use, methane emissions and carbon emissions — they will reject it, and the leadership of the institutions who negotiated it. It will be rejected because the evidence is overwhelming that moving from nuclear to natural gas would increase:
-
Deaths from methane gas pipeline explosions, greater air pollution, and power outages affecting the sick and elderly.
-
Electricity rates for all Californians, especially the poor.
-
Global warming and ocean acidification from higher carbon emissions and methane emissions.
-
Unemployment and poverty state-wide by replacing high-paying in-state nuclear jobs with low-paying out-of-state fracking jobs.
The timing could not be better for efforts to save not just Diablo Canyon but nuclear plants around the United States and the world.
The proposal exposes the corruption of IBEW 1245 leadership and IBEW 1245’s failure to represent its members. IBEW 1245 lied to its workers when it claimed to be fighting to keep the plant open; has violated its moral duty to represent its workers interests; and may be in violation of state and federal laws.
The proposal, if enacted, would harm PG&E shareholders, ratepayers and workers. It would expose the company to more natural gas risk at a time that its executives are in a criminal trial over eight deaths caused by a natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno.
The proposal would increase electricity rates. And it will increase unemployment but destroying 1,500 good jobs, and sending those jobs to out of state natural gas fracking operations.
The proposal exposes the deep rot and hypocrisy within anti-nuclear groups NRDC and FOE. Organizations seeking to increase carbon emissions by moving from low-carbon energy to natural gas from fracking must be called what they are: anti-environmental organizations. By moving from nuclear to natural gas, these organizations are putting our children and grandchildren at risk of worsened global warming, ocean acidification and air pollution. They are acting on unscientific dogma as dangerous as that espoused by anti-vaxxers.
Already 100 people had signed up to attend our Friday 3:45 pm protest of NRDC and PG&E headquarters in San Francisco. We expect those numbers to increase significantly between now and then. On Saturday we will protest IBEW 1245 at its headquarters in Vacaville.
Already 100 people had signed up for our March for Environmental Hope! We expect those numbers to increase significantly. The March will go on.
The clarity provided by this corrupt deal allows us to focus on what matters: using the March as a strategic retreat to develop our political, legal and organizing strategy to achieve victory — not just for Diablo Canyon, but all nuclear plants threatened by anti-nuclear organizations, corrupt unions, craven policymakers and short-term corporate executives.
We will win because the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. We will win because the Californian people will defend their children and grandchildren against the suffering and danger this proposal would create. We will win because we have five years to expose the truth, grow our movement and move the state and nation.
We will win because Californians, the American people and all humans love our children and grandchildren more than we believe superstitions and tolerate corruption. We will win because people who love and care deeply about nature will come to see the environmental disaster this proposal would create.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have long been in this fight. I write letters on energy that pull no punches and mail them to people. Here are three of them… if any turn of phrase inspires you or you know of anyone who might be interested, feel free to share these links — or incorporate my message into your own.
This letter of mine has been in Donald Trump’s possession since May 2, 2016. In it you may discover why I considered Trump the only candidate worthy of such a message. In his pronouncement to pursue US energy self-sufficiency in general and consider nuclear an essential part of the mix, there is hope. The others offer nothing but more years of bad road and an obscenely stupid fixation on base load irredeemables (wind and solar). Trump is literally the only one with the courage to stand up to the tripe.
In 2013 I reached out to Senator Inhofe to propose an energy path for Oklahoma and the country. Sadly I have not seen a glimmer from this outreach.
Also in 2013 I reached out directly to Halliburton Corporate with a very specific idea that just might have laid groundwork for their secure long-term future. At the time their stock was climbing towards $70 and they probably thought they didn’t have a care in the world. Not so good now. Not a glimmer from this one either, I had high hopes for this one.
Mentioned in these letters is Faulkner’s 2005 paper on Electric (HVDC) pipelines, and the two hour Thorium Remix 2011 video presentation (topic list with time indexes in the Trump letter).
One letter I had sent to a billionaire who is deeply vested in natural gas elicited a personal reply thanking me for the idea but said “regrettably, I am not a candidate” [to pursue Thorium energy]. Nevertheless, I cherish his candor and the politeness to reply in kind.
Nuclear is essential and presently endangered. Thorium and LFTR is a good path, and it may be that to save nuclear at this juncture we will need to double down and devote all our efforts to a single path.
…We will win because Californians, the American people and all humans love our children and grandchildren more than we believe superstitions and tolerate corruption…
Good luck with that. You will lose, because the American people, just like the British people are about to demonstrate, do what they are told to do by their authority figures.
Have you got a film star? A top politician? No? Then tough. Because the other side have lots of them…
Michael Shellenberger is a reasonable environmentalist. At a risk of oversimplifying his positions, he believes in AGW, but understands that concern about the environment is only sustained in advanced, energy producing economies; developing societies necessarily care more about today’s meal. He is no mindless tree hugger, and he has been regularly excoriated by those on the left for contending that development and environmentalism must coexist.
Full Disclosure: I am an attorney for fossil fuel interests, and Mike is my cousin.
The problem is not the those who pushed this deal are too corrupt, it’s that they are too pure.
BTW, Chris Mooney in today’s WaPo says that renewables’ intermitency is no problem; new storage technologies, better conservation, and greater load-shifting made possible by wider use of said renewables will mean that there is no upper limit to the use of renewables at the 15% level–in fact even the 30% level is no limit.
Anthony–maybe his column deserves a thread here.
Mooney is looney. Interms of the grid about 10 percent intermittent renewable penetration is about the upper limit except in unusual circumstances (like where flexible hydro is available). There is no grid storage solution on the horizion, so FF backup (with all its expense) will be necessary for decades. Load shifting is not possible with industry, and not practical residential. People cok dinner at dinnertime. They shower in the morning. Mooney is mouthing thoughtless platitudes that have the substance of unicorn farts.
Mooney takes press releases and “enhances” them. Critical thinking would cost him his job.
Nuclear power plants too costly? Read the opposite argument with numbers for investment and operating expenses of old power plants still running at capacity.
Concentrating Solar Power plants (CSP) were promoted by the Department of Energy (DOE) from the time the Dep’t was created under Pres. Carter. Several were built over the decades and none performed adequately. One burned up in 1986 and was rebuilt, enlarged, DOE arguing that the plants have to be big to take advantage of economy of scale.
Following that logic, a 392 MW (name-plate) giant at Ivanpah in Mojave Desert was built on 13 km2 of land in Mojave Desert at a cost of 2.2 billion dollars.The designed-for Capacity Factor of 31 % indicates 120 MW to be the expected actual average output. That wattage was to justify those billions dollars investment, and it is the basis for this analysis.
The 2200 M$ price per 120 MW represents 18 $/W investment. By way of comparison the Millstone nuclear reactor No. 2 in Connecticut, operating at 880 MW since 1975, cost 0.5 $/W; Ivanpah is thus 36 times more expensive (not adjusted for inflation).
With about 1000 employees receiving salary and benefits at Ivanpah, the annual outlay for that alone is roughly 100 M$. Selling the annual 3.8 EJ at the projected 0.028 $/MJ yields 106 M$. Ouch – only 6 M$ left for other expenses, notably for natural gas whose burning produces some 8 % of the total output.
For comparison again, the Millstone nuclear plant complex employs also about 1000, and its two reactors have been producing 1870 MW actual electrical output. Assuming the same salaries, benefits, and the electricity selling price, the operating expense is 15 times higher at Ivanpah.
Note that the above two outlays are 35 and 15 times, not percent, higher and that this huge expense gap exists in an industry where a difference of just a few percent means the difference between success and bankruptcy. The magnitude of the gap hints also at the reason why the so-called “free” solar electricity is so expensive.
As for the occupied land comparison, those 120 MW spread over 13 km2 represents 9.2 W/m2. In contrast, ground based nuclear plants produce some 2000 W/m2 thus utilizing the land area some 200 times more effectively. And they can be erected in any climate and in proximity to users.
If the purpose of the CSPs is to cut CO2 emissions, that expectation is unrealistic. The construction, operating, maintaining and eventually dismantling this plant will at best match the amount of CO2 claimed to be saved in non-burning fossil-fuels for that relatively small amount of electricity. And producing intermittent electricity causes CO2 generation elsewhere.
We must be either excessively rich or ignorant to be building power sources of the type that produce electricity we cannot afford.
Is anyone accountable for approving this already-on-paper deficient project? And for the other CSP projects in existence, being built, or planned?
So far, the analysis assumed the designed capacity factor. In contrast, the plant has averaged only 1/3rd of the plan to-date meaning that those above ratios are in fact three times worse, e.g. 45 times higher operating expense. This is unusually bad for any CSP although none of them performs to industry standard. The often heard excuse is that they are still “experimental” (for ½ century!!).
Did you know that the 12 nuclear plants in Sweden, which supply 50% of their electricity, are all SHUT DOWN? That was a “legislative mandate”…FOR 2012!!!
Suffice it to say, the immigrant (excuse me, foreign INVASION by VICIOUS INDIVIDUALS out of control) crisis has NOT as yet, led to the “civil rebellion” that it merits. However, I’m willing to BET that you add
rotating BLACKOUTS to the mix, and suddenly the POWERS that be, will be at SEA. (Literally)
And so are 505 of German nuclear plants – 40% of them were closed overnight in 2011 after Fukushima. which disrupted the German grid not at all
sorry -50% – why don’t comments have an edit?!
Apart from the Europe-wide blackout a few years back, following a failure in the European wide distribution system which allows the importation of power to Germany now that it can no longer produce all the power it needs.
SteveT
Recent data reported by the American Nuclear Society indicate the median three year capacity factor for the USA nuclear fleet for the years 2013 through 2015 was 90.4% with the top and bottom quartiles pegging in at 92.8% and 87.2%, respectively. These very commendable figures indicate that the operating fleet (average age thirty-six (36) years and median age thirty-eight (38)) is ‘not getting older, it’s getting better.’
Despite this, almost paradoxically, Exelon has just announced that the Quad Cities Generating Station (~2000 MWe, gross) will be closing despite an (O&M&F ?) production cost of less than $25 / MW-hr.
Can’t see wind or solar competing with this, but there you have it.
Hasn’t Exelon had many problems with the wind power coming from Iowa? Haven’t looked at this situation for awhile.
Also a grid supply contract they didn’t get?
These are the same people who were wrong about nuclear power back when. Then they were wrong on renewables. And still they’re wrong on fossil fuels, CO2 and CAGW. Far past time to stop listening to their caterwauling. Energy literate? Hardly.
Maybe i missed it above, but worth noting that Natural Gas powered electricity generates roughly (if I recall) 2/3rds of the CO2 per KW as a coal fired plant. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but relative to Nuclear this would theoretically increase global warming and ocean acidification as stated.
So the scales have fallen from a few CAAGW’s eyes? I’m supposed to believe they now care about the lives of human beings lower down on the progressive scale of values than their own? I thought they wanted us shot, imprisoned, denied the right to research, publish, speak, or disagree in any way with their religious fanaticism, their faked 97% consensus. This lower life form says “f… you.”
“The area made uninhabitable by Fukishima is the reactor core.”
What area was that?
MarkW gets the carefully crafted lie of the day award. Just for the record, repeating a lie is still lying.
While evacuation was a prudent precaution, actual levels of contamination would have not made the area uninhabitable.
“completely unprotected from water”
The essential service water pumps (not generators) were adequately protected from a design basis tsunami, not a 1000 year event.
Since core damage does mean anyone will be hurt radiation, it is a matter of balancing different economic losses. This not an engineering decision but an economic decision that societies make.
“They will tend to balance out.”
Really! I have known some ‘Mikes’ who are not stupid.
There is an absolute safety criteria that all power projects must meet. Balancing out is not a criteria.
“Deterministic assessments aren’t possible, so the PRA approach is used.”
Again not true. PRAs were added many years after the original designs. Both tools are used at nuke plants to reduce risk.
I will continue this critique later.
I think it’s safe to say that an operating reactor core is uninhabitable as is one that has melted down. You’re welcome to build your retirement home in one if you like.
And the pumps required a source of power to run. Their grid tie was destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami. They were supposed to use on site diesel generators. Those flooded and were made inoperable. The site continued to run on its emergency batteries for about 8 hours (IIRC). Once they were exhausted the decay heat evaporated enough now unreplenished water to expose the rods to air and a meltdown into containment occurred.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
So yeah, it was the generators.
Tsk tsk I am thinking that you may not know what uninhabitable means. From your link:
“The tsunami inundated about 560 sq km and resulted in a human death toll of about 19,000 and much damage to coastal ports and towns, with over a million buildings destroyed or partly collapsed.”
So, yes parts of Japan became uninhabitable and people died as a result. It had nothing to do with reactor cores.
For several years, I lived on a ship with two reactors. Thousands of sailors ‘inhibit’ nuclear ships.
The first important distinction for arm chair engineers with 20/20 hindsight is that core damage does not cause loss of life. Exposure to rushing water does. Failure to evacuate for a worst case tsunami led to a terrible death toll.
While radioactive is regrettable because of irrational fear, the actual level of radiation did not make the area uninhabitable.
“within the scientific community”
So Benben, when did scientist start building power plants?
I have had to learn a lot of science to operate and design nuclear power plants.
“the Shell and BP energy forecasts ”
Which power companies do shell and BPO run? That would be none. Power companies have resource plans for their locations.
“Just consider the simple fact that that not a single nuclear powerplant is or has been operated without pretty significant state subsidies.”
Every nuke in the US says benben is lying.
“But to be honest, doing the science thing mostly just means that you know how to find the relevant information…”
A agree with benben. Of course, this means that he is either a liar or not a very good at science. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist is not a relevant source of information on the economics of building a nuke plant.
The point is that scientists are not very good at economics and shell and BP are not very good a forecasts.
Jerry Brown’s Crony Windmill Industry has spread like a cancer and needs to be stopped NOW! The EU has proved that there is NO decrease in carbon only a increase in electric cost.