Energy efficiency of wind and solar power
to The Editor The Advertiser. 21 Feb 14, by Dennis Matthews Once again we have extravagant claims that detract from any valid arguments people may have against wind farms (The Advertiser, 21/2/14).
Every piece of equipment that is used to generate electricity consumes energy in its manufacture. The time needed to generate electricity to replace the energy used during manufacture varies from one technology to another but is particularly short when that technology uses no fuel that has to be mined, processed and transported. Wind and solar are prime examples.
For every unit of electricity generated by these technologies there is one less unit generated by more energy consuming and polluting technologies. Rather than having to build additional polluting generators their construction is either avoided or in some cases they are taken out of service.
Standby power in the form of fast start up power stations already exist, they are grossly underutilized and therefore economically inefficient. By using them to supplement wind farms they are used more efficiently.
Renewable energy industry welcomes a truthful review of the RET
“We relish the opportunity to demonstrate the $18 billion value that the existing Renewable Energy Target represents for our economy”
Clean Energy Council, 20 Feb 14 The renewable energy industry today welcomed the start of the Federal Government’s review of the Renewable Energy Target, saying the scheme’s low cost and massive benefits could now be decisively demonstrated and critics’ misleading claims debunked.
“The clean energy industry is keen to show the huge positive impact of a stable target, delivering 41,000 gigawatt hours of large-scale renewable energy and millions more solar households and businesses by 2020,” Clean Energy Council Chief Executive David Green said today. Continue reading
Nuclear power continues, as always, to be an economic fialure
Having failed miserably a second time, the industry is demanding another round of massive subsidies, relaxed oversight, and pampered treatment for a third bite at the apple.
The biggest mistake policy makers could make is to allow the search for yet another nuclear holy grail to delay the transition to a 21st century electricity grid.
Why The Economics Don’t Favor Nuclear Power In America Forbes Staff, Contributor by Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. 20 Feb 14, From 2011 through 2013, as the overwhelming majority of the new reactors that had been proposed as part of the “Nuclear Renaissance” were abandoned or delayed, the industry blamed low natural gas prices. In 2013, when five old reactors were retired early, and today with many old reactors being considered for early retirement, the industry blames low wholesale prices that result from a market that is distorted by the entry of subsidized wind power.
The irony in these complaints is that for fifty years the selection of generating capacity has been rigged in favor of nuclear power with socialized accident insurance and waste management costs, forced purchase of overpriced power, and advanced recovery of construction costs. Nuclear advocates complaining about policies that balance things out a bit to give other generation resources a decent chance of delivering electricity would be laughably hypocritical, if it weren’t so important. In fact, if the playing field were actually level, nuclear would be in even more trouble than it is.
The nuclear hypocrisy does not stop with complaints about subsidies. The nuclear utilities continue to complain about the challenges of the safety and licensing requirements imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, even after they convinced Congress to streamline and reform the process in the 2005. Yet, these challenges are matched by the obstacles utilities put in the path of alternatives at the public utility commissions, with hostile interconnection requirements, unfair contract conditions and uneconomic tariffs
The fifty year failure of nuclear power to be economically competitive compels nuclear advocates to label every pro-consumer analysis as anti-nuclear. The anti-nuclear label is used to avoid the inconvenient truth about nuclear: it is and has been unable to compete economically with the alternatives available. More importantly, it is not likely to be able to compete for the foreseeable future.
The economic reality is that efficiency and natural gas can keep the lights on and computers running at a fraction of the cost of nuclear power and the cost of wind and solar have been declining dramatically. Utility scale solar with storage is entering the market, as is utility scale battery storage. The decision to give them a boost, is paying off. These alternatives have exhibited the one characteristic that has always eluded nuclear, declining costs driven by innovation, learning, and economies of scale.
In contrast to the success of the alternatives, the projected cost of nuclear power has increased five-fold since technology vendors and academic boosters declared the “Nuclear Renaissance” in the mid-2000s. If the industry had been able to deliver on the hype of a decade ago, it would not be in such dire straits. Continue reading
Move to undo Council sea level policies
Councillor to push for removal of sea level policies in NSW Eurobodalla ABC News 20 Feb 2014 ,A councillor on the Eurobodalla Council on the New South Wales far south coast will put forward a motion to repeal the shire’s sea level rise adaptation policy next week.
The policy identifies areas at risk of tidal inundation and coastal erosion.
Milton Leslight says the policy is restrictive and is degrading property values and development…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-20/sea-level-policy/5271258
Draconian changes to South Australia’s Electoral Act
To The Editor The Advertiser, by Dennis Mathews, 21 Feb 14
The Duopoly Election Bullies stand to gain from their draconian changes to the Electoral Act not only by excluding competition (The Advertiser,21/2/14) but whoever gets into government will get the revenue from candidates who lost their $3000 deposit.
If this system had been in place for the 2010 election the increased revenue would have been $268,000.
The changes to the Electoral Act were supposedly to prevent voters from having to fill out a very large voting paper for the Legislative Council and to prevent “gaming” through organized and complicated preference deals. The latter meant that voters had no idea where their preferences were going.
In actual fact the changes have affected both the Legislative Council and the House of Representatives, gaming will still occur in the 2014 election, and we may still get a very long voting paper for the Legislative Council.
Ironically we may end up with electing to the Legislative Council a candidate who lost their $3000 deposit because they didn’t get 4% of the primary vote.
Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are bound to fail
Why The Economics Don’t Favor Nuclear Power In America Forbes Staff, Contributor by Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. 20 Feb 14, “………..The buzz surrounding small modular reactors among nuclear advocates over the past couple of years is another example of the nuclear hype cycle. The industry is demanding massive subsidies and further relaxation of licensing and safety requirements.
Independent analysts think the cost per kilowatt hour will not be less than the cost for the current crop of large reactors and is likely to be more for a significant period. The economic traits that are supposed to make small reactors attractive—small size, short construction periods, flexible deployment—are exhibited by many of the other alternatives. Westinghouse, one of the leading U.S. vendors, has recently nixed further investment in small reactors, even though its partner in Missouri, Ameren , had extracted $40 million in support from the state. The reason Westinghouse gave – “no customers” – was a quintessential real world market answer……
The ultimate irony is that small modular reactors and large scale carbon capture and storage are both hypothetical resources that are a decade or more away. In the meantime, the other alternatives are advancing like a freight train. By the time the new base load technologies reach their cost floor, it is very likely they too will be unable to compete…… http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/02/20/why-the-economics-dont-favor-nuclear-power-in-america/
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 