Guest essay by Lawrence Hamlin California Governor Jerry Brown recently proposed via an executive order that the state establish an escalated future greenhouse gas emissions reduction target whereby year 2030 emission levels would be 40% below 1990 emission levels.
The state’s present emissions reduction target set in 2006 through AB 32 is to back off emissions to year 1990 levels by the year 2020.
But a proposed bill (SB 32) presently before the Assembly incorporating Brown’s escalated year 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirement lacks strong support.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon noted that “it’s not imperative” this bill clear the Assembly this year with the Legislature set to conclude business by August 31st. The Assembly rejected SB 32 last year. Brown has opened a fund raising committee as a first step to putting an environmental initiative on the ballot in 2018 if the Legislature fails to act on SB 32.
Concern by legislative members regarding increasing costs of emissions reductions targets to constituents that result in higher gas and electricity prices particularly in the states economically struggling interior regions are being questioned.
Brown is running into numerous and significant challenges regarding not only his newly proposed greenhouse gas emissions reduction scheme but also in regard to the legality, appropriateness and effectiveness of the states present emissions reduction mandates.
A number of these challenges were summarized in a recent article addressing the states cap and trade problems (https://calmatters.org/articles/with-cap-and-trade-in-doubt-key-questions-go-unanswered/) as follows:
“Is cap and trade, which essentially levies fees on major polluters, a success? How do we know? Which companies still exceed their allowed emissions? Which don’t? The air board has consistently said California would reach its emissions targets; how much is cap and trade contributing?”
“A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce asserts that the price major polluters pay for excessive emissions is an illegal tax. Should the suit prevail, the 2006 law that authorized cap and trade could be voided. New legislation would need approval by two thirds of state lawmakers. That would mean some Republican support — a big ask.”
“Gov. Jerry Brown’s scooping up of auction proceeds to help fund the state’s controversial high-speed rail project has given cap and trade’s opponents a fulcrum for complaint, and the Legislature has yet to decide whether to extend the law past its 2020 expiration date. That’s not a sure bet.”
“The uncertainty surrounding the future of cap and trade has resounded in the market where emissions credits are bought and sold. Since 2015, each quarterly auction had produced at least $500 million until the one held in May, which yielded only $10 million. A June reserve auction was cancelled after no bidders registered.”
According to CARB data California’s greenhouse gas emissions peaked in the year 2004 at about 488 million metric tons CO2e per year.
The present year 2020 greenhouse gas emissions target was established under AB 32 with this law ridiculously called the “California Global Warming Solutions Act” and labeled as such in 2006 before the highly embarrassing global temperature pause forced climate alarmists and propagandist media to adopt the misleading and deceptive “Climate Change” label to try and hide the failure to see increasing global temperatures as projected by flawed climate models.
AB 32 set 431 million metric tons CO2e as the reduction target in year 2020 which represents about a 57 million metric ton CO2e emission reduction over the 16 year period from the 2004 peak year.
The latest 2016 EIA IEO report shows that during the 16 year period between 2004 and 2020 the world’s developing nations (China, India, etc.) will increase their CO2 emissions by more than 9 billion metric tons per year to a total of over 22 billion metric tons per year rendering California’s emissions reduction target as globally irrelevant and demonstrating the absurdity of the AB 32’s ludicrous title.
California’s year 2020 emissions reduction target is literally lost in “the round off” of huge and growing global wide CO2 emissions increases by the developing nations which EIA forecasts will continue to grow from year 2020 by more than an additional 3 billion metric tons per year by 2030.
Since 2006 California has collected more than 4 billion dollars in cap and tax fees under AB 32. More billions of dollars in increased costs have occurred because of the impact of higher electricity prices due to mandates for costly, unreliable and highly government subsidized renewable energy.
The U.S. has been far more effective in reducing CO2 emissions since 2004 than has California with the nation taking advantage of significantly increased use of lower cost natural gas supplies provided through fracking technology to both reduce CO2 emissions as well as reducing energy costs.
U.S. CO2 emissions are lower by 12% versus peak year versus about 9.5% lower greenhouse gas emissions for California even though Brown continues to boast that the state has “the toughest climate laws in the country”.
The U.S. success in reducing CO2 emissions has been achieved despite the actions of the nations climate alarmist in chief President Obama who has done everything in his power to deny the nation increased access to natural gas.
Obama has decreased the amount of federal land available for natural gas production, significantly decreased the number of leases issued by BLM for oil and gas production and significantly increased the days BLM requires to process new permits. (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-still-a-disappointment/).
Governor Brown and his cronies are so blinded by their own misguided political and ideological beliefs concerning climate issues that they are driving state policy in directions which are imposing harsh, unjustified and unnecessary costs, restrictions and mandates that add burdens to the lives of tens of millions of Californians who struggle to make ends meet each and every day.
The states ruling bureaucracy is lost in a contrived make believe world of man made climate change political assertions built upon nothing but speculation and conjecture unconnected to and unsupported by real data but for which limitless amounts of bureaucratic meddling and interference can be justified and imposed upon the states peoples.
Governor Brown’s climate change actions and proposals represent nothing less than a disaster for California’s economy, individual freedom and future prosperity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only Greenhouse Gas that is Big enough is Water Vapor. Water Vapor can absorb and release vast amounts of heat energy when changing to and from Water or Ice at Earthly Temperatures. Carbon Dioxide can only change directly to and from ice (Dry Ice) and never a liquid, at MINUS 109 degrees Farenheit, a temperature that never happens on Earth. For full details, see Paullitely.com
“They dominate every election in the state, and they wont allow expansion so everyone is forced to live in the cities. ”
Rant like Joel’s are easy to dismiss based on personal observation. We have been looking for houses or building lots in Oregon. Everyplace but in the big cities. Thousand of choices. People who live in cities have some strange views about other places.
“all but banned the public from the forests,”
In our travels in Oregon, we have found a huge number of campsites that are either free of a nominal cost. Here is one example: https://freecampsites.net/#!65159&query=sitedetails
I took the picture and it is an example of excess biomass being cleared from the forest. Besides the beautiful state parks, there is land open to dispersed camping managed by US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Corp of Engineers.
“and banning even the transport of fossil fuels”
We are currently camped in between the railroad and the Columbia River. Fossil fuel of all sorts being transported.
“mere speculation”
Roger Sowell is the pot calling the kettle black. Roger is the king of speculation.
It is not speculation to state that variation in power prices are significantly affected by the price of natural gas. The price of natural has been driven driven by the fracking boom.
The effect of the minor contribution of wind is just more speculation. Since the cost of many wind projects is absorbed by national taxpayers, it would not show up in the in the average price of power.
Since wind is a local resource, Iowa is not California. It is necessary say that because Roger is an attorney and clearly an example of California clueless.
Roger likes to speculate on PV and thermal solar as well as batteries. It is not speculation the SCE failed at SONGS steam generator replacement. There is a ton of evidence that solar is a huge failure to meet expectation. If fact, the solar industry has yet to provide the first evaluation of solar that shows it not a case of big time FAIL.
Roger is not objective. Every wind and solar project on the planet is a demonstration project. The jury is still out on some but so far everyone demonstrates that wind and solar is a terrible way to power the grid.
Before my time in the nuclear industry, there were demonstration reactors. Some did not work very well. BWRs and PWR are light water moderated reactors that supply about 20% US power. There was a time during my tenure where some failed to meet design expectation while other exceeded expectation. Applying the lessons learned, all US operating reactors now exceed expectations.
How significant is this achievement? It is like building 30 new reactors of the original size.
And that is not speculation, that is an achievement to be proud of.
Typical liberal feel-good ideas that cost a lot but do very little. All this law does is burden Californians with additional costs but in the big scheme of things means nothing.
For me, a great definition of California itself: “…irrelevant, costly, elitist driven and purely political..”
Let it go.
The information below is not speculation, but factual information on the recent history of renewable solar PV power in the US: from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory publications.
Title: “Utility-Scale Solar 2015: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States”
Publication Type Report LBNL Report Number LBNL- 1006037
Year of Publication 2016
Authors Bolinger, Mark, and Joachim Seel
“Abstract
The utility-scale solar sector has led the overall U.S. solar market in terms of installed capacity since 2012. This report—the fourth edition in an ongoing annual series—provides data-driven analysis of the utility-scale solar project fleet in the United States. We analyze not just installed project costs or prices, but also operating costs, capacity factors, and power purchase agreement (“PPA”) prices from a large sample of utility-scale solar PV and CSP projects throughout the United States.
Some of the more-notable findings from this year’s edition include the following:
• Installation Trends: The use of solar tracking devices continued to expand in 2015. In a reflection of the ongoing geographic expansion of the market beyond the high-insolation Southwest, the average long-term insolation level across newly built project sites declined for the first time in 2015. Meanwhile, the average inverter loading ratio has increased among more recent project vintages, to 1.31.
• Installed Prices: Median installed PV project prices within a sizable sample have steadily fallen by nearly 60% since the 2007-2009 period, to $2.7/WAC (or $2.1/WDC) for projects completed in 2015. The lowest 20th percentile of projects within our 2015 sample were priced at or below $2.2/WAC, with the lowest-priced projects around $1.7/WAC.
• Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) Costs: PV O&M costs (from a very small sample of projects) were in the neighborhood of $15/kWAC-year, or $7/MWh, in 2015. These numbers include only those costs incurred to directly operate and maintain the generating plant, but exclude property taxes, insurance, land royalties, performance bonds, various administrative and other fees, and overhead.
• Capacity Factors: Project-level AC capacity factors range widely, from 15.1% to 35.7%, with a sample median of 26.4%. This variation is based on the strength of the solar resource at each project site, whether the array is mounted at a fixed tilt or on a tracking mechanism, the inverter loading ratio, and likely degradation. Improvements in these factors have driven mean capacity factors higher over the last four years, to nearly 27% among 2014-vintage projects.
• PPA Prices: Driven by lower installed project prices and improving capacity factors, levelized PPA prices for utility-scale PV have fallen dramatically over time. Most PPAs in the 2015 sample are priced at or below $50/MWh levelized, with a few priced as aggressively as ~$30/MWh. Even at these low price levels, PV may still find it difficult to compete with existing gas-fired generation, given how low natural gas prices have fallen over the past year. When stacked up against new gas-fired generation, PV looks more attractive—and in either case can also provide a hedge against possible future increases in fossil fuel costs.
At the end of 2015, there were at least 56.8 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity in interconnection queues across the nation. The growth within these queues has come primarily from Texas and the Southeast, Central, and Northeast regions, which is a clear sign that the utility-scale market is maturing and expanding outside of its traditional high-insolation comfort zones of California and the Southwest.”
Roger,
The absence of subsidies for solar power is telling. Without full and complete information quantifying how much solar power really costs the country, everything else is just cherry-picked confirmation bias.
dbstealey,
Subsidies are important, no doubt. They change from year to year with renewables. Presently a solar grid-scale gets a 30 percent investment tax credit. So, the US treasury receives a bit less revenue. Except it doesn’t. I wrote on this recently, see my blog and “tax credit.”
The government borrows much more than these tiny subsidies, and borrows at approximately 2 percent interest. The net effect of ITC for renewables is nearly zero. Nobody’s electric bill increases. Nobody’s tax bill increases.
One must also state the amount of subsidies for other power generation forms:
Hydroelectric was built almost entirely (75 percent) by government funds.
Coal power was heavily subsidized by being exempt from air pollution laws for decades.
Nuclear power remains heavily subsidized with several forms of subsidy, including no liability for radiation-created harm, construction loan guarantees, production tax credits equal to wind power (2.3 cents per kWh for first 10 years), no lawsuits allowed during construction, relaxed safety rules to allow continued operation, government refuses to conduct a proper study on radiation illnesses in populations near the plants, and others.
For retired Kit P, re
“Coal and nuclear pay lots of taxes and fees. They are not subsidized.”
False, they are heavily subsidized.
“Roger makes lots of baseless assertion”
False, every statement is true and supported with facts.
“that are often repeated by anti-nukes. The nuclear industry is self insured.”
False, the Price-Anderson Act gives detailed facts.
“Safety rules have not been relaxed.”
False, as detailed in published study.
@ur momisugly Government has extensively studied the effects of radiation.”
True, but not the health impacts of real people who live close to US reactors. One study glossed over by looking only at deaths but was very badly conducted.
“Nuke plants are required to maintain levels of offsite exposure to a tiny fraction of background and monitor to show that they are in compliance.”
They do monitor but always say Oops! It was dispersed in the environment.
Really, Kit P, you should read my 30 articles on Truth About Nuclear Power. Everything in them is 100 percent fact. The articles have more than 20,000 views.
See sowellslawblog keywords “truth nuclear power.”
Hi Roger,
A subsidy must be paid for. Who pays? The taxpayers, of course. And rate payers aren’t the issue, they’re just a means for selling the product. They benefit from the subsidy, but the money is given with one hand, then taken back and then some, by the government’s other hand.
Subsidies distort the market, and give an unfair advantage to one group over another. I’ve stated here repeatedly that with very few exceptions, I think there should be no subsidies. No tax credits, either.
Let people decide what to spend their money on, with no hidden subsidies or other ‘incentives’. In other words, let the market decide—not the government in cahoots with special interests.
With good information people generally make the right decisions. Total costs, including all tax credits and subsidies should be publicly available. But that info is very hard, if not impossible to find. I wonder why …?
Hi dbstealey,
re subsidies, there are arguments for and against. An excellent reference is “Introducing Fisheries Subsidies,” Fish and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Technical Paper 437 (2003) by Schrank, W.E. Part 1 of that document, “The Nature of Subsidies” is linked below. It gives the general case for and against subsidies. It is well worth the time to read.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4647E/y4647e05.htm#bm5
“When economists justify subsidies, they usually do so in one of three ways.
First, there is the “infant industry” argument. An industry, for instance, may be dominated by foreigners (e.g. textile manufacture by England during the early days of the United States) and for reasons of social policy, the government may want to develop an indigenous industry. Insufficient private capital may be available to permit the private sector, on its own, to accumulate sufficient capital to make the indigenous industry commercially competitive. The government then could subsidize the industry through grants, loans, equity infusions, tariff protection or tax incentives. When the industry has been built up to the point where it is self-sufficient, the subsidies would be removed.[14] . . .
The second argument in favour of subsidization is that a large, important, firm may run into serious temporary difficulties and be in danger of ceasing operations. The government, in such a situation, would have at least three options: it can play no role and let the full market effects be felt; or it can directly subsidize the endangered firm with cash or equity infusions, loans or loan guarantees; or it can let the firm go bankrupt but intervene through the monetary system to prevent the bankruptcy of the firm from affecting other, healthy, firms. . . .
The third argument in favour of subsidization is tied to current interests in environmental protection. Subsidies can be used to encourage firms and industries to behave in environmentally friendly ways. Fishing vessel and license buyback programmes fall into this category. As we shall see, while some economists favour such subsidy programmes, others believe that effective fishery management and market based solutions would be more effective than subsidy programmes.
Additional reasons for the implementation of subsidies, rarely justified by economists unless tied somehow to one of the arguments stated above, are to provide an industry with a long-term advantage in the international marketplace and to permanently assure a reasonable level of employment in a geographical area. Norway, for instance, has a policy of subsidizing the northern part of the country to sustain the physical presence of a population there and to maintain the fishing culture.[21] For many years, until 2001, the Canadian government subsidized the uneconomical steel works on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. Examples of this kind of subsidy are legion.”
In the US, and in the electricity industry, subsidies have long existed. Although many people squawk loudly when I write about it, the nuclear power industry would not even exist absent massive government subsidies. That is as true today as it was 60 years ago when the first reactors were built. Other countries also must subsidize nuclear power plants or they simply do not get built.
The government has a website that gives particulars on government load guarantees and grants, with one major category going to electric generating plants. Those are of almost every kind, not just solar, wind, but also fossil fuel plants.
As I wrote above, almost all of the hydroelectric dams in the US were built entirely with government funds, so that approximately 75 percent of all hydro power is fully subsidized. A wonderful example is the Hoover Dam and its generating plants. One-hundred percent built with government funds.
Coal-fired plants also enjoyed a form of subsidy, as most plants were exempt from the Clean Air Act since 1970. That loophole recently closed and the old, polluting coal-fired power plants are shutting down in record numbers.
Solar and wind power plants also have subsidies, as they are considered infant industries with great social benefits. The subsidies were scheduled to expire a few years ago, but the industry had not yet made progress to compete against its chief rival, natural gas. Natural gas price kept falling, as we all know. The solar and wind power subsidies were extended, with the happy result that even better technology now exists and wind power is now sold for 2 cents per kWh, with the wind plant owner receiving another 2.3 cents per kWh from the government. That subsidy, the production tax credit, reduces over 5 years and will end after 5 years.
That leaves natural gas fired power plants, which have no subsidies as far as I know.
In other industries, there are huge subsidies. Railroads, for example, were given free land grants to build the intercontinental railroad. The land granted was ten square miles for every mile of track laid. I’ve seen the map of the Union Pacific Railroad’s land that was granted. It is an enormous amount of land. Not only the land, but all the mineral rights were conveyed also. The social benefit was a fast and reliable transportation system connecting the two coasts.
Farmers get so many subsidies it is hard to count them all. In California, farmers pay almost nothing for irrigation water, a major subsidy to them.
Government research grants are a form of subsidy, and some companies receive grants to manufacture products after the research is completed. We all know of the boondoggles in this area, with Solyndra at the top of the list.
On the other hand, Howard Hughes received government money in WW2 to design and build a flying boat for military transport, which he did and was called the Spruce Goose. The war ended before the plane was ready for production.
Roger,
I read your (long) link. Thanks for providing it. I still disagree with subsidies and tax credits in all but the most extreme cases (war, etc).
Subsidies always begin with good intentions. But look at what’s happened with ‘green’ subsidies.
Subsidies and tax credits are chameleon tax increases, or they’re transfer payments from the taxpaying public to a limited special interest (or both). For example, your link says:
Subsidies can be used to encourage firms and industries to behave in environmentally friendly ways.
Of course they’ll say that. It’s the public face of their noble cause corruption. They’ll also say they’re in favor of Mom, apple pie, and the Flag.
But what always happens? General Electric sees an opportunity, and starts constructing giant windmills everywhere. How are those windmills “environmentally friendly”?
Your link was actually about fishing subsidies, but the fact remains that subsidies are almost always counter-productive:
The expansion was largely financed by subsidies… It was clear that the fleet overexpanded, thus removing any economic justification for the programme. Yet the programme continued… These examples illustrate the tenacity with which a subsidy, possibly instituted for good reason, can continue in existence long after the reason for its being has passed.
A subsidy immediately creates a special interest. How could it not? And try to get rid of a subsidy that was sold to Congress based on helping an industry become ‘competitive’. As your link says, after a subsidy is created:
…the industry may then become self-sustaining, but it may be difficult to wean the industry off the subsidy.
“Difficult” is an understatement. The U.S. government subsidized the Spanish-American War with an excise tax on telephone service, which was still in effect 108 years later. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to wean the ‘green’ industry off of all their subsidies. Elon Musk has a lot more influence with Congress than you or I do. Maybe Elon Musk IV will have to compete without subsidies, but I doubt that Elon the First will have to compete without them.
Once again: let the free market decide. The ‘market’ is people voting with their dollars without interference. If they want windmills, no subsidy is necessary. Here’s an econ lesson for a free country, in four E-Z steps:
1. Government is force
2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others
3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. The free market is necessary for citizens to reveal the difference between good ideas and bad ideas
Subsidies are inherently anti-liberty. They are based on coercion: an armed State confiscating money from citizens, and handing it to special interests. The sad thing about it: subsidies are not necessary—no matter what their ‘noble’ proponents claim.
The first problem with LBNL- 1006037 is that I can not get to the full report. I should be able to download government reports.
“$7/MWh, in 2015”
So much for the no O&M costs.
“but exclude property taxes, insurance, land royalties, performance bonds, various administrative and other fees, and overhead.”
Those are still O&M costs.
“Capacity Factors: Project-level AC capacity factors range widely, from 15.1% to 35.7%”
Not true. CF is the actual measured power production not the ‘expected’ production. There are many utility scale that produce 0 kwh so the CF=0.
Using this method to determine CF, all nuke plant would be 100%. Why because that is the expectation.
“clear sign that the utility-scale market is maturing ”
That is an assertion.
Retired Kit P,
It appears the 2015 report is not yet published. Last year’s report was published in September 2015 so we all may have to wait a few weeks.
Here is a fact. Not one ‘utility scale’ PV system has been built because a business plan without subsidies showed it would be good for customers.
The long term merit of PV remains to be seen.
“Hydroelectric was built almost entirely (75 percent) by government funds.”
Yes, and it was a great investment.
Coal and nuclear pay lots of taxes and fees. They are not subsidized.
Roger makes lots of baseless assertion that are often repeated by anti-nukes. The nuclear industry is self insured. Safety rules have not been relaxed. Government has extensively studied the effects of radiation. Nuke plants are required to maintain levels of offsite exposure to a tiny fraction of background and monitor to show that they are in compliance.
Retired Kit P,
Here is but one factual refutation of your assertions above. Safety rules have very much been relaxed. My statements above are all factual.
“The NRC has been working with nuclear power plant owners to routinely weaken safety regulations, which allows the plants to continue operating, according to a 2011 investigation by AP (Associated Press). see link below. The plant owners argue that the safety regulations in question are overly-safe and unnecessary. Yet, many of the relaxed regulations are alarming. It is doubtful that the general public is aware of just how dangerous the plants are in the first place, and made even more unsafe by relaxing the regulations.
From the AP investigation: “Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP’s yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.” ” — text from my blog article “The Truth About Nuclear Power – Part 15: Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules”
link to AP report is http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-nuke-regulators-weaken-safety-rules/
Roger,
Are you saying those issues can’t be fixed?
The U.S.A. used to be a “Can-do” country. Now people go around wringing their hands and saying, “But what if…?”. Meanwhile, China is building nuclear power plants, while we give Iran’s mullahs hundreds of $billions to build nuclear bombs. Are our priorities screwed up, or what?
If today’s media was around in the 1960’s, we never would have gone to the moon.
Roger
Does the California Bar Association know about your unethical behavior?
Regulation for nuclear power plants are provided in 10CFRR50. Please cite which was relaxed?
The AP and Roger’s blog is not a source of facts. Roger’s tactic is to make a long list of allegation and to repeat them over and over ignoring any attempt to explain them.
“When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit.”
Which valves? Safety related containment isolation valves are list in the FSAR. There is not an individual limit. Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRT) are performed periodically and after maintenance that would affect leakage. The leakage of all the valves is added together. If a valve leakage increases it would be evaluated in the context of total leakage limit.
“radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing”
SG tube failures are analyzed as an abnormal occurrence not an accident. It is not a safety issue. To be sure, it is an important maintenance issue. A tube failure would result in a costly forced outage and an investigation of the cause. This is what closed SONGS.
Roger claims nuclear power is dangerous. You would think he could find at least one person hurt by the tube rupture at SONGS and a few other plants or for that matter core meltdowns at TMI and Japan.
As a member of the bar Roger has the legal responsibility, to present to the NRC violations of the law. Of course false claims, are unethical.
For Retired Kit P,
You have a very strange and false impression of an attorney’s duty to report. Attorneys in private practice have no mandate to report except in very special circumstances. We do, however, enjoy substantial First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech on matters of public concern.
Now, to your next ridiculous statement:
“Roger claims nuclear power is dangerous. You would think he could find at least one person hurt by the tube rupture at SONGS…”
My statement is not the issue. Millions of people around the world agree with me that nuclear power is unsafe. The NRC itself required Southern California Edison to shut down SONGS, or comply with their written order to identify the exact cause of the premature tube failure and correct that problem. The issue is one of safety. SCE opted to shut it down forever, instead of define the cause of the premature failure.
Nuclear power has almost endless examples of unsafe operation. The California Rancho Seco nuclear plant near Sacramento was shut down after only 18 years of unsafe operation. The list of unsafe incidents there would fill a library. My own blog catalogs a near-miss every three weeks, on average, over the past several years in just the US reactors. Worldwide there are many more. These incidents are not made up, they are from NRC incident reports. Per the NRC, there were 89 serious safety incidents over a 6-year period 2010-2015 inclusive.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-16.html
In a sane society, we don’t wait for injuries or deaths to occur when the potential for such deaths and injuries is in the millions. For smaller numbers, we do make progress in small increments, such as for automobile safety standards over the decades. Nuclear power is quite different by its very nature. There are extraordinary dangers to millions of people from every single one of the 99 operating reactors. NRC requires, therefore, extraordinary steps to prevent the radiation injuries and deaths. Such steps include evacuation plans, seismic studies, radiation release warning systems, distribution of iodine tablets, and many others.
As a nuclear industry insider, you should know all of this.
For dbstealey, re
“Are you saying those issues can’t be fixed?”
Not sure which issues you refer to. If nuclear safety issues, of course some of them can be fixed, but at what cost in capital? Nuclear power via fission has inherent dangers that can never be entirely fixed. Also, Nuclear power already is hopelessly un-economic. We cannot design and construct anything that is 100 percent safe, but we can make judicious choices about how much safety our money will obtain.
“The U.S.A. used to be a “Can-do” country. Now people go around wringing their hands and saying, “But what if…?”. Meanwhile, China is building nuclear power plants, while we give Iran’s mullahs hundreds of $billions to build nuclear bombs. Are our priorities screwed up, or what?”
We are still very much a can-do country, at least the fellows are that I hang around with. We look at coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, ocean current, and the various storage technologies. The best answer we have is that nuclear has zero chance of improvement, because we’ve given it our best shot for decades and that was one helluva shot. Nuclear can never compete. I’ve written on this in depth on my blog.
Coal is a losing proposition, not because of technology but because of limited resources. It is a solid fact that current prices limit recoverable coal to less than 20 years in the US, and 50 years world-wide. Perhaps government will subsidize coal by $1 or $2 per ton produced, which would be only $9 to $18 billion (in US dollars) annually worldwide. That would increase coal’s economic life by a few years at most. Then what?
The can-do attitude is in finding much more natural gas than anyone ever expected via precision directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale deposits. Lucky for mankind, shale deposits occur world-wide.
The can-do attitude is also alive in designing and installing economic wind turbines and solar PV systems. Sandia Labs has a fabulous new design for a flexible-blade wind turbine that continues to provide power in high winds. That will cause capacity factors to skyrocket. New tower materials will allow 300 meter hub heights, with 50 MW turbine-generators. The combination of more output and greater size will make wind power even more attractive.
The best, and perhaps most important can-do attitude is in plants that harvest electricity from the oceans’ currents. Those are renewable, inexhaustible, environmentally benign, and hold far more energy than mankind will ever need. The plants are not yet economic, but they will be. It’s just a matter of time.
The can-do attitude is very much alive with battery innovators and inventions, such as the BioSolar halogenated polyactylene super battery. That is not science fiction, it is a reality. As I wrote on my blog, and Anthony cross-posted here on WUWT, the HPA battery is a game-changer. Tesla has already made electric cars, while not perfect and not yet economic, his new car the Tesla 3 will be close to economic.
Finally, “If today’s media was around in the 1960’s, we never would have gone to the moon.”
We had mass media in the 1960s. The media was on-board because we also had a fear that the Russians would occupy the high ground of outer space and drop rocks on our cities. Big ones. The rocks, that is. I remember those times, with the can-do attitude coupled with careful research and data acquisition by sober, somber and talented people. We didn’t fudge the numbers just to get the desired result. Rockets exploded or fell out of the sky without that, as it was. Space is a very unforgiving place. Physics had to be right, and the engineering had to be solid. I grew up in Houston in the 1960s and my family knew some of the important players in the Space Race. I met and got to know Astronaut Gus Grissom’s younger son.
Today’s climate scientists with all their data manipulation, making up data, using false statistics, should never be allowed anywhere near a space program.
My personal view is that the climate or global warming scare today is taking the place of the Soviets-in-space scare of the 1960s. The global warming scare is spurring innovation in certain industries that will be very beneficial long-term as the Earth runs out of economic coal and nuclear plants close by the hundreds, yet the people still need electricity.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/forecasting-future-hubris-or-honesty.html
Roger Sowell,
My reply ended up in the wrong place. It’s upthread a few comments, here:
August 24, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Sorry about the confusion.