DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6--------------------------------------------------
How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable Energ
y Technology
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2013, 12:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=680]
HTML http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/afraid-of-small-energy.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 208--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: October 30, 2013, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]An EXCELLENT example of how the originally claimed "TOO
CHEAP TO METER" Nuclear Power Plant Electricity has ALWAYS been
Prohibitively EXPENSIVE but PROVIDED by GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY born
of behind the scenes nuclear advocate arm twisting (i.e.
CORRUPTION) >:([/move]
Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant [color=red]To Get Twice The Rate
As Solar PV From UK Government ???
[img
width=640]
HTML http://www.theunticket.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/white_elephant.gif[/img]
[move]White Elephant[/move]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70608000/jpg/_70608228_70608227.jpg[/img]
[move]Radioactive Poisonous White Elephant[/move]
[img width=640
height=280]
HTML http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_header_640/public/EWNI_nuclear_white_elephant_April2011.jpg[/img]
In a demonstration of how out of touch the UK government is with
public opinion, it intends to pay approximately twice as much
for electricity from the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power plant
near Bristol than is paid for electricity from solar power in
Europe. With high public support for solar PV and low support
for nuclear, that’s quite absurd. >:( It’s also very absurd from
an economic standpoint. :P
Dr David Toke of the University of Aberdeen writes: “Looming
large over the UK Government’s EU state aid application for
Hinkley C is the charge that this deal will distort the EU’s
internal market, in particular to undercut solar pv arrays in
Germany over 10 MW in size. Such arrays are no longer eligible
to receive premium prices under the German feed-in tariff
system. Such plant will only receive the wholesale electricity
price, which is less than half the rates to be paid to Hinkley
C.”
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png
Dr William Nuttall of the Open University writes: “Today’s news
is that a two reactor power station is to be built at Hinkley
Point near Bristol capable of supplying 3,340MW, or roughly 7%
of British electricity in the 2020s. This has come at a price,
called the ‘strike price’. French company EDF Energy, the lead
firm of the construction consortium, has secured a long-term
commitment from the government that the nuclear-powered
electricity it generates will be bought at the hefty price of
£92.50 per megawatt hour. That wholesale price is almost double
today’s market price, and isn’t far off what the end consumer is
paying today to keep their lights on. When wholesale prices meet
retail prices things are unsustainable. Don’t forget that
between power generation and use there are businesses that deal
with transmission, distribution and supply, and they all need
their cut.”
Furthermore, as a summary by Craig Morris of Renewables
International indicates, the payments are supposed to be
guaranteed even if electricity is not provided to the grid :o
>:( because of curtailment, and the guarantee is supposed to
last for 35 years, which would be from 2023 (if the power plant
is miraculously built on time) to 2058. ???
With the guaranteed price already well above what solar and wind
power cost (and their costs continuously declining), the
taxpayer commitment for this power plant is so crazily high that
it seems this story should be coming from The Onion rather than
reality.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
The UK’s move to subsidize nuclear power to such an insane
degree is simply
astonishing.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
Dr Toke has more on how this commitment goes completely against
EU rules:
The fact that the Hinkley C deal distorts the EU’s internal
market to give a state aid to nuclear power that is not
available to renewable energy directly flies in the face of the
EU’s state aid regulations. Under these rules it is permissable
to give premium price incentives to renewable energy, subject to
clearance by the EU Commission that they have been applied
according to the correct procedure. However, state aid for
non-renewable energy, while not necessarily illegal under EU
rules, has to be the subject of a special application. The issue
that arises here is that the UK Government, in effect, is
wanting to give priority state aid in the EU electricity market
to a fuel which has no exemption over and above a fuel which
does have an exemption.
…
The UK is going to be increasing trade in electricity along with
the others, with increased electricity interconnector capacity
helping this. But what is going to be happening now? British
policy will be giving a state-aided competitive advantage to
nuclear power in this cross border trade over and above
renewable energy. This threatens to directly contradict EU
competition and internal market policy and law.
This issue will be a prominent factor in the European
Commission’s investigations in the UK Government’s application
for state aid for Hinkley C (for which it has recently notified
the Commission). Renewable generators across the EU will be
pointing out how the UK policy may be contravening EU law.
Analysts will remember that it took a case at the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) to establish the right of the German state to
give premium prices to renewable energy. What would the ECJ say
about a case where nuclear power was being given priority
premiums in the EU electricity market against renewable energy?
I can see no basis in law for this, as discussed above.[/I]
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/30/hinkley-c-nuclear-power-plant-get-twice-rate-solar-pv-uk-government/#RTvydARIuFxGBew3.99
Agelbert NOTE:the nuclear power industry, TERRIFIED of renewable
Energy, is CHEATING to undercut Renewable Energy and
RIDICULOUSLY PAD the rate for Nuclear Power plant Electricity
BEFORE a plant is even BUILT [i]AND guarantee it DECADES into
the future!
Now consider what THOSE subsidies and incentives activity would
mean if they were applied to renewable energy. ;) Exactly!
nuclear power AND fossil fuels would be priced out of the market
IN A HEART BEAT! [b]
[img width=640
height=780]
HTML http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/elephant-blue-ribbon-commission.gif?[/img]
[b]There is always some money in
CORRUPTION.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
#Post#: 448--------------------------------------------------
A Polite Discussion With a Nuke Puke In March of 2011
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On of the more polite Agelbert exchanges with a nuke puke
(claimed to be a materials engineer with over 30 years
experience in nuclear power plant siting, building, operating
and maintenance costs) during March of 2011.
DROLL TROLL BILL ---><---AGELBERT
Atomsk's comments are spot on!
Droll Troll had the brass to claim everything was "all good" at
Fukushima. I claimed from the start that the reactor vessels had
been cracked by the earthquake even BEFORE the tsunami. History
has proven me right and Droll Troll a bald faced liar.
Also, Vermont Yankee will, thankfully, CLOSE by the end of 2014.
Droll Troll Bill had been claiming that it was "cost effective"
to keep Vermont Yankee running.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>He also expresssed dismay abut my "adversarial" dialogue. [img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Agelbert snark added today along with emoticons
Bill (Droll Troll) [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]
One of the questions you asked me the other day piqued my
curiosity and I have done some pencil pushing. The following is
based on the current GE ABWR, not the Mark 1 used at
Fukushima-1. The new reactor is much bigger and more powerful
but the per rod data should be pretty close to the reactors with
the accident:
Total number of fuel rods: 54,064
Total uranium dioxide in reactor: 379,221 lbs
Uranium dioxide in each rod: 7 lbs
Uranium in each rod: 6.2 lbs
Natural uranium necessary for one rod (uranium going into
enrichment): 48 lbs
Uranium cost (48 lbs): $4446
(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif<br
/>costs not included)
Chemical conversion: $ 283
(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif<br
/>costs not included)
Enrichment service: $2114
(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif<br
/>costs not included )
Rod fabrication: $1500
(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif<br
/>costs not included)
Cost per rod: $8143
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Reactor electrical output (gross) 1,356 MW
Electrical output per rod: 25 kw (excluding all the energy
required to mine, refine and maufacture it, of course!)
Electricity generated over 4.5 years: 591,300 kwh per rod
Wholesale value of electricity: $35,478 per rod
Federal fee for disposal: $ 591 per rod
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
The reactor design data is from NRC filings. SWU calculation
(how much enrichment is necessary) from wise-uranium.org.
Uranium, chemical conversion, and enrichment service prices from
uxc.com. Rod fabrication is my guess. I assumed a 90% capacity
factor. Wholesale price of electricity is contract price from
Vermont Yankee to instate utilities.
Good question
Bill
Posted by agelbert
Mar 30 2011 - 10:32pm
Bill,
Thanks for the info. It's a lot to chew on. That 591 bucks fee
floored me though. It sounds like one of those externalized
costs that we the people get stuck with.
For many decades scientists were flumuxed by the paradox of the
required energy for a dolphin to swim and the actual energy it
uses. There was no paradox. The problem was the math in fluid
mechanics and hydrodynamics. But it is a testament to the sheer
bull headedness of the scientific community to cling to their
world view in the face of a reality that conflicts with the math
they so love.
I bring this to your attention because my baseline for logical
premises is reality, not necessarily scientific status quo. No,
I don't question the law of gravity but I question a lot of
stuff that many scientists do, like putting mice under hard
radiation to see effects on a "mammalian biological model"
similar to humans. I think it's wrong to torture animals for the
"good" of humanity. But that's another subject.
I will continue to balance the costs of anything that generates
energy against anything else by adding up the whole enchilada.
If I buy a car that will become toxic waste after 4.5 years, I
would consider it prudent to find out what it was going to cost
me to detoxify this car, not just offload the toxic waste at the
cheapest possible price. I don't subscribe to Wall Street's
greater fool theory although that seems to be the MO of
corporate executives everywhere.
So thanks again for the info. I'll get back to you with a
summary comparison of nuclear energy with, among other things,
pumping with wave action water with thousands of hydraulic rams
several thousand feet up a mountain and using it in a pipe back
to the ocean to generate electrical energy. That and other crude
and simple energy production methods work but there aren't a lot
of corporate profits to be had beyond initial fabrication.
Inland alternatives exist as well.
Finally, as a materials engineer, you probably know a lot better
than I do how much more expensive the pipes, valves, fittings,
insulation, etc. are in a nuclear power plant as opposed to
those in a dam or a wind generator. All these things need to be
looked at afresh IF humanity recovers from the current level of
insanity.
Posted by Atomsk
Mar 30 2011 - 10:47am
Budgeting for crimes is common practice in business, and if
businesses are allowed to do that, the state certainly has that
right too :-/
Afaics, responsibility and risk gets concentrated at the bottom,
power and payoff at the top. I think that responsibility is how
society handles feedback from reality, and if you decouple that
from power, you get a positive feedback loop, which will lead to
cancerous
structures.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
I know this sounds really vague and mystical and
pseudo-scientific and stupid, but I don't have better words for
this.
Source: Agelbert's files. I'm sure you can find this at the
Common Dreams web site archive for March, 2011. Note: This was
before they adopted Disqus so the handles are in-house.
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php][color=green]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 1549--------------------------------------------------
Germany is replacing nukes with Renewable Power EASILY!
By: AGelbert Date: July 17, 2014, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
About those Nuclear Power Plants in Germany that many shills for
dirty energy screamed (and still scream) that WE NEED NUKES and
Germany is going to have to REPLACE THOSE NUKES WITH (gag!,
screech!, moan
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif)
COAL!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
::)
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif
SNIPPET from Amory Lovins article:
GERMANY's integrated policy network in action:
[quote]This integrated policy framework and the solid analysis
behind it meant that the output lost when those eight reactors
closed in 2011 was entirely replaced in the same year
59% by the 2011 growth of renewables, [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
6% by more-efficient use, and
36% by temporarily reduced electricity exports. Through 2012,
Germany’s loss of 2010 nuclear output was 94% offset by
renewable growth; through 2013, 108%. At this rate, renewable
growth would replace Germany’s entire pre-Fukushima nuclear
output by 2016.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gifhttp://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif[b][/quote]
Jul 8, 2014
Amory B. Lovins Chief Scientist
[b]How Opposite Energy Policies Turned The Fukushima Disaster
Into A Loss For Japan And A Win For Germany
Japan thinks of itself as famously poor in energy, but this
national identity rests on a semantic confusion. Japan is indeed
poor in fossil fuels
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/> —but among all major industrial countries, it’s the richest
in
renewable energy like sun, wind, and geothermal.
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
For
example, Japan has nine times Germany’s renewable energy
resources. Yet Japan makes about nine times less of its
electricity from renewables (excluding hydropower) than Germany
does.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
That’s not because Japan has inferior engineers or weaker
industries, but only because Japan’s government allows its
powerful allies—regional utility monopolies—to protect their
profits by blocking competitors. >:( Since there’s no
mandatory wholesale power market, only about 1% of power is
traded, and utilities own almost all the wires and power plants
and hence can decide whom they will allow to compete against
their own assets, the vibrant independent power sector has only
a 2.3% market share; under real competition it would take most
of the rest. These conditions have caused an extraordinary
divergence between Japan’s and Germany’s electricity outcomes.
Full article at link below:
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-081.gif
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_07_08_opposite_energy_policies_turned_fukushima_disaster_into_a_loss_for_japan_and_a_win_for_Germany
Expect pro-nukers and fossil fuelers to claim that the U.S. is
not Germany or Japan so, uh, that PROVES we DO NEED NUKES and
anybody that says different does not understand "supply and
demand" and is stupid, math challenged, ignorant and most of all
NOT thinking "profitably"!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
#Post#: 2244--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: November 24, 2014, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewables Help Push Nuclear Giants to Brink of Collapse ;D
Paul Brown, Climate News Network | November 24, 2014 9:10 am
Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors in south-west England
are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial
backing from China and Saudi Arabia—while the British government
considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white
elephant.
europenukes
Early stages of construction on the Flamanville 3 nuclear
reactor in France, which was due to open in 2012. Photo credit:
Schoella via Wikimedia Commons
A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity
utility company EDF will build two 1.6 gigawatt European
Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset—in what
would be the biggest construction project in Europe—was due in
the new year, but is likely to drift again.
Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion,
which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the
cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.
Costs Escalate
Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland and Flamanville,
France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational,
but are years late and costs continue to escalate. Until at
least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a
gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected
to produce power until 2017.
With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France
reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s
European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors.
But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to
doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.
Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of
Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of
collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever
been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are
about three times over budget. One is about five or six years
late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and
are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”
Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy
spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate
whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British
consumers.
Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes
the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear
industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should
scrap the Hinkley plans.
Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640
million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy
that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is
“outrageous.”
Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project
is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company,
Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor
(EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future
profit predictions and shares fell by 20 percent.
Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but
want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back
home—something the French are alarmed about because they need to
support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is
offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.
On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already
under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions
being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would
be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations—one
already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The
new ones would produce 7 percent of Britain’s electricity.
But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the
government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended
guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and
cancellations of projects when millions have already been
spent—including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station
on the same site 20 years ago.
The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this
project begins, so much money will have been invested that the
government will have to bail it out with billions more of
taxpayers’ money to finish it—or write off huge sums.
The whole project is based on British concern about its aging
nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20 percent of the
country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of
plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the
country’s power.
Guaranteed Prices
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183543.bmp
In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of
£37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year
life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of
electricity in the UK.
The European Commission gave permission for this to happen,
despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market.
But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court
by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which
will further delay the project.
Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations,
renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and
costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and
solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has
increased by 26 percent in the last year.
In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies—from
the U.S., China, Japan and Russia—keen to build stations of
their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price
guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.
With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no
decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time
soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better
bet. [img width=060
height=055]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png[/img]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/24/renewables-push-nuclear-to-collapse/
#Post#: 2469--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2014, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
WHO WILL PAY FOR THE CLEANUP? ???
SNIPPET 1:
[quote]Entergy says it shut Vermont Yankee because it was losing
money. Though fully amortized, it could not compete with the
onslaught of renewable energy and fracked-gas.
[color=red][size=18pt]*[/color] Throughout the world, nukes once
sold as generating juice “too cheap to meter” comprise a global
financial disaster. Even with their capital costs long-ago stuck
to the public, these radioactive junk heaps have no place in
today’s economy—except as illegitimate magnets for massive
handouts.
So in Illinois and elsewhere around the U.S., their owners
demand that their bought and rented state legislators and
regulators force the public to eat their losses. Arguing for
“base load power” or other nonsensical corporate constructs,
atomic corporations are gouging the public to keep these
radioactive jalopies sputtering along.
[/size][/quote]
SNIPPET 2:
[quote]Every reactor shutdown represents an avoided catastrophe
of the greatest magnitude. As the takeoff of cheap, clean, safe
and reliable Solartopian technology accelerates, greedy reactor
owners struggle to squeeze the last few dimes out of
increasingly dangerous old nukes for which they ultimately will
take no responsibility. Vermont Yankee alone could require 60
years for basic clean-up. Fierce debate rages over what to do
with thousands of tons of intensely radioactive spent fuel rods.
It remains unclear where the money will ultimately come from to
try to decontaminate these sites, but clearly they are all
destined to be dead zones.
As will the planet as a whole were it not for victories like
this one in Vermont. This weekend the No Nukes community will
celebrate this accursed reactor’s final demise.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-022.gif
Many hundreds more such celebrations must follow—soon!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Harvey Wasserman edits NukeFree.org and works to shut all
Vermont Yankee’s mutant siblings so Solartopia can take
root.[/quote]
Activists Permanently Shut Down Vermont Yankee Nuke Plant Today
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/29/vermont-yankee-shuts-down/
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
* Vermonters are NOT letting Vermont utilities replace nuclear
power with Fracked Gas. Construction on a rather large pipeline
project is being relentlessly protested, construction snarled
and massive cost overruns shouted from the rafters to shut this
poison pipeline DOWN! Vermonters are NOT playing games here.
Vermonters like this intelligent, do the math, fellow below are
MAKING IT HAPPEN!
Robert Toms‎
the Vermont Gas Pipeline
October 30 ·
The Vermont Democratic Party is calling around this week urging
folks to vote for Shumlin, and making excuses for his position
on the pipeline.
Shumlin's numbers have to be weak come Tuesday so he knows he
has lost support of many dems . Last thing we want is a Shumlin
landslide. He needs to feel vulnerable.
Burlington office: 399-2173
Montperlier office: 229-1783.
BACKGROUND
Vermonters resoundingly disapprove of expanding the fracked gas
pipeline and sending it under our lake to International Paper.
The Governor has not been listening to us. Protect our state
from this massive setback in fighting climate change and call
the Governor—tell him what you think of his misguided support of
the project. Let’s flood his phone lines!!!
The Public Service Board recently ruled to move forward on Phase
I of the fracked gas pipeline to Addison County, despite
overwhelming, scathing criticism from the public and concerned,
thoughtful, government officials. Opponents have articulated the
disastrous economic, environmental, and human injustices created
by a pipeline that would have long-reaching negative impacts on
our entire state for generations to come. At a time when
pipeline explosions are increasingly commonplace in the U.S. it
is lunacy to run a pipeline under Lake Champlain to
International Paper, potentially damaging the drinking water of
a quarter-million people with toxic fracked gas chemicals.
Relentless phone calls have been proven to work—politicians pay
attention! The Governor will know we are watching for him to
respond to the overwhelming number of calls and we are not going
away until he changes his position. This phone campaign was
started by a coalition of Vermont landowners and climate
activists that go by the name of Just Power. We are just people,
and we invite everyone to join us in demanding just power.
POSSIBLE TALKING POINTS
· The 41% cost overrun on Phase I of the Addison Natural Gas
Project brings the capital costs to $121.6 million, which is
$50-$60 million over the company’s original estimate in 2011,
and still the utility, Vermont Gas Systems (VGS), refuses to put
a cap on its spending.
· The Department of Public Service is supposed to protect
Vermonters, but it has not called for transparency. No one
outside of VGS can access the numbers underlying the costs and
benefits claimed in its filings and marketing.
· $121.6 million of Vermont ratepayers’ money for infrastructure
that would serve fewer than 2,600 customers translates into
$47,500 per customer hook up!
· Weatherization and cold climate heat pumps or wood pellet
stoves achieve similar household savings for a small fraction of
that price.
· Although VGS is owned by a Canadian multi-billion dollar
company, [b]all of the costs will be borne by ordinary folks in
Vermont[/b]—the current gas customers, or ratepayers, in
Chittenden and Franklin counties.
· There is no public good in raising rates for 50,000 ratepayers
to as much as 15.2% above the value of gas service they receive
so that fewer than 2,600 new customers can—maybe—save something
on their heating bills.
· The dangers/risks of fracked gas pipelines running near
residences are inequitable and dangerous. Problems with
pipelines are becoming commonplace; over time, pipelines
corrode, leak, and explode, releasing massive amounts of toxins
into the air, land, and water.
· This is not the direction Vermonters want their energy future
to take. At a time when scientists are starting to question
whether or not we can prevent the worst of climate change, we do
not want to build one inch more of fossil fuel infrastructure.
Leave fossil fuels in the ground!
· Natural gas is not a “bridge fuel.” Methane is a vastly more
potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, some say worse than
coal. We have all the bridges we need to create our renewable
energy future, now.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
· Vermont could save $1.4 billion and avoid 6.8 million tons of
carbon pollution if the state invested in efficiency and clean
heat programs available to all Vermonters, as called for by the
state’s own Thermal Efficiency Task Force.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif·<br
/>The fracked gas industry has been described as a “Ponzi scheme
”
and a “bubble.” All indications are that when the bubble bursts
gas prices will go up, and the so-called savings will vanish.
Renewable energy sources are unlimited.
· The rights of landowners have been violated in the easement
negotiating process. >:( State agencies that are supposed to be
neutral but which have openly defended the pipeline >:(, have
left landowners to fend for themselves. >:( VGS has taken
advantage of the complexity of negotiations to pressure
landowners to sign contracts against landowners’ interests >:(.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.vpirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Stop-fracking-pipeline-FINAL-whitepipe-rgb-w-red.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=410]
HTML http://www.risingtidevermont.org/uploads/1/8/9/5/18954813/8952307.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=390]
HTML http://vtdigger.org/vtdNewsMachine/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Vermont-Gas-Williston-protest.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=410]
HTML http://www.sevendaysvt.com/imager/vermont-gas-pipeline-protester-arrested-af/b/original/2372558/a226/VGS_Banner.JPG[/img]
Vermonters DECORATE Fossil Fueler "utility" building. ;D
[move]Vermonters to Frackers and their bought and paid for
government WHORES: Go ahead, MAKE OUR DAY...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gif[/move]
[center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif[/center]<br
/>
The latest news is that massive cost overruns are FINALLY giving
the government a face saving excuse to shut the pipeline down.
I'll keep you posted. The peer pressure here against that
Fracked Pipeline is ENORMOUS (especially in the light of New
York's recent decision to ban Fracking. I expect any pipefitters
or other construction workers that bury their conscience for a
job can't even buy lunch without a lot of dirty looks.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
The way peer pressure
is DONE in Vermont is that they look at you, smile, and say, "I
know where you live". ;) I have received that "message" for
not being a local and I take it VERY seriously. But locals have
a much more difficult time dancing around peer group REJECTION.
LOL!
VPIRG Statement on Fracked Gas Pipeline Cost Increases
By Dylan Zwicky on December 19, 2014 in Fracking, News and
Updates, Press Releases
pipe-dreams-cover ;D
MONTPELIER, VT – Vermont Gas Systems today announced the second
massive cost overrun in just six months for Phase 1 of its
proposed fracked gas pipeline project. Project costs have risen
almost 80 percent over original estimates for Phase 1 alone.
In July, the Phase 1 price tag rose from $86 million to $121
million – a remarkable 40% increase that sparked new waves of
opposition to the fossil fuel project. Today’s announcement –
raising the budget by another $33 million – calls into question
the viability of the overall pipeline expansion project.
“It’s time to pull the plug on this fracked gas pipeline before
any more economic or environmental damage is done,” said Paul
Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest
Research Group. “The economics for this project were already
questionable, given the availability of clean alternatives that
can save Vermonters half on their heating bills.”
In light of the increased costs, Vermont Gas is asking the
Public Service Board to postpone hearings related to Phase 2 of
the pipeline that were scheduled for January.
“Any project that sees its costs balloon by nearly 80 percent in
less than a year should be stopped in its tracks,” said Burns.
“VPIRG urges Gov. Shumlin to drop his administration’s support
of this project and we ask Attorney General Sorrell to consider
an immediate investigation on behalf of Vermont ratepayers.”
[img]
HTML https://flybynews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/10849956_10152688697178369_7242302811235808893_n.png?w=300&h=300[/img]
Vermonters can ADD and SUBTRACT QUITE WELL. Take THAT, FRACKERS!
;D
Renewable energy=
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014181553.gif<br
/> [img width=60
height=40]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif[/img]=Fossil<br
/>Fuelers
[center] [img width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/popcorn.gif[/img][/center]
#Post#: 3222--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: May 31, 2015, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gpnukes650.jpg[/img]
Nuclear Giants Take a Huge Hit [img width=60
height=50]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img]
Paul Brown, Climate News Network | May 31, 2015 10:45 am
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/31/nuclear-giants-huge-hit/
agelbert • 44 minutes ago
It's nice to see the true HORRENDOUS economic math of nuclear
poison white elephants on full display. These welfare queen
monstrosities will continue to be championed by the biosphere
math challenged nuclear nuts in the USA, of course.
I expect them to show up here and pretend they are the solution
to all our energy problems. Prison is too good for them.
"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies
is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic
needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under
equitable rules of access to all common property resources.
It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in
democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of
government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective
protection of essential common property resources of all to feed
the financial interests of a few.
These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment,
denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a
shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political
behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but
scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell,
Woods Hole Research Center founder
#Post#: 3997--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: October 14, 2015, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Another U.S Nuke Bites the Dust ;D
Harvey Wasserman | October 14, 2015 10:32 am
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/14/nuclear-power-bites-dust/
#Post#: 5082--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: May 12, 2016, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: The profit over planet defenders of Job security
for the nuke pukes are celebrating a victory coutesy of subsidy
swag we-the-people are COERCED to pay. >:(
05/10/2016 03:18 PM
[center]In the US, First New Nuclear Plant Turns On In 20
Years[/center]
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/elephant-blue-ribbon-commission.gif?[/img][/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
The first new nuclear plant in 20 years is about to be turned on
in the US, in Tennessee. :(
At the same time the Tennessee Valley Authority starts up the
1400 megawatt Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Unit 2), it is also
looking to add an enormous amount renewable energy - 3.8
gigawatts (GW) of solar and 1.75 GW of wind by 2033. [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
Over half of TVA's energy will be zero emissions by 2020.
With enough power for two cities the size of Chattanooga, Watts
Bar 2 will replace closing coal-fired plants. But the plant was
designed in the 1960s and has been under construction since
1972! It was put on hold during the 1980s and revived in 2007,
with the cost almost doubling from $2.5 billion to $4.7 billion.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
A recent Gallop poll finds that, for the first time, a majority
of Americans oppose nuclear energy (54%), up from 43% a year
ago. Asked every year as part of an environmental survey, 62%
favored nuclear in 2010. Even after the Fukushima meltdown in
2011, attitudes didn't change, leading Gallop to conclude that
with low gas prices, Americans don't feel the risk of nuclear is
worth it.
The industry has been plagued by cost-overruns and delays, and
ratepayers have seen high utility bills, in addition to the
dangers (and waste) nuclear plants pose.
Worldwide, the use of nuclear energy peaked in 2006 (438 plants)
after booming in the 1960s and 1970s. It supplied about 18% of
electricity in 1996, dropping to 11% by 2013 with 388 plants,
according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
Most are in the US (100 plants), followed by France (58), Russia
(33) and South Korea, China, India, and Canada (each have 20).
[quote]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
"In
a competitive market, you can't even come close to making the
math work on building new nuclear plants," [/quote] says Daniel
Eggers, a utilities analyst with Credit Suisse, told Bloomberg
Businessweek. "Natural gas is too cheap, demand is too flat, and
the upfront costs are way too high."
[center]
Big Expansion Planned
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
[/center]
While Germany and other countries have abandoned nuclear, China
plans to build 56 plants by 2020 and the UK is fighting over a
$26 billion new plant. If all the plants under consideration are
built, capacity will be 45% higher in 2035. [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif[/img]
[quote]"New nuclear power would be a real setback in terms of
trying to solve the climate problem," [/quote]Mark Jacobson, the
Stanford professor who maps how 100% renewable energy can be
achieved. "Even if there were no issues like meltdown or waste
proliferation - which are serious issues - it's just so costly
and it takes so long to put up new nuclear reactors that by the
time the next set of nuclear reactors are planned, permitted,
constructed, it takes 10-19 years. The Arctic ice will be gone,"
he told Fast Company.
[quote]Imagine how much renewable energy we could quickly
install at those prices!! [/quote]
In the US, between cheap natural gas and renewable energy, it's
hard to see how nuclear makes sense.
[center]Nuclear Industry Attacks Renewable Energy[/center]
Lately, the low cost of electricity from wind and natural gas
has been undercutting nuclear, but rather than fighting the
fracking industry, the industry fights policies that support
energy efficiency and renewables on the state and federal
levels.
Utility FirstEnergy was a major factor in Ohio's suspension of
its Efficiency and Renewable Portfolio Standards, for example,
and has been pushing guaranteed rates for nuclear energy - at a
cost of an extra $3.2 billion for ratepayers, reports Midwest
Energy News.
"Clearly FirstEnergy was seeing both energy efficiency and
renewable energy as direct competitors. The arguments they were
using were that these mandatory standards are distorting the
market and are costly to ratepayers. But as soon as the
standards were frozen, they turned around and proposed a plan
that is looking to distort the market and going to cost $3
billion," Allison Fisher of Public Citizen told Midwest Energy
News.
While utilities have tiny stakes in renewables, they often have
major investments in both gas and nuclear. Most of all, they
don't want a shift from centralized to distributed energy.
[quote]That's why we see them lobbying against tax incentives
for renewables and against solar net metering. [/quote]
"Renewables and energy efficiency are options that are on a
downward cost-curve, and when given the chance, prove themselves
highly cost-effective. The major barrier to the take-up of these
is the credulity of policy-makers to new, ever more unrealistic
claims for new nuclear technologies and the self-interest of
large utilities of promoting large technologies because they
insulate them from competition
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
from new dynamic
companies," says Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at
the UK's University of Greenwich.
Read our article, 1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over
Solar
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/the-nuclear-insanity-of-the-1950s/msg1812/#msg1812
Read the report, Power Shift: [b]The Deployment of a 21st
Century Electricity Sector and the Nuclear War to Stop It:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif[/b]
Website:
www-assets.vermontlaw.edu/Assets/iee/Power_Shift_Mark_Cooper_Jun
e_2015.pdf
[center]
[img
width=440]
HTML http://antinuclearinfo.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/afraid-of-small-energy.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5351--------------------------------------------------
Re: How the Nuclear Power "Industry" Views Renewable E
nergy Technology
By: AGelbert Date: June 22, 2016, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
06/21/2016 01:34 PM
[center] [img
width=200]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260116192120.png[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center]
History Made as Renewable Energy Replaces Nuclear Plant
[/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
History is being made in California where, for the first time,
an agreement has been signed to replace a nuclear plant with
zero emissions energy, rather than turning to fossil fuels.
The nuclear plant is California's Diablo Canyon and the
agreement is signed by utility PG&E, labor unions and
environmental groups. When the plant closes within 9 years, it
will be replaced completely by energy efficiency measures,
demand response and solar and wind, backed by energy storage.
It's a big deal because Diablo Canyon produces 1.1 gigawatt of
power - 9% of California's in-state power generation, 6% of the
state's electricity and about 20% of PG&E's electricity, enough
for 1.6 million people, says NRDC, one of the environmental
groups that negotiated the agreement.
This proves energy efficiency and renewable energy can replace
aging nuclear plants - the key is taking the time to plan ahead,
says Rhea Suh, President of NRDC. *
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML https://photos.smugmug.com/Energy/Nuclear-Power/Diablo-Canyon-Power-Plant/i-m94rDHq/0/M/_MG_0730-M.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][center] Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant[/center][/center]
Other signatories to the "Joint Proposal" are Friends of the
Earth, Environment California, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility
Employees, and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
"Giant baseload nuclear power plants like Diablo Canyon can't
easily be taken offline or ramped up and down as system needs
change, which obstructs the integration of renewable resources
with variable output into the electricity grid. This worsening
problem is forcing the California grid operator to shut down
low-cost renewable generation that could otherwise be used
productively," explains Ralph Cavanagh of NRDC. Flexible
generation options and demand-response are the energy systems of
the future, adds Friends of the Earth.
"California's energy landscape is changing dramatically with
energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the
state's energy policy," says Tony Earley, CEO of PG&E. "As we
make this transition, Diablo Canyon's full output will no longer
be required."
Diablo Canyon is California's l[i]ast nuclear plant. ;D [/i]
Under the Joint Proposal, PG&E will withdraw its request to
extend the nuclear plant's license fo another 20 years. And it
will raise its target for renewables to 55% by 2031, exceeding
the state's 50% by 2030.
The agreement includes provisions to help displaced employees
and the community of San Luis Obispo.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) initiated the process by
commissioning a technical and economic report that served as the
basis for negotiation. Called Plan B, it details how efficiency
and renewables can replace the two Diablo Canyon reactors
cost-effectively.
The agreement is especially sweet for FOE because they were
founded to oppose construction of Diablo way back in 1969. They
have been fighting the nuclear plant ever since because it is so
close major earthquake fault lines.
State and federal regulators have to approve the agreement. It's
expected to save PG&E customers at least $1 billion in energy
costs.
The US has 100 nuclear reactors, many of which are nearing the
end of their lives. In May, the first new reactor in 20 years
came online in Tennessee and four are under construction.
A similar negotiation was attempted when California's San Onofre
nuclear plant closed in 2013, but in the end about half the
energy was replaced with natural gas.
Read the Joint Proposal:
Website:
www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/safety/dcpp/MJBA_Report.pdf
HTML http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/safety/dcpp/MJBA_Report.pdf
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26650
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26650
* "We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we
never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is
to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production
and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." --
Aldous Huxley
"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley
Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh
Generation, Burlington, Vermont
"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only
a massive increase in Caring Capacity will." -- A. G. Gelbert
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page