Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

15 Comments

  1. The Résiliency regulations were not there in the merchant states for Kiwaunee and Vermont.

    Résiliency is worth less for opérators today And There is little Time to get this done before year end where Many plants have not yet made refueling commitments for 2014.

    We are in trouble. It won’t be done And more plants Will close.

  2. Like Rod says, the nuclear fleet is a national Asset.

    But does it have value in the merchant states where opérators are short sighthed ?

  3. “Though it might feel like central planning to some, the government has a role in introducing the discussion and helping market participants to recognize the insurance-like characteristics of widely-distributed, reliable generators that have more than a couple of days worth of fuel on site. ”

    I don’t think that one needs to apologize for advocating some central planning. There is definitely a place in the economy for it.

    What was the interstate highway system, but central planning? There are a multitude of examples of government engaging in beneficial “central planning”. I would argue that to have a healthy economy it is essential that a country have a government which performs central planning at the infrastructure level to create a framework on which all other economic activity can grow. At its heart, this is a neighborhood banding together to purchase something beneficial to most or all they could never have purchased separately — writ large.

    The free market contains things like destructive positive feedback loops and functions that oscillate across lines which absolutely should not be crossed. For example, left to the free market, the supply of food should, at times, become scarce, such that there is not enough for everyone. The free market will “correct” this by allowing prices to rise, and thus creating incentives for more supply. Oh, look. The “free market” just let a million people starve while the price of food adjusted itself.

    Government price supports shift the supply/demand curve for food so that it never crosses the too-short-supply line. This results in surpluses, but that’s the price we pay to guarantee that there’s never too little of an absolutely essential commodity.

    Energy clearly falls into the same category. No reasonable person should oppose rational government action to guarantee that the energy supply is never less than demand, even if that invokes the boogy-man of “central planning”.

    1. Don’t you get it, man? In your Nuclear Commune Paradise there is no purpose to state backed corporations such as Rosatom, Areva, etc because standardization on a single reactor design is the only way forward. Why do you even bother wasting time with LFTR’s?

      And forget about your electric cars too. The Nuclear Commune can only work with trains. How else are you going to accomodate the hordes in your sardine can paradise?

      Even that “model” Nuclear paradise called France can’t get rid of the fossil fuels? How come, bud? Don’t you realize that France with roughly the same population density as Italy (which has zero reactors) consumes more fossil fuels? Wasn’t the whole point of Frances nuclear programme to reduce fossil fuel consumption? It aint happening.

      1. starvinglion claims:
        Don’t you realize that France with roughly the same population density as Italy (which has zero reactors) consumes more fossil fuels? Wasn’t the whole point of Frances nuclear programme to reduce fossil fuel consumption? It aint happening.
        ————————————————————————

        In the electric power sector, as well as total energy, France consumes less fossil fuels than Italy.
        http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=FRANCE&product=electricityandheat&year=2011
        France: 47,504 GWh produced from coal, oil and natural gas in 2011
        http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=FRANCE&product=electricityandheat&year=2011
        Italy: 214,572 GWh produced from coal, oil and natural gas in 2011

        Its not really even close. Italy burns far more fossil fuels for power production. Below is data from 2013 (Jan. through Nov.). It all comes under the heading “Combustible Fuels”.
        http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf

        Italy also imports a great deal of power, much of it from nuclear France.
        ——————————————————–

        From the BP Statistical Review of World Energy-
        http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf

        In terms of total energy, given in Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent (MTOE), for oil, gas and coal combined-
        France: 130.5
        Italy: 142.2

        Italy also emits more CO2 per year than France:
        http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=FR,IT,&syid=2007&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD

      2. starvinglion says:
        Don’t you realize that France with roughly the same population density as Italy (which has zero reactors) consumes more fossil fuels?
        ————————————————————————

        In the electric power sector, Italy consumes far more fossil fuels than France.
        France:http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=FRANCE&product=electricityandheat&year=2011
        Italy: http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=ITALY&product=electricityandheat&year=2011

        Italy produces about 4 times as much electricity from fossil fuels. Italy also imports a great deal of power, much of it from France. In terms of total energy, Italy also burns more fossil fuels. I had a much larger earlier post, but it seems to be lost for now.

        1. It should also be noted Italy is in severe economic distress now with around 40 year unemployment records.

      3. Starvinglion,

        Don’t you realise that Italy has almost double the population density of France? 199 persons per square kilometre vs. 116.

  4. Starvington – Interesting. I had to read it twice to surmise that you believe some are promoting a nuclear utopia with fixed rigid ideas. You may be right. I guess this is a cynical reaction to those who were proposing central planning for energy.

    In a way don’t we already have de-facto central planning? Uncle Sam is promoting windmills, solar plants and natural gas. Uncle Sam has provided onerous regulation to nuclear plants for years and is now beginning to apply it to coal plants. We have FERC, NERC the NRC and the EPA. Some of us just don’t like how and what they are planning.

    1. “In a way don’t we already have de-facto central planning? Uncle Sam is promoting windmills, solar plants and natural gas.”

      Correct. The current central planning is either being driven by irrational, delusional people, or by greedy, deceitful people.

      Or by both, with the greedy, deceitful people driving/using the irrational, delusional people as a front.

      In any case, what we have now is no sense rational. The means do nothing to meet the stated goals and are actually destructive to the stated goals, as well as ignoring what should always be a goal, whether stated or not, which is to keep essentials like energy reliable and affordable and plentiful.

      But doing away with all government interference would not fix this. It would merely give us a slightly different set of problems. The free market would never build the excess capacity necessary to keep electricity reliable, affordable and plentiful.

      1. @Jeff Walther

        You sound conflicted … and only see problems. Do you have a recommended option, or is everything doomed to failure?

        Surprising anybody has any reliable and cost effective energy (since all of it for you based on irrationality, delusion, government special interests, distorted markets, etc.).

        1. You sound conflicted … and only see problems. Do you have a recommended option, or is everything doomed to failure?

          Surprising anybody has any reliable and cost effective energy (since all of it for you based on irrationality, delusion, government special interests, distorted markets, etc.).

          I have an idea: more nuclear power! -as strange as it may seem for someone on a nuclear power advocacy site to suggest.

          Government is present in all stages of energy acquisition.

          So hes right and obviously also there are problems with the gas supply. We are approving and building LNG export faculties like there is no issue and fracking everything. Why is our government so concerned with promoting NG exports when our supply is not sufficient and we have made incredible environmental sacrifices for?

          Ignoring issues that dont fit your world view is a mistake EL.

          BTW much (these days 40 % coal 20 % NG and god knows how much oil over the years) of this “reliable and cost effective energy” has come form publicly held lands at below 20 percent royalty rates. Not to mention the huge public land use requirements of many renewable projects.

Comments are closed.