Atomic Show #252 – Security, Future of Energy, HEU

On the evening of April 10, 2016, I met with two good friends and fellow nuclear energy bloggers for a wide ranging discussion about nuclear energy. We talked about the following topics:

  • Nuclear energy’s role in the future of energy supplies
  • Impact of the Nuclear Security Summits initiated by President Obama
  • Demonization campaign being waged against the use of refined uranium (aka highly enriched uranium or HEU)
  • Murky future of the US’s plutonium disposition program in light of the DOE’s FY2017 budget that cancels the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility
  • Growing risk that California may experience a repeat of the 2000-2001 energy crisis this coming summer
  • Compensating various sources of electrical power
  • Destabilizing effects of the extension of the renewable energy PTC/ITC subsidies – which take $5 billion/year from taxpayers and give it to selected power source developers

My guests included:

Meredith Angwin, who blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee and the Northwest Clean Energy blog
Steve Aplin, who blogs at Canadian Energy Issues

I hope you enjoy the show.

Note 1: During our discussion about the compensation received by various electric power sources, Meredith mentioned several figures from an article that she wrote for Nuclear Engineering International. Here is a link to those figures.

The article titled ‘Pay for Performance’ and the US grid is an important source of information about this complex, but impactful situation. Meredith is becoming my “go-to” expert on the convoluted grid supply rules.

Note 2: We talked about the little understood change to the wind energy Production Tax Credit that was initiated in the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. That act included a provision that allowed wind energy developers to opt for a 30% of project cost investment tax credit (ITC) in lieu of the $23/MW-hr Production Tax Credit. Because of the time value of money, nearly every project developer recognized that it was a more lucrative option because all of the subsidies were delivered less than a year after project completion instead of being spread over a ten year period.

The option also shifts performance risk from the developer to the government. There is a reporting requirement that only lasts for 5 years and has few teeth. In other words, it is entirely plausible for some of the projects to fail to generate the promised amount of power and for the developer or the project owner to simply give up. There is a low probability that anyone will be tasked with the effort required to obtain a refund of the ITC, which might be a substantial sum of money for a large project.

The option to take the ITC in lieu of the PTC was included in the renewable tax credit extension wedged into the Omnibus appropriation bill passed at the end of the congressional session just before the Christmas holiday.

When the ARRA first invented the option to tax an investment tax credit, renewable energy lobbyists successfully made the case that investment tax credits have no value if the developer has no taxes to offset and if even banks that one provided a market for transferring the ITC – at a favorable cost – also had no profits and no income taxes to offset. As a result, the ARRA included a provision that became known as Section 1603, which skipped the need to involve the IRS. Instead, the government appropriated funds and provided cash payments to the developers. Here is a 2009 NREL document that provides background and helps developers make the most beneficial choice in their particular situation.

While Section 1603 was in effect, the net payments to renewable energy developers over a 5 year period amounted to $25 Billion. Here is the latest summary report, dated January 16, 2016.

The cash payment option from section 1603 no longer exists. Banks are back into the business of profiting from the need for renewable project developers to find partners that actually have a sufficiently high tax bill to be able to take advantage of being able to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in credits in a single year. (A $1 billion project is eligible for $300 million in investment tax credits.)

For more information about the renewable energy tax credits that were included in the ominbus bill, please visit Good And Bad News For Renewable Energy Tax Credits.

Aside: Unless you are a renewable energy project developer or a supplier in the wind and solar energy market, there is no good news in the extension of these costly payments to power sources that frequestion claim to be cheap and mature. Those claims turn into predictions of job losses and corporate bankruptcies every time the expiration of their generous tax credit arrangements approaches. So far, the credits have been extended at the last minute — or retroactively — at least seven times. End Aside.


The Worth-It Threshold – When gas or gas + renewables is as bad for climate as a coal plant

WIT Graph

The following article dovetails nicely as support for several articles that are in the queue. Those articles will describe a global case of ill-advised groupthink about a future energy supply system consisting of unreliable wind and solar power generation. My interpretation is that the “100% renewables” goal is a seductive mirage that has been carefully […]

Read more »

Defending FP&L from Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone hit piece

Tim Dickinson wrote a lengthy piece for Rolling Stone titled The Koch Brothers’ Dirty War on Solar Power: All over the country, the Kochs and utilities have been blocking solar initiatives — but nowhere more so than in Florida. Though the Koch Brothers got top billing in the headline for fairly obvious reasons, the real […]

Read more »

Another day, another model “proving” capabilities of weather-dependent power

On January 25, 2016 the NOAAnews (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency news) web site published a brief article with the following alluring headline: Rapid, affordable energy transformation possible NOAA, CIRES study: Wind, sun could eclipse fossil fuels for electric power by 2030 As the headline creator hoped, I couldn’t resist reading more. I was shocked, […]

Read more »

Reliable partnership between natural gas and renewable energy

Naomi Oreskes is the Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. She is also the author of the December 16, 2015 opinion piece published in the Guardian titled There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet. […]

Read more »

Solar and wind tax credit extensions will put more nuclear plants at risk

Update: (Posted 4:40 pm December 18) It’s too late. The House and Senate passed the spending bills and went home for the holidays. Sorry to have been too late on this one; the several thousand page bill was just released a couple of days ago. It took a little time to read and understand the […]

Read more »

Mark Jacobson describes attributes of his incredibly optimistic wind, water, solar energy plans

During COP16, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson described attributes of his team’s most recently produced paper. The abstract leads with the following claim about the paper’s content. This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar (WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by […]

Read more »

Climate scientists skeptical about Mark Z. Jacobson’s 100% renewable energy “plans”

During COP21, Energy for Humanity‘s Kirsty Gogan moderated a press conference featuring Drs. James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, and Ken Caldeira. The complete event is available on YouTube at [LIVE] Conférence presse de James Hansen à La Galerie by World Efficiency. These experts are the four climate scientists who have spent a part of […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #247 – Jigar Shah, founder SunEdison and Generate Capital

Jigar Shah is the founder of SunEdison, a former CEO of the Carbon War Room, and is currently the President of Generate Capital. He is also a member of The Energy Gang on Greentech Media. Jigar and I have been engaged in some lively discussions on Twitter about the future of solar and nuclear energy […]

Read more »

Democratic Party presidential candidates answer question about climate change and energy plans

Transcript of the video above. Anderson Cooper: A lot of questions about climate change. I want to go to Don Lemon. Don? Don Lemon: This one is for Martin O’Malley. Governor O’Malley, this one is from Anna Bettis from Tempe Arizona. Anna Bettis: As a young person I am very concerned about climate change and […]

Read more »

Hero worship of a corporate welfare king – Elon Musk

A May 30, 2015 story in the Los Angeles Times titled Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies provides an enlightening look at the basis for Musk’s recent business success. His visionary — and generously subsidized — enterprises including Tesla, Solar City and SpaceX have resulted in his elevation to […]

Read more »

Australia’s blinkered vision in China’s commitment to reduce global warming

By Robert Parker President, Australian Nuclear Association Two of the most powerful nations on earth have concluded an agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Included in that agreement is reference to nuclear power being used to limit those emissions. Yet in Australia even discussion of nuclear power is taboo. We continue to frame the control […]

Read more »