108 Comments

  1. Rod,

    It is interesting that you would talk about dumping and pollution when scientists are on the quest of finding more about the seventh continent as we speak. A continent made of all the human resilient plastic garbage dumped at sea and finding its way in a sweet & calm spot of the Pacific Ocean.

    CO2 goes in my lung. This plastic soup decomposition at sea goes into the food chain.

    This seventh continent is 2 times the size of the Province of Québec (that is huge my friend) and runs 30 meters deep.

    1. Danial,

      There is no ‘seventh’ continent 2 times the size of Quebec and 30 meters deep.

      First because at that size (about 1/3 of Australia) it would be an island not a continent.

      Second because it doesn’t exist in the way you claim. From the NOAA.
      “There is no island of trash forming in the middle of the ocean nor a blanket of trash that can be seen with satellite or aerial photographs. This is likely because much of the debris is small bits of floating plastic not easily seen from a boat.”

    2. Daniel:

      Just FYI:
      This region is regarded as an “aquatic L-5” zone and it’s not solid with trash as stories assert. My freighter crane engineer neighbor was amused by people’s perceptions of the Sargasso Sea as being a dense bayou-type swamp so dense you can walk across it, but rather it’s just a region where you see much more seaweed fronds and their grape bladders than usual. Boats don’t get stuck or beached in it and you really have to watch out for the flotsam to know it’s there, just like with this plastic rubbish zone, which ought’ve swollen considerably from the Japanese quake. My view from my abandoned ichthyology major college days is the plastic trash is much more an unsightly nuisance to humans (more an aesthetic menace) than any real hazardous or poisonous deteriorating peril en masse to life, even if trips up a few whales or so. The “nice” thing about it is that unlike space junk, if we seriously want to sweep it up we just need to avail — ironically — giant trawling nets.

      James Greenidge
      Queens NY

      1. @ James

        Pandora’s promise is hitting the screen in NYC :

        The film opens in New York City on June 12 at Sunshine Cinema on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Two days later, on June 14, the film will open in an additional 16 cities nationwide (Atlanta, Berkeley, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Irvine, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Washington, DC) with another five cities being added on June 21 (Austin, Charlotte, Dallas, Portland, Scottsdale). Tickets should also be available online through Fandango and MovieTickets.com. Consult the film’s web site for a complete list of theaters. On April 30, 2013, CNN Films announced that it had acquired cable television broadcast rights to the film and intended to air it sometime in November 2013.

  2. Thank you for reposting this incredible video.

    I’m featuring a link to this page on the opening page of my web site, Skyscrubber.com

  3. Before Fukushima, Japan had been importing uranium at $0.25/MMBTU. By using the Fukushima meltdowns as an excuse to forbid nuclear power plants from restarting, the Japanese government was able to force its electricity producers to use natural gas instead. Imported as LNG, it cost $16/MMBTU.

    Royalty rates on natural gas are hard to find, but in the USA they are in the range 12.5 percent to 18.75 percent. Each gigawatt of Japanese nuclear capacity that was forbidden to restart meant 66 million MMBTU of additional natural gas demand annually. If the Japanese government enjoys the lower, one-eighth rate, each blocked reactor was a windfall for them on the order of $133 million per year.

    They have blocked 50, so are ahead ~$6.6 billion a year.

    You are, very commendably, willing to pay your share. Please don’t disregard the potential harm this payment might do if it enriches the wrong people.

  4. I would gladly pay the ‘price on carbon’ in exchange for more reasonable regulation on the nuclear power industry, resulting in nuclear power plants being sited more easily, built more quickly at lower cost, to provide inexpensive electric power.

    I would gladly pay the ‘price on carbon’ if a large part of the money raised goes towards research, development, licensing, and first-of-a-kind construction of Gen IV and thorium reactors.

    I would not gladly pay the ‘price on carbon’ if the additional funds go towards general funding of (more) government.

    I would not gladly pay the ‘price of carbon’ so that the cost of energy increases to that in Europe, causing an economic slowdown that results in decreased energy consumption.

    I would not gladly pay the ‘price of carbon’ so that politicians can feel virtuous because the cost of energy in the USA is just as high as other parts of the world, e.g., Europe.

  5. Another vote for donb’s comment. As things currently are, a tax or price on carbon would be used as an excuse to waste more money on unreliables. It wouldn’t matter that it makes Nuclear compare more favorably with coal and natural gas. The folks pushing the unreliables won’t stop. A price on carbon would increase energy prices, and the unreliables crowd would use that as a justification for more unreliables — never admitting that installing unreliables drives up energy prices more than any price on carbon ever could.

    1. @Jeff, Paul and donb

      In the original post, I probably should have clarified and reiterated my position on the appropriate way to both pay for my share of current damage and to effectively work on reducing our collective emissions. I was pressed for time before heading out for my day job. Please review the additions to the post and then continue the conversation.

    1. Sorry to drag this conversation into the political arena, but here goes.

      @John- I could go for such a carbon tax (or any other reasonable tax increase) in exchange for one provision: Total Federal spending, per capita and adjusted for inflation (same inflation indicator as used for, say, Social Security), is frozen. I would make this a “flexible freeze” that can be bypassed with a 2/3 vote of Congress (or 3/4 vote with a Presidential veto). If the freeze is violated without the 2/3 (or 3/4) vote, the tax increase goes away (a provision in this new tax law).

      There is still a big pie to slice that grows in dollar terms every year, and the members of Congress can do the hard work of determining the size of the slices, rather than making the pie bigger to fund their favorite programs. Under my proviso, I would accept other tax increases and benefit cuts.

      I have been around long enough to see what happens when tax increases are passed with the good intention of reducing the deficit. The deficit goes down for a few years as the tax increases and spending cuts are made. After a few years, the “extra” money (even though there is still a deficit, albeit smaller) starts burning a hole in the pocket of Congress, and spending goes up faster than income. Not surprisingly, the tax increase stays around, and the national debt gets larger.

    2. @ John,

      We could also reduce the deficit by simply moving the automatic annual budget baseline increases from 7% to 5%.

      I am deeply suspicious of a carbon tax of any kind. I am also deeply suspicious of Rod’s Fee and dividend approach. Not because Rod recommends it but because I don’t think it will actually ever be anything other than a tax. When you say you want to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes you are asking for two opposite effects from the same cause.

      1. Increasing revenues – through a “sin” tax.
      2. Decreasing of the “sinful” activities through that same “sin” tax.

      This was tried with Tobacco. It has been effective in reducing – but not eliminating – tobacco use. Now that tobacco use is down, the state governments who wrongly projected general revenues from tobacco taxes have a problem since those revenues are reducing.

      Frankly, the main problem with CO2 is the lack of Nuclear power. Nuclear in electric generation, will give us a good chance to use Electric cars. Nuclear in ship propulsion will eliminate vast amounts of diesel. Nuclear in process heat will reduce the need for natural gas.

      Fix the problems with the NRC over-regulation and you will fix the CO2 issue. In fact, fix the NRC so that Nuclear has a REAL free market to work with and it will naturally replace fossil fuels as a superior energy source. Allow innovation to drive down costs and you will rapidly go below the current cost of fossil fuels. But innovation cannot operate on 15 year approval cycles.

      On the other hand, add in a “sin” tax on carbon and you will introduce massive amounts of money into the government. The government will NOT have a motivation to reduce that flow of funds. It will have every motivation to dance around pretending to want to reduce the flow while actually doing nothing. There is zero chance that a fee / dividend setup will have zero ‘overhead’. You can bet your bottom dollar that that ‘overhead’ will grow grow grow.

      So, what can we do to fix the NRC? How can we reduce licensing times from a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 2 years? How can we stop the interference of 2 people and a fax machine who get to imagine possible problems with a NPP from stopping a 6 billion dollar build? The NRC has a more open policy toward opposition than any other agency.

      By the way – I still have doubts about the effects of CO2 on the overall climate. But I am very willing to be safe with Nuclear power rather than sorry by burning up all our Fossil resources. I am also very willing to use the economic argument, and the over regulation argument with fellow conservatives, while using the CO2 climate change argument with “greens.”

      Nuclear power itself – without any strange fees or taxes is enough.

      1. David’s comment makes sense. Why not tell utilities that they can no longer dump their refuse into the environment willy-nilly? Whether the refuse is CO2, NOx, SOx, mercury, or used nuclear fuel, it has to be controlled and whatever money the utility has to spend to sequester said waste is what needs to be done. While I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, indiscriminate and unlimited dumping of waste into the atmosphere is an untried experiment on a planetary scale, and will have unintended and almost certainly undesirable results, whatever those results may be.

        With all due respect, I don’t think we need a “sin tax” on fossil fuel emissions. Rather, we need to level the regulatory playing field, and sequester the waste. That requires real money. When the costs of sequestering fossil fuel waste exceeds the cost of recycling / reprocessing used nuclear fuel (and it will), then coal, oil and gas go out of business. As for solar and wind, no subsidies for anyone – that’ll dry them up. And as for government, starve the politicians of money. None of them – left or right – can be trusted. “Do not put your trust in princes…” (Psalm 146:3 – sorry, can’t help myself; am disgusted with the current state of affairs where there is a solution and we won’t take it).

        1. PS, I forgot to add above that I do agree with fining fossil power producers for dumping their refuse into the atmosphere. This should be no different in theory than the US NRC fining a nuclear utility who exceeds radioactive emissions levels. Some reasonable cost structure should be built into the fining. But it’s not a tax. It’s a punishment for harming people and the environment (harm one and you harm the other).

        2. @Paul Primavera

          The carbon fee Hansen and I support is not a “sin tax”. It is a dumping fee that is aimed at exposing a real cost and turning that cost into income for the people that own the atmosphere by way of being born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

          Sequestering gas puts a lot of effort and valuable material to the wrong use.

          1. “Sequestering gas puts a lot of effort and valuable material to the wrong use.”

            That’s one of the big problems, isn’t it?

            One big problem is folks who don’t acknowledge CO2 as an issue.

            The other big problem is that of the folks who do think it is critical to vastly reduce CO2 emissions, a large proportion of them favor methods which won’t work, or are too expensive to be practical, which comes to the same thing.

            The amount of delusion and bad arithmetic in public policy thinking, or perhaps the lack of any arithmetic and facts in said decision making is just astounding.

  6. I have been thinking that many people may vote with their pocketbooks voluntarily. Currently there are Carbon Footprint Apps but they merely crunch travel and electrical usage. There are no Barcode scanning apps that give consumers the ability to know what the Carbon Footprint of their potential products are. I think this (simple?) tool could be useful in getting people to think realistically about consumerism and it’s Carbon consequences. We might even get people interested in buying Nuclear. (French Wine?) Just a thought gents. i would like feedback. Thank You

  7. We need to stop pretending that fossil fuels are harmless to the environment and Federally mandate that at least 50% of the electricity generated by all US utilities be carbon neutral by 2020 and 90% by 2030.

    A 15% sin tax should be placed on– all electricity– generated by an individual utility if it fails to reach the Federal mandates. This would force utilities to start investing and constructing carbon neutral power plants such as nuclear power plants– right now!

    Marcel F. Williams

  8. Newly appointed Moniz made energy related comments today.

    Renewables, wind, solar .. and the forgotten renewables – small hydro and geo thermal.

    Nuclear ? Nope.

    gas gas gas good while its cheap.

  9. Great video. Just the right length and perfect opener to the important discussion of how to solve climate change. Just be sure to have nuclear energy on the same agenda.

  10. Great video. The fee/dividend idea is promoted by Jim Hansen, too.

    US sacrificial taxing of energy won’t help the global scale issue; we’re a small part of the problem, which is getting rapidly bigger as the developing nations seek electric power and prosperity. Coal plant capacity worldwide is set to DOUBLE. The European emissions trading scheme is in shambles — too many technicalities and exceptions and favors and politics. Global carbon taxes are not possible. What is possible is advanced nuclear power delivering energy cheaper than coal plants, catering to the economic pangs of 250 nations’ leaders. Economics trumps politics! Read Fareed Zacharia’s analysis of the effect global trade has had on the way the world works. Nations will buy nuclear power when it’s cheaper than coal power. I’m a constant promoter of the thorium molten salt reactor because of its low cost potential, but do note that China claims AP1000 construction costs of less than $2/watt — that’s cheaper than coal.

    1. What is possible is advanced nuclear power delivering energy cheaper than coal plants, catering to the economic pangs of 250 nations’ leaders.

      Sadly, those will take some time to arrive.  We’ve dithered too long to begin rolling them out when they are needed, which was fifteen years ago.

      Global carbon taxes are not possible.

      True, but trade regimes which punish high emitters and make their exports uneconomical in the world’s biggest economies are quite feasible.  The EU has ROHS regulations which effectively eliminate e.g. lead in electronics, so it would not be a big stretch to tax imports (goods AND services) based on embodied carbon.  The problelm isn’t doing it, it’s getting the political will to allow it.

  11. With respect, Engineer Poet, no taxes. Fine the emitters of pollution for the emission. A tax means that if they pay, then they can continue to do the activity and pass the cost along to the consumer. And a continuous, never ending tax only enriches already power-lustful politicians. A fine is a punishment that they cannot pass along to the consumer, and since the fine ends when behavior is rectified, the politicians don’t get continuous income. Sadly, this isn’t just semantics. Words mean everything. Keep the corporate money junkies and the political power junkies on a tight leash.

    Also, since the consumer is now dependent on fossil for autos and everything else, they have been made addicted in the same way a dope dealer gets his dependent heroin addict addicted. Don’t fine or tax the already over burdened consumer. Detox him from the addiction and have a plan to migrate to a carbon-free energy system, say hydrogen from nuclear or Graham Cowen’s boron idea. You don’t punish the heroin addict; you rehab him. Same with the consumer; don’t punish him with a tax. Rehab him with a different life style and energy alternatives.

    PS, if I offended anyone with that analogy, then my apologies.

    1. @Paul Primavera

      You don’t punish the heroin addict; you rehab him. Same with the consumer; don’t punish him with a tax. Rehab him with a different life style and energy alternatives.

      High taxes were an effective part of the long term anti smoking campaign that has made huge strides in our lifetime. We have come a long way in the US from the days when cigarettes were consumed in offices, at meetings and in restaurants without any concerns for the passive recipients of the noxious output.

      People who consume energy have to be exposed to the costs – otherwise they will not push suppliers to make changes that may have short term costs.

      1. I didn’t think of that, Rod. You have a point. Addicts have to reach a bottom before they become willing to change. I suppose that’s true whether the addiction is a physical one to heroin or cocaine, or an economic one to petroleum and gas.

        🙁

      2. High taxes were an effective part of the long term anti smoking campaign that has made huge strides in our lifetime.

        Rod – I strongly disagree. While I agree that we have come a long way, it’s not as a result of high taxes.

        How many ex-smokers do you know who have claimed they gave up smoking because of the price? Personally, I don’t know any. Everyone I have talked to has cited health concerns or social pressure for finally managing to kick the habit.

        The progress made in reducing smoking has come from stigmatizing the habit and from banning it in almost all public locations: at work, in parks, even in almost all bars now. It is primarily the result of a successful public health campaign, and as the number of smokers declined due to increased recognition of the adverse health effects, the rules and legislation to ban smoking in certain locations followed.

        The high taxes, on the other hand, have accomplished three things:

        First, they have reduced the tax burden for non-smokers, since a substantial amount of revenue comes from those “awful” smokers.

        Next, they have imposed a financial burden on smokers, who (if you follow the statistics) tend to be in the lowest socioeconomic classes of society and therefore are most vulnerable to such a burden. (That is, it’s a very regressive tax.)

        Finally, they have made the government a “partner in crime” with the tobacco companies when it comes to selling cigarettes. This means that it is almost impossible that tobacco would ever be declared illegal and banned outright.

        The best way to ensure that something is never phased out is to tax it.

        1. Gee whiz! Now I don’t know what to think. Brian Mays is equally correct. If the govt gets more tax revenue, then what it taxes will never go away if only to maintain the revenue. And as an ex-smoker, I was never deterred by the price of tobacco or the stigma. Rather, my physician put the fear of God into me when he said I wouldn’t make it another five years (if I were lucky) and that motivated me. Neither monetary cost nor the social stigma were de-motivating enough. But real gut-busting consequences were a most salutary motivation, and that’s what’ll it’ll take for the American people to get motivated. But sadly I am a pessimist. 🙁

        2. Brian Mays wrote: “How many ex-smokers do you know who have claimed they gave up smoking because of the price? Personally, I don’t know any.”

          Polling your personal acquaintances isn’t the most informative of scientific methodologies. This is pretty obvious to most of us.

          But don’t take my word for it. There are many other ways to answer this question. Why not just ask the tobacco companies what they think about pricing and markets, and impacts of new taxes on smoking reduction (particularly in new markets, and on young folks just getting started).

          http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i62.full

          1. Why not just ask the tobacco companies what they think about pricing and markets, and impacts of new taxes on smoking reduction (particularly in new markets, and on young folks just getting started).

            EL – Yes. This is exactly my point. I’m not arguing against microeconomics — that consumption changes with price — rather, I am comparing the relative merits of all influencing factors.

            As the article that you linked to explains, the cigarettes are an inelastic product for the adult market. That is, the effect of price on consumption is relatively small, with the price elasticity of demand ranging from about -0.4 to -0.8.

            (Note that the elasticity of cigarettes for teenagers and young adults is much higher, and I do not doubt this.)

            So hiking up the price through a tax will have an effect and will eat into tobacco company profits, but given the inelasticity of demand, it will not have the dramatic effects that Rod describes. Furthermore, as the paper points out, tobacco companies were able to compensate for the increases in price through market strategies (discount brands, marketing campaigns, etc.).

          2. Brian Mays wrote: “As the article that you linked to explains, the cigarettes are an inelastic product for the adult market. That is, the effect of price on consumption is relatively small, with the price elasticity of demand ranging from about -0.4 to -0.8.”

            This doesn’t make sense, primarily because it suggest the opposite. The article confirms the relationship between the elasticity of price and demand (“the downward sloping demand curve”). In high income countries, a 1% increase in price results in −0.25 to −0.50 reduction in demand. This means a 10% increase results in a 2.5% – 5% reduction. Not sure where you get your numbers in study, but this would seem to suggest a larger effect in adult market than national average in high income countries: 4 – 8% reduction with 10% price increase. Youth … even greater: “a number of recent studies conclude that youth smoking is relatively more sensitive to price than adult smoking, with some estimates implying that teen smoking is up to three times more sensitive to price than adult smoking.” This puts it at 12% – 24% reduction for 10% increase using your numbers (notable because many smokers are recruited at a young age).

            And yes, tobacco companies responded to this compelling and overwhelming research by turning to anticompetitive practices: free cigarettes for soldiers, “fighting brands” (offered below manufacturing costs), coupons, multi-pack discounts, etc. These have slowed the rates of decline in smokers due to lower price point (with low price brands capturing 40% of the market in the 1990s), but not reversed it. This confirms the price elasticity for cigarettes (rather than disconfirms it). Does it not?

            What exactly do you propose as an alternative. Low price cigarettes for all (and zero revenues from taxes for anti-smoking and public education campaigns). You say public health campaigns and shaming smokers have has more of an impact than anything else. Well, where do you think the revenue comes from for these public interest campaigns (tobacco companies out of the goodness of their own hearts)? No. Consumption taxes, and a higher price placed on the product itself which is being controlled (and has externalized costs that need to be better managed and minimized).

          3. Not sure where you get your numbers in study, …

            EL – I just made an informal estimate based on various numbers cited in the article that you linked to. I tried to focus on the larger values that were reported to avoid appearing like I was trying to cherry-pick the lowest to help my position.

            Any price elasticity that is greater than -1.0 is considered to be relatively inelastic, and the closer to zero it is, the more inelastic it is. To put this in perspective, I’ve seen figures that the price elasticity for wine in the US is about -1.0, and liquor is even more elastic with a value of -1.5.

            This confirms the price elasticity for cigarettes (rather than disconfirms it). Does it not?

            I would say that it confirms that cigarettes conform to the Law of Demand, which I have never denied. Very few goods do not.

            You say public health campaigns and shaming smokers have has more of an impact than anything else. Well, where do you think the revenue comes from for these public interest campaigns (tobacco companies out of the goodness of their own hearts)?

            Funny, I thought that the tobacco companies were forced to pay for them because of lawsuits and their settlements. Do you really think that the revenue from cigarette taxes is being used to fund public health campaigns?! Perhaps a tiny bit is, but the vast majority of these taxes go to general revenue. That is, they help to keep your property, sales, and income taxes down.

            I’m not proposing any alternatives. As I mentioned above, the public health campaigns and the change in public perception of smoking have already been quite effective. My point is that cigarette taxes have been only a marginal factor in the changes in smoking habits that have occurred over the past couple of decades, yet for all their limited impact on public health, they have been a highly regressive form of taxation.

            All of this calls into question the value of such taxes when it comes to the overall public good.

          4. Do you really think that the revenue from cigarette taxes is being used to fund public health campaigns?!

            Not well enough. States have complete discretion over tobacco settlement dollars and tobacco taxes. CDC recommends they spend 15% ($3.7 billion) on tobacco prevention programs. Many plug budget holes with this money (especially since 2008), and only 2 States (Alaska and North Dakota) maintain spending up to CDC recommended levels.

            Sounds like a pretty good argument for limiting State discretion over these funds, at least the portion that could be effectively spent on smoking prevention.

            I’m not proposing any alternatives.

            Merely a critic. I see … I find that disappointing.

        3. @ Brian,

          You are exactly right on this. I deeply fear the type of expense that Rod is proposing. It is as anti poor as possible. Simply moving regulations on Nuclear to a reasonable level – i.e. the same level as other energy sources have, will lower the cost of nuclear so that it WILL become cheaper than coal and everything else.

          With the Tesla motors model S going a very real 300 miles on a charge – Nuclear power plus electric cars CAN replace nearly all our fossil fuel use. No need to “pay for carbon.” Frankly, Rod, this will raise the cost of power to the level that most will starve as the price of food parallels the price of fuel.

          1. @David

            You’ve ignored the other half of the plan. Everyone gets an equal dividend – exactly the same share per person, since we have an equal share of ownership of the atmosphere that is being used as the dumping ground.

            I’ve had a few years of low income. I used a LOT less carbon based fuels than I did in prosperous years. I’d bet that nearly every poor person would receive a higher dividend than their additional costs.

            No poor person is going to benefit from an emission free Tesla.

          2. No poor person is going to benefit from an emission free Tesla.

            If their neighbor uses one they’ll benefit from lower noise and pollution, and everyone gets marginally lower fuel prices.  EVs do generate some public goods too.

          3. If their neighbor uses one they’ll benefit from lower noise and pollution …

            Yes, because we all know that so many Tesla owners live next to housing projects, trailer parks, and low-income housing. /sarcasm

          4. Yes, because we all know that so many Tesla owners live next to housing projects, trailer parks, and low-income housing. /sarcasm

            You could have said the same about Priuses ten years ago.  Today, used ones are within financial reach of just about anybody.

            The Volt, the various Ford Energi models, and even the Tesla will eventually be “used cars”.

            1. @Engineer-Poet

              Do you really believe that a ten-year old Prius is an appropriate purchase for a struggling family? What happens when the battery needs to be replaced?

              The below linked attempt to gloss over the impact of the sticker shock still leaves me thinking about the impact on a tight budget of what looks to be a bare minimum of $3,000 for a new battery IF the original can be recycled.

              http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/a-primer-on-replacing-the-prius-pack

          5. You could have said the same about Priuses ten years ago.

            Yes, I know what you mean, because I see so many Priuses parked next to the trailers in the trailer parks that I pass on my way to work. I was wondering where all of these Priuses had come from. Thanks for explaining it to me. /sarcasm

          6. The Volt, the various Ford Energi models, and even the Tesla will eventually be “used cars”.

            The batteries in the Tesla Roadster apparently last only 7 years and cost over $35,000 to replace.

            Yeah, sure … they’ll be used cars that are purchased by the mere wealthy, instead of the very wealthy. However, I don’t expect to see any in trailer parks anytime soon.

          7. Do you really believe that a ten-year old Prius is an appropriate purchase for a struggling family?

            Do you really believe that an SUV is an appropriate purchase for a struggling family when gas may be headed north of $6/gallon?  Even today, an older SUV can cost upwards of 25¢/mile for fuel alone.

            What happens when the battery needs to be replaced?

            So far there has been a steady supply of used batteries from wrecked vehicles; you can find them on eBay, usually for a lot less than the price people like to quote.  In the future, I suspect that the NiMH chemistry will fall by the wayside and modern Li-ion cells will be substituted.  The current Prius fleet uses only a few hundred watt-hours of its total battery capacity, so it shouldn’t be hard to accomodate the voltage range capabilities of the Prius electronics.  Reprogramming the charge controller would handle the rest.  The replacement battery will probably be smaller, lighter and much more powerful than the original.

            The batteries in the Tesla Roadster apparently last only 7 years and cost over $35,000 to replace.

            The Tesla uses thousands of 18650 cells, making it somewhat of a special case.  However, its high power and long range mean that there’s plenty of room to cut the pack size to accomodate newer, less-expensive cell formats.  Ten years from now I expect today’s Teslas to be cars for collectors and shade-tree mechanics, because there are no emissions systems to worry about.  If the rebuilders only get 150 miles of range, does it matter if they only paid $1000 for the car because it didn’t run?  Adding to an initial $3000 battery over time as fuel savings mount up might be a plan for self-financing.

            I don’t expect to see any in trailer parks anytime soon.

            You’ll be seeing hybrids in trailer parks soon enough.  The Ford Escape hybrid should be just about there, albeit in proportion to the number manufacturered.

          8. Rod Adams wrote: “Do you really believe that a ten-year old Prius is an appropriate purchase for a struggling family?”

            On what basis is it not a good purchase? Initial vehicle purchase cost is high, but ownership cost is low. Even more so for plug-in model.

            http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub23365.pdf

            “The figure on the following page summarizes the total ownership cost of 150,000 miles driven for each vehicle type in their respective geographic regions. In both regions, PHEV-30s are more cost effective over the vehicle lifetime by several thousands of dollars compared to ICEs, which translates to an 8%-10% reduction in overall net ownership cost over 10 years. Because of California’s high electricity costs and state sales tax, PHEV-30s are slightly more expensive to own than HEVs in this region; however, they certainly appear to be cost competitive. In the ECAR region, lower electricity costs and state sales taxes result in the PHEV-30s being the most cost-effective of all vehicles investigated.”

            1. @EL

              Figures that summarize total cost of ownership for 150,000 miles generally do not include a battery replacement.

              Your link talks about costs of ownership for the first ten years; my comment was about the second ten years of car life.

              If a struggling family purchases a 10 year old Prius and the battery has not yet been replaced, they are essentially committing to a near future balloon payment on the order of $5,000 – or more. Of course, some will say they can just order a used battery off of E-Bay, but I’d bet that most of them do not have a computer at home or the skills to perform the high voltage work required to perform the battery replacement.

              No battery lasts forever; all have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles. Stories from EV promoters about people who have achieved several hundred thousand miles on their EV batteries are bit like stories from stockbrokers about people who have made large amounts of money in the stock market; you hear a lot about successes and very little about failures.

          9. @Engineer-Poet : All in one, when you can afford the lower density, NiMH chemistry is probably better than Li-ion since it ages less.

          10. NiMH chemistry is probably better than Li-ion since it ages less.

            I was thinking what would be available at reasonable cost if the original battery did fail.  The LiFePO4 cells used in some power tools (and the Killacycle) would have the power-handling capabilities for many tasks.

          11. EL: Because of California’s high electricity costs and state sales tax, PHEV-30s are slightly more expensive to own than HEVs in this region; however, they certainly appear to be cost competitive.

            Thanks to California’s absurdly high gas tax.

          12. Thanks to California’s absurdly high gas tax.

            California taxes are low compared to average G20 fuel taxes.

          13. California taxes are low compared to average G20 fuel taxes.

            So is California’s price for electricity compared to the G20 average.

          14. Your link talks about costs of ownership for the first ten years; my comment was about the second ten years of car life.

            Only 38.3% of cars on the road are older than 10 years in the US (and dropping). 34% in the EU.

            Given the rapid pace of development and dropping costs of a PHEV, I would think it would be more cost effective to upgrade your car to a newer model after 10 years (and get the benefit of lower cost and higher performance on a new model), rather than replace the battery for a nominal charge. Their target audience appears to be folks who want the performance and low operating cost of an EV, and at the same or lower ownership cost of an ICE (over a 10 year time frame). That’s a solid bet at this point in time. In the future, with projected future cost declines (including new battery chemistries and longer range), these cars may very well compete in every market sector.

            1. @EL

              I think you have lost track of the conversation here. We are talking about people who struggle to make ends meet. They generally have to drive older cars; a ten year old vehicle is often an upgrade for them.

              Besides, how is it environmentally sound to continue the practice of only operating automobiles for about ten years before junking them?

          15. @ Rod,

            Wow, I did not expect the comment about Electric Cars to take on such a life.

            First, on Electric Cars. I understand that they currently are an expensive government backed / subsidized toy (for the most part). I totally disagree with the subsidies. I mentioned Tesla because their original business plan was without subsidies, and will still work without subsidies. I also mentioned Tesla because they are making a real car that fits the target market. LI batteries have a 6 year life. The replacements are thousands of dollars. EV’s are not yet for poor people. My point is that the path toward eventually having ICE cars replaced by Electric vehicles is plausible in the next 15 to 20 years. Over the next two decades the use of Nuclear power plus EV’s will replace most of the need for Fossil fuels.

            Secondly, the Fee / Dividend model is “ideal” but effectively will devolve (if implemented) into a huge tax. Flowing that much money through the government will become a permanent flow. The end point – will constantly move and the dividends flowing to the public will gradually decline – and flow into general revenue. In other words, it will NOT mitigate CO2. This is the current experience of Europe. The excessive carbon taxes are not really reducing the CO2.

            Nuclear is the way to reduce CO2. Our focus should not be on financial manipulations but on building as much Nuclear as possible. We need the outrage management that Peter Sandman recommends and to introduce products that are cheaper than coal.

          16. I think you have lost track of the conversation here. We are talking about people who struggle to make ends meet. They generally have to drive older cars; a ten year old vehicle is often an upgrade for them.

            @Rod. There’s no single vehicle market. If you think that the only way to sell affordable cars is to market fossil fuels, I think you are entirely incorrect. I don’t think there is much of a debate about that. Should everyone buy a Tesla, definitely no. But your initial comment was about a “struggling family,” and your understanding of this market appears to be rather minimal and narrow. Perhaps they are looking for a very low cost and practical commuting car. Perhaps they just moved to from the city to the suburbs (where a car is a practical necessity, but not a 10 year old gas guzzler). And my understanding, new families usually have changing needs as their families grow, and desire the most current and updated safety features (making a 10 year old plus model unappealing). In addition, showing up at your son’s baseball game in a 10 year old beater, and piling in all his friends for ice cream after the game, is likely to get a little old after a while (just sayin’). It doesn’t show a lot of initiative, or very good social acumen or thoughtfulness.

            If a “struggling family” is discouraged by a car with a 10 year warranty on a battery, they shouldn’t buy one. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a market for this car, and that it isn’t an expanding one. And it also doesn’t mean that future market in 10 years (with lower costs, new battery chemistries, better safety, and better performance) won’t capture this market and appeal to this consumer better. Maybe you haven’t run the numbers or made a new vehicle purchase in a while to know what is out there. It sounds to me like your style of driving, like your style in electricity consumption (burn up power, lots of it, and often) doesn’t suit this style of ownership. It definitely doesn’t suit your personal style of cost savings. I’m not sure why you are trying to sound like a fossil fuel salesperson, but you are doing a pretty darn good job (and are also sounding pretty out of touch with some contemporary consumer tastes, which have been very well described in some of the comments in this thread).

            1. @EL

              This thread is getting confused and rather tiresome. Here is my last contribution; perhaps someday soon I will write a post that focuses on electric cars to start a new discussion.

              Brian and I have been pushing back against the notion that plug-in hybrids and all electric automobiles are good investments for taxpayers to subsidize. Even with the generous subsidies from funds that are collected from ALL taxpayers – euphemistically called “tax credits” – the vehicles are priced to appeal to middle to upper income people. A rock bottom Prius has an MSRP of $24K, the lowest priced Tesla clocks in at > $75K.

              They expensively store electric energy in a sophisticated battery that has a finite life, so the cost of each kilowatt hour supplied to the wheels can be amortized over the life of the battery.

              I have no problem with people working to improve electric cars and I think it is wonderful that the manufacturers have produced vehicles that appeal to a certain kind of customer. I just wish they would do so without asking me to gift someone who makes a lot more money than the factory workers I used to manage with up to $7,500 in taxpayer money so that the car seems a little less unaffordable.

              If Prius purchasers want to make a statement or honestly believe they are doing their part to make the world a better place, why can’t they pay the full cost? I think most would buy anyway; the subsidies are misdirected because they generously reward someone for an action they were going to take even without the subsidy.

              BTW – I drive a turbo diesel injected five passenger sedan with a large trunk that gets about the same fuel economy as a Prius – roughly 40-50 miles per gallon. My well-equipped version cost about the same as a stripped Prius, but it does not need any subsidy. I have personally driven an earlier model of the same vehicle more than 200,000 miles with no major repairs. I expect my current car will last me for at least 200,000 miles.

          17. Rod Adams wrote: “My well-equipped version cost about the same as a stripped Prius, but it does not need any subsidy.”

            Sure you do. Your subsidy comes in fossil fuel development (and long standing taxpayer support and incentives for US auto industry and manufacturing, transportation infrastructure, and more).

            Leases for EVs are already some of the lowest for any car. I guess you don’t think electricity is a viable replacement for fossil fuels, and needs no subsidies for technology development, business development, and market support to compete with other technologies that already have 50 – 100 years of subsidy support and national industrial/manufacturing/transportation policy behind them.

            1. @EL

              I suppose some would call my position inconsistent, but I prefer general research and development support and government regulatory encouragement to targeted subsidies that go directly into the pockets of above average income people to encourage them to perform an act that they would have probably done anyway. I do not like tax credits for solar panels any more than I like tax credits for luxury vehicles.

              I am a big supporter of electric transportation systems like the railroads in France and the Northeast US. I think we should be rebuilding city trolley systems, perhaps using some of the dual propulsion buses that are used in cities like Boston. I’ve been working with a few people who think they might have a way to provide power to vehicles using induction transmission and powered roadways.

              Batteries will work for limited uses, but there are many reasons why battery chemistry is fundamentally more limiting than fossil fuel combustion in terms of energy storage and being able to safely propel an unwired vehicle for many miles.

              One more feature of my turbo diesel injected car that I find extremely useful is its 650 mile single tank range. It allows me to stop at rest stops twice as often as at gas stations when I am on the open road; I find them to be far more comforting places to rest during a trip.

          18. I am a big supporter of electric transportation systems like the railroads in France and the Northeast US. I think we should be rebuilding city trolley systems …

            Sounds terrific to me … we should be moving quickly (as they have done elsewhere) to high speed rail connecting urban centers and mass transportation connecting neighborhoods where people live, work, shop, raise families, farm, enjoy parks, sports, and the outdoors (and fully accessible to everyone regardless of means or physical ability). For much of everything else light duty … a battery should be perfectly fine (300 – 500 mile range), and access to a plug in a garage, parking spot in town or rest stop (since you are so fond of them), or rapid charge filling station. For those who think power plugs will never outnumber filling stations, there are always fully functioning hybrids. All that leaves is the waning fossil fuel industry (and all of the subsidies and support that you seem so willing to throw away as costs and profits continue to rise each year and put the squeeze on new car buyers and struggling families who are currently giving up their cars and going without).

            I know you don’t want to continue topic, but these issues seem on the cusp of breaking through (and are worth discussing). A recent article in Marketplace couldn’t be more clear:

            “Last year, Ulrich Winzen, an analyst with R.L. Polk& Co., released a 25-year forecast of the automotive industry that projected 50% global market share for battery-electric vehicles” …

            “Gasoline engines in cars aren’t going away, but they are going to get smaller. As they do, hybrid and plug-in hybrid componentry — batteries, power electronics, traction motors, plugs, onboard charge inverters and thermal plumbing required to keep everything happy — will gradually be integrated into light-vehicle powertrains to backfill the horsepower gap” …

            “To say so hardly qualifies as advocacy. Ask any engineering executive at any car company: in order to meet new and ambitious fuel-economy standards in the global markets—including a U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 54.5 mpg by 2025 — cars and trucks of the near future will have to exploit the advantages of electric drive (low rpm torque, low-speed efficiency, regenerative braking) in urban driving, while reserving the gasoline-fired engine for times of peak load and sustained demand” …

            “Face it. You’re going to have to stop worrying and learn to love the battery” …

            If the auto industry (conservative as it is) understands this, and is actively working on transformation and re-invention. Why can’t power suppliers and resource developers as well? Such obstinacy seems really strange and unusual to me (like two ships passing in the night).

            1. @EL

              Sounds terrific to me … we should be moving quickly (as they have done elsewhere) to high speed rail connecting urban centers and mass transportation connecting neighborhoods where people live, work, shop, raise families, farm, enjoy parks, sports, and the outdoors (and fully accessible to everyone regardless of means or physical ability).

              I would replace “high speed” with “electric”, but otherwise I agree with you. The important characteristic that people miss when thinking about railroads is convenience. They need to be designed so that departures and arrivals can be frequent – which implies short trains that more closely resemble those used in subway systems than in the traditional large locomotives and long row of cars used for systems like Amtrack.

              There is not all that much advantage to working hard to make very high speed land transportation technically possible 100 MPH should be sufficient as long as the stops are few and far between. If trains are short, intermediate stops can often be skipped most of the time.

          19. I drive a turbo diesel injected five passenger sedan with a large trunk that gets about the same fuel economy as a Prius – roughly 40-50 miles per gallon.

            Yeah, the Jetta TDI is a great car.  I would have had one if VW had properly matched the torque converter to the engine in the ’04 models, or they’d shipped manuals to the US.  They got it right in the Passat.

            One more feature of my turbo diesel injected car that I find extremely useful is its 650 mile single tank range.

            The best I ever got was around 780 miles.  My Fusion Energi will get about 400 miles at 70 MPH, or over 600 miles at 50 MPH.  My lifetime average so far is over 95 MPG.  I find that the biggest demand for liquid fuel on local trips comes when heat or defrost is required, and I suspect that an electric engine preheat could cut that substantially.

            If I don’t take any long trips, I’ll get over 1000 miles on the current tank of fuel.

          20. I’m pushing 800 miles since my last fill up and the gas gauge is now reading about half.

          21. With more hybrids on the road … sales taxes from gas are sharply down, and new revenues are needed to maintain stable levels of highway and bridge maintenance.

            State and local gas-tax revenue has declined every year since 2004, falling 7 percent to $37.9 billion in 2010, according to inflation-adjusted data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington-based nonpartisan research group.

            U.S. sales of electric and hybrid cars soared to 443,985 last year from just 22,407 in 2002, according to WardsAuto in Southfield, Michigan, which tracks industry performance. Electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid auto sales jumped almost 60 percent in 2012 from the preceding year, representing 3.3 percent of the 14.4 million cars sold, the data showed.

            One of the many signs that change is coming rapidly and shifting tend lines in consumer habits, taste, policy and cost savings, environmental impacts, and infrastructural dollars and development. Electricity is an environmental, competitive, sustainable, affordable, and national security game changer, and we’ve known this for a while now (although it seems a number of people here still need some convincing). Fear of the battery, like radiophobia, might have a bit more in common then we once thought. They are both based on illogical reasoning, and a mis-informed public.

    2. I am running the majority of my road mileage on electricity now.  Most of my electricity comes from fossil fuels, but roughly 30% of it is nuclear and the rest of it could be also.  Consider me de-addicted.

      1. It’s too bad that there isn’t a “like” icon next to comments at Word Press and Goggle blog sites as there is at Facebook. Otherwise, I would check “like” next to Engineer Poet’s comment.

        As for me, while recovery from a certain former set of physical addictions has been successful one day at a time, sadly I remain addicted to the latter set of economic addictions.

        🙁

  12. Good Robert and Paul. You both make valid comments. I keep thinking of the barriers to change all of the time. But I do realize that the system we live in is weaved together quite devilishly. The paths to a solution are at numerous levels. Recognizing where to begin is a large part of winning the battle. I have my own pet peeves such as the numerous interest groups that interfere in the name of their cause. Their religion is their cause. We are witnessing the need people have for following a cause. I think addictive behavior is a good analogy. Have you ever wondered why zombie movies and vampires are so popular. People are fascinated with seeing creatures powerless to control their emotions and desires. Why? Because we have become hypnotized and desensitized by the world around us and express our emotions less and less. That affects us at many levels including our ability to be spontaneous or creative. The result is that our need for ritual and desire for meaning and purpose materializes in interest groups like anti-nuclear or anti GMO organizations to name just a couple.
    What can we do about it? The same way a mature parent does. Reward the good behavior and do not over react to negative behavior. That is called negative reinforcement. That’s when we need to be cool. The most useful way to use your energy is by becoming literate and vocal but also opportunistic. That includes sharing knowledge when appropriate and promoting those who speak well for the same cause. It has become an often used cliche but I agree that we need to think globally but act locally. It is only logical that we can make the most difference in our own backyards. So besides being literate about nuclear and energy as books like Robert Hargraves “Thorium. Energy cheaper than coal” prepares us for we need to be somewhat analytical and recognize when and where to focus our energy.

  13. Rod – thanks as always for the post. If you track the video to its source, climaterealityproject.org, you’ll find that it’s the current incarnation of Al Gore. My impression of the site – with a ‘Climate Reality Leadership Corps’ that has to be trained by Gore himself – is that it’s setting out to be as ‘religious’ as any of the Green organizations. From the About page:

    The Climate Reality Project, founded and chaired by former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, is dedicated to unleashing a global cultural movement demanding action on the climate crisis. Despite overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change, the global community still lacks the resolve to implement meaningful solutions. The Climate Reality Project exists to forge an unwavering bedrock of impassioned support necessary for urgent action. With that foundation, together we will ignite the moral courage in our leaders to solve the climate crisis.

    The Climate Reality Project employs cutting-edge communications and grassroots engagement tools to break the dam of inaction and raise the profile of the climate crisis to its proper state of urgency. With a global movement more than 2 million strong and a grassroots network of Climate Leaders trained by Chairman Al Gore, we stand up to denial, press for solutions, and spread the truth about climate change to empower our leaders to solve the climate crisis.

    The ‘Take the Pledge’ video ( climaterealityproject.org/video/the-climate-reality-pledge-2/ ) shows the energy options the group endorses at the 45 second mark. There are no bonus points for naming the three ‘clean technology’ options shown there. Yep, it’s the usual suspects – wind, solar, geothermal. Comments are disabled on the videos, but there is a ‘contact us’ form for questions etcetera. I haven’t tried it yet – it seems like a long shot.

    Rod – is there any way you could get Al Gore on an Atomic Show podcast, possibly with Gwyneth Cravens, Ben Heard, and other environmentalists who came to endorse nuclear?

    The ‘Price of Carbon’ also sets up a David and Goliath battle against the ‘evil industrial capitalists’ who have forced nasty carbon polluting energy on the ‘pure and innocent’ ordinary folks. Conveniently forgetting that we’ve all embraced what fuels do for us. I don’t expect any real change to come out of ClimateRealityProject.org. The Greens at least have succeeded in getting more coal burned. (/sarc)

    Another video worth checking out is 400 Parts in a Million: The World’s Biggest Experiment ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikGLNs3nYlc ) from MinuteEarth. I showed both videos to friends last night, and they definitely started a good discussion.

  14. I have a question. Germany is going into country wide election this September 22.

    I think nuclear power will be part of the debate and who knows, another 180 degree switch is possible. It has happened twice before.

    Here is the question :

    Have the 8 shut down reactors been turned off ‘gently’ so that they could be restarted eventually or have they been ‘neutered’ forever?

    1. I’ve got the impression here in Nuclear power Daily that they’ve been turned off gently.
      Here’s the quote that gives me that idea: “–sometimes Schneiders and his colleagues even have to rev up a shuttered nuclear reactor again for short stretches.”

      I didn’t even knew it was possible. Question to the ones who know here: is it possible, or is this a misinterpretation in the article and does the grid operator just take a bit more from an active nuke?

      The article itself is about the challlenges the grid operators face in a grid with lots of renewables in it.

      1. These babies are coming back.

        The IAE is criticizing Germany for having households foot up the bill for their crazy energy strategy.

        It is failing. Japan is firing its nukes back. The UK is going long on nukes. 2 Belgium reactors have been fixed and repaired after many months of closure and will start very soon.

        What is it going to take for the Germans to do another 180. They have done it before.

        1. I expected it more from Japan. They took longer than I’d thought.

          Germany back on track with nuclear, I think it will take more time. I’ve got the feeling that people are still too happy about their ‘green’ way and keep the economical and ecological drawbacks carefully out of their vield of vision. I’d be very surprised (but elated) if the coming elections are going to give us that U-turn.

          But I do hope that someone will answer my question about revving up a shuttered nuke for short periods. I would think that Nuclear power Daily knows what it talks about, but it goes against everything I thought to know.

      2. The article itself is about the challlenges the grid operators face in a grid with lots of renewables in it.

        Germany has several long standing grid bottlenecks (separating the south from the north), and most of the nuclear plants were located in the south close to large demand centers. So yes, the switch to large scale distributed generation does come with some headaches. They have a 10 year grid expansion plan to deal with it. And they also have one of the most reliable grids in the world.

        Not yet two years into the plan for phasing out nuclear, I hardly think they are teetering on the brink of political upheaval, ratepayer revolt (93% support expansion of renewables in 2012), or apocalyptic doom or end times (at least as far as grid reliability or industrial or retail consumers are concerned). Merkel looks like she’s going to get re-elected. Let’s see where they are at the end of her third term.

        Japan is firing it’s nukes back.

        Two plants in Japan. by the Fall (and widespread public protests), and doesn’t Belgium have a phase-out policy in effect? Areva and UK can’t agree on a price (and projected energy costs 3 – 4 times the wholesale rate).

        1. The German model is too finance the ‘energywende’ through taxation of household electricity use. As the penetration of renewables increases, the costs of transmission and backup-capacity (capacity payments) will all be piled onto the household.

          I did a little estimation of how costly a kWh of electricity would be for households in the Netherlands if we used the ‘energywende’ model. It turns out that household electricity will then become at least 1 €/kWh of electricity. (about 1,3 US$/kWh) This is about a quadrupling from current household electricity prices which are about 20-25 €ct/kWh. Household electricity yearly costs would rise from about $1100 to at least $5000 per household, per year. In Germany, the current trajectory of the ‘energywende’ will – if full decarbonisation is achieved – also lead to at least ~$4000/y of additional costs per household.

          But the German population don’t know this. In fact, they believe that the ‘energywende’ will save them money eventually. They wrongly believe that the current surcharges to cover the costs of the ‘energiewende’ are only a short-term cost, until the ‘energywende is finished’. In reality, it must and will grow, massively. As soon as the German households realize that the cost of the ‘energiewende’ will be paid by them, and by them only, (including the cost of greening non-household energy usage!) then the ‘energiewende’ will go down faster than a passing cloud can knock out the supply from a solar ‘farm’.

          1. Joris van Dorp wrote: “They wrongly believe that the current surcharges to cover the costs of the ‘energiewende’ are only a short-term cost, until the ‘energywende is finished’. In reality, it must and will grow, massively.”

            Did you include German degression framework in your cost estimate? You are aware renewable energy surcharges in Germany decline by as much as 29% per year for some solar projects, and expire after 20 years (selling energy at market rate for remaining lifetime). The digression rate for onshore wind is 1.5% per month (or 7.52 cents/kWh averaged over 20 years).

            http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/fileadmin/ee-import/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/eeg_2012_verguetungsdegression_en_bf.pdf

            For the new EPR at Hinkley Point in UK, costs appear to be coming in around 16.5 cents/kWh (some 219% the cost of onshore wind in Germany).

            I’m not sure I follow your argument for how these surcharges represent some permanent massive cost increase to future ratepayers once equipment is paid for, and EEG goes to zero (or the market rate). Any future costs that will be born by ratepayers in Germany will be the market rate, and the cost of energy on any new capacity (wind, solar, other) added to the grid in 20 years (which is projected to be much lower than it is today).

          2. It’s surprising that since July 2012 you have seen none of the report …

            Indeed … seems I missed some important currency conversions here (and newer updates).

            Average 20 year contract price for wind in Germany: 75.2/MWh (€), 98.1/MWh ($), 64.4/MWh (£).

            Current 40 year EDF negotiating price on Hinkley (May 30, 2013): 110.9/MWh (€), 144.7/MWh ($), 95/MWh (£).

            We’ll see what they decide (since they say talks are going well). I believe the UK is still saying no subsidies, so all of this higher cost is going to be directly paid by the ratepayer (and industrial consumers as well, whereas large industrial consumers have seen a decrease in wholesale electricity rates in Germany).

        2. No, Germany did not have any grid bottlenecks at the time it’s generating units were near consumption.

          The renewables are forcing a large extension of the grid, with a lot more lines, which is strange since we were sold that a big plus of a “decentralized” production was that it would not need the network so much anymore ?

          1. No, Germany did not have any grid bottlenecks at the time it’s generating units were near consumption.

            According to who? A quick look of sources from around 2008 – 2010 (here and Sandia) suggest to me that there is a lot of grid development recommended and overdue (and for a variety of reasons). Rising demand, market liberalization and European cross-border trading (function of market only), improved system security (basically from Norwegian hydro), and new capacity additions planned and built in the North (all new capacity additions require transmission investments). Nuclear phase is clearly a major shift in summer of 2011, and postdates these infrastructure investment outlooks and goals.

          2. Your first link from 2009 : “some sections of the national grid are at already at their limits. Occasionally, wind power plants even have even to be switched off in order to avoid overload.

            Actually in 2005, E.On was already describing most of what is failing with wind power, but during all those years, their almost premonitory report has been conspicuously ignored :
            http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf
            – “[In] windy coastal regions […] the grids have now reached their capacity limits through wind power. As a result, E.ON Netz is currently planning just under 300km of new high and extra-HV overhead lines”

            It also was saying that at large scale wind brings only 4% of garanteed power, and production can be forecast only to a limited degree, requiring short-term use of reserve capacity.

            About the second paper; it’s true that coupling of the prices in north of Europe was one the purpose of the EU policy, requiring therefore to reinforce international exchanges. Economic theory says that such a coupling will lower the average price. It didn’t actually work as well as predicted, see http://www.bruegel.org/nc/blog/detail/article/898-market-coupling-does-not-lower-prices/
            However it’s obvious on epexspot that by now they disconnect quite frequently when there’s too much renewable generation in Germany.

          3. Did you think I was suggesting wind (particularly large offshore plants in the North) would require no new grid expansions? E-On isn’t suggesting this, and neither am I. I’m not sure where you think we disagree?

            Regardless, there is no shortage of documentation of these concerns, and plans underway to address them. Can we agree on that as well .. or do you think that somehow these issues can’t be resolved and that engineering and adequate system design and planning is not up to the task?

            we were sold that a big plus of a “decentralized” production was that it would not need the network so much anymore?

            Do you have a specific quote or link for this (i.e., “anybody” selling distributed generation on the basis of not needing the network so much anymore). Because I’m not aware of anybody saying such a thing (in Germany or anywhere else)? Exactly how would you deliver generation from decentralized locations to demand centers without “needing the network so much anymore” (I don’t think I am understanding your point)? Are you are talking about off grid generation, or micro-grids in remote locations perhaps?

            This sounds like a straw-man, and not a serious critique?

          4. @EL : Here’s Greenpeace report : “DECENTRALISING POWER: AN ENERGY REVOLUTION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY”
            P22 “CENTRALISED GENERATION: WHY IT IS OUTDATED” “However, this system, developed in the 1940s around remotely situated coal mines, relies on a lot of cables and expensive infrastructure (pylons, sub-stations, etc) to transmit and distribute the electricity.”

            P12 : “In Greenpeace’s vision of a DE future … Coal-fired power stations have been closed and their surrounding webs of pylons dismantled, restoring swathes of countryside – though a skeleton grid remains, to enable demand-balancing energy flows between regions mostly selfsufficient in energy from a diverse array of sources”

            Now if this means that Greenpeace is opposed to large scale and offshore wind power and it has no place in it’s future plans, well it’s probably a surprising news for everybody around.

            About the rest of your comment, actually I’ve a problem following precisely what your position is and what you claim is false in the initial statement that renewables have brought a lot of problems in the German grid.

            My position is that indeed initially the German grid worked very well (one of the most stable in the world), and needed few changes, some adaptations to growing demand, and a reinforcement of the international lines to follow the UE request of putting in place a more developed international market, so that generation means could be better optimized between the countries.

            Starting in 2004/2005, already some lines needed to be added because the existing ones were not sufficient anymore. In November 2006, the European wide black-out was quite clearly caused by wind power and TSO’s not having the proper procedures to handle the constraints it meant on the grid. In 2011, the shutdowns of the reactors have made the situation even worth for Bavaria. When before that the upgrade of the grid was required to be able to transfer the electricity of the wind turbines, it became needed to guarantee a proper supply of the state. Today the grid requires constant monitoring, and frequent adjustments, see http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130520-49809.html

            I’m not claiming it can’t be done, I’m saying it’s a lot of expense, the expense becomes constantly larger as the renewable power generation becomes larger, and it’s not included in the claims about the cost of renewable whilst it’s a significant part of it.

            Nobody has made public the calculation of how much that is. Proper estimates are really hard, they would require sifting through all the investments of TSOs, and evaluate precisely what proportion is due to renewable power, which means going through the other explanation. As this is just too hard to do, it’s stays unreported, which effectively makes the cost appear to be zero.

          5. In November 2006, the European wide black-out was quite clearly caused by wind power and TSO’s not having the proper procedures to handle the constraints it meant on the grid.

            @jmdesp

            That’s not true. Here’s the official report on the incident.

            https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/_library/publications/ce/otherreports/Final-Report-20070130.pdf

            It sounds to me like they were careless. They did a routine disconnection of powerline to allow a ship to pass beneath overhead cables, and “E.ON Netz did not undertake proper countermeasures to reduce the flow on this line” (p. 6). Communication was “very late” with other TSOs and “No specific attention was given by E.On Netz to the fact that the protection devices have different settings on both sides of the Landesbergen-Wehrendorf line although this information was critical due to the very high flow on this line” (p. 7). The report lists a number of critical factors, and explicitly states disturbance was “not cause by some extraordinary climactic conditions or technical failures” (p. 8). Countermeasures were successful in avoiding a Europe-wide black-out.

            Today the grid requires constant monitoring, and frequent adjustments, see http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130520-49809.html

            As I have said, a massive transformation of German energy system (including lots of new capacity, international flows, demand growth, nuclear phase out, etc.). And yes this entails upgrades to transmission infrastructure. Are you suggesting they will be able to do this somehow without these upgrades? WNA estimates the cost of this is “2 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity consumers over a 10 year span” (here). And grid investment aren’t the same as cost of energy. The grid benefits everyone who is connected by it, and not a single resource (hence the costs are shared).

    2. I’m not sure what status they are keeping the shutdown reactors in. If in “Cold Shutdown” then they are depressurized and temperature is less than 200 degF, it would take about two to three days to get up to operating temperature and pressure and able to generate electricity. If in “Hot Standby ” then they are at normal temperature and pressure and could be started up in about 6 hours. Since I don’t know about their regulatory system can’t say what the expense of keeping them operational compared to here in the US is.

  15. Tobacco use in the US has declined as a result of the work of class-action lawyers using information initially provided by corporate whistle blowers in combination with the dedication of the well-respected Surgeon General, C. Everett Coop. Through litigation and education, the American People finally understood that Tobacco has sickened and killed millions of people. Imagine what the result might be if mass-tort lawyers used information provided by oil, natural gas and coal insiders to file a class-action lawsuit in behalf of “all breathing people” against the industry? Imagine how effective it would be to have the national spotlight trained on just how detrimental CO2 and all the other pollutants have been on our shared atmosphere? Now imagine if we had a pro-nuke (instead of anything-but-nuke) White House at the same time?

    BTW, Prius batteries typically last the expected lifespan of the car, about 10 years or 300,000 miles. Slightly used batteries recovered from early wrecked Prii are available for about $1500. According to Consumer Reports, a Prius has a lower cost-per-mile than any other passenger vehicle in the US because of high build quality, low insurance costs and lower fuel costs.

    A better plan for personal vehicle travel would be to create a system of universal, interchangable batteries for EV’s that can be traded out in under 5 minutes. Instead of having recharging stations at each residence and/or place of employment, the recharging could be done at a centralized location (similar to the current fuel station system we now have in place) powered off-grid by an SMR, hydro, geothermal, biomass or even an unreliable. Central charging could be done very quickly because the voltage and amperage would not have to conform with the current grid limits. Strategically placed central charging eliminates the current range limitation concerns. Central charging reduces the need for grid upgrades. Central charging stations would potentially create some very good jobs in every community.

    1. Well the interchangeable battery was the model Better Place was trying to put in place, and they just went belly up.
      http://www.timesofisrael.com/better-place-files-for-bankruptcy/
      http://www.betterplace.com/

      Whilst the idea sounds nice, you’d better check in much detail that the financing and business plan is perfectly well prepared. The first big trouble that Better Place met is that the solution only starts to work properly at a large scale, with battery reload stations everywhere and a lot of batteries in those stations, but the financing required to get to that scale is really huge.
      “burned through more than $800 million in five years, but sold barely 2,000 of its electric cars”
      “lost $454 million in 2012 alone, with just $7 million in revenue in 2012 and an operating loss of $386 million”

    2. An additional plus of a system similar to the current fuel stations, is that the oil companies could step into it if it has advantage to them and keep the shop and fast food earnings that might be more lucrative than the fuel itself. Losing the fuel stations would be disruptive to them, and be fought.

      I hope for the day that it makes business sense for them to get into nuclear, at least for transportation or process heat.

      1. Better Place’s loss is Tesla’s gain. The main headline on this story, there’s lots of start up capital out there for a real competitive to fossil fuels. Rather than wait around for the well to run dry, why not get ahead of the game, and create a market where a only few pioneers now exists (and self-financed wealthy one’s at that). Ford understood this well enough.

        1. It looks like the well won’t run dry, at least in the short term. I just think that having the oil companies interested in nuclear would give our favorite source of energy a huge boost. Likelihood of that happening? My crystal ball is very foggy tonight…

          1. The company owned charging stations for the Tesla are solar. They currently have nine of them in California and another corridor connecting Boston to DC. They have plans for 100 of them in US and Canada by 2015 (see map). 30 minutes for a charge equal to 150 miles (8 hours for a home charging system).

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/tesla-pushes-electric-car-viability-with-rapid-charge-expansion.html

            In addition, buy the more expensive Model S with the 85 kWh battery (at $79,900 before rebates), and your charging comes free for the life of the vehicle. Go anywhere on “pure sunshine” says Musk (solar panels come from SolarCity, also a Musk subsidiary). Cost of ownership doesn’t appear that bad either (compared to ICE). If you drive for business, and can charge miles, you might even make a profit.

          2. The company owned charging stations for the Tesla are solar.

            Well, considering that the company has only managed to sell about 12,000 of their cars worldwide (Ford sold over two million vehicles in the US during 2012), I’d say that a toy power source like solar might be able to power toy cars like those sold by Tesla.

            Why is anyone surprised? Tesla cars are a product for people with more dollars than sense.

            In addition, buy the more expensive Model S with the 85 kWh battery (at $79,900 before rebates), and your charging comes free for the life of the vehicle. Go anywhere on “pure sunshine” says Musk (solar panels come from SolarCity, also a Musk subsidiary). Cost of ownership doesn’t appear that bad either (compared to ICE). If you drive for business, and can charge miles, you might even make a profit.

            Sure, why not?! If your willing to rape the taxpayer, why not also rape the shareholder of the company you work for? All’s fair in love and subsidies.

          3. Well, considering that the company has only managed to sell about 12,000 of their cars worldwide (Ford sold over two million vehicles in the US during 2012) …

            So what company has paid off it’s government loans (and at a profit to the taxpayer): Tesla or Ford? You don’t seem to understand much about Tesla. They have their own branded cars and energy infrastructure, but also collaborations with Mercedes, Daimler AG, Toyota, and Freightliner. If you think any of these companies build toys, you’re not offering much to the debate. And if you don’t wish to compete for their energy services, all the better for solar (and anyone else looking to develop new markets and business opportunities).

            If your willing to rape the taxpayer, why not also rape the shareholder of the company you work for? All’s fair in love and subsidies.

            All energy resources get subsidies. Most utilities return a profit to shareholders by selling a product that is attractive and valued in the marketplace. I don’t follow your point.

          4. So what company has paid off it’s government loans …

            That doesn’t affect the number of cars sold. Like all leftist, greenie wingnuts you keep changing the subject.

            I could have chosen Government … er … General Motors (who is no stranger to US government largess) or Toyota or Hundai or any number of companies that have sold more cars in the US than Tesla.

            So a company that sells a few cars to a few rich, idiot a-holes has a bunch of charging stations. So what? Who cares?

            We might as well be talking about how well yachts are serviced at various yacht clubs. I’m sure that companies that sell yachts pay off their loans too.

            I’m sorry that I get a little upset if I have to pay for somebody else’s yacht or fashionable “green” car that is purchased only by rich people.

          5. I’m sorry that I get a little upset if I have to pay for somebody else’s yacht or fashionable “green” car that is purchased only by rich people.

            So the people driving Freightliners and this spectacularly boutique luxury from Toyota (Rav4 EV) all have chauffeur’s and expense accounts at Tiffanys? Sometimes it’s impossible to follow you (especially when your anger and ideological and anti-capitalist bigotry get in the way).

          6. Sometimes it’s impossible to follow you (especially when your anger and ideological and anti-capitalist bigotry get in the way).

            Of course it’s impossible for you; you’re too busy changing the subject to follow anything. I suppose that I have to remind you that you were talking about charging stations for luxury electric cars.

          7. I suppose that I have to remind you that you were talking about charging stations for luxury electric cars.

            @Brian Mays. The conversation is here (and you are free to join it anytime you want). We’re talking about Tesla’s EV business, and the changing marketplace for electricity.

            If you want to spout off about your animus towards rich people, you are free to do so. But it’s not adding much to the discussion about Tesla, or how EVs could change the marketplace for cars, or power generation business in general (for that matter).

            Tesla makes a luxury model roadster (with a very low ownership cost). Many car companies make luxury models (including Ford, who you mentioned earlier). They are also looking to develop a diversified power train and battery charging and component business, and have partnerships with other companies on EVs with a lower initial purchase price (or applications in business). I hope this helps you understand what we are talking about. If you wish to have a conversation where the terms and relevance is only familiar to yourself … I suggest you start a daily diary or journal.

          8. Tesla makes a luxury model roadster (with a very low ownership cost).

            EL – Huh? Very low? Compared to what?!

            Tesla makes a car that it claims will need a new battery about every seven years, which will cost over $35,000 to replace. That averages out to over $5000 a year, before the owner has payed for any electricity to run the car (or custom maintenance, etc.).

            On the other hand, the average American purchases about 550 gallons of gasoline a year (e.g., over the last year, I purchased 415 gallons, and I drive a standard four-door sedan, which isn’t the most fuel-efficient model). At $4/gallon, that’s $2200, which is less than half of what just the Tesla Roadster’s batteries cost.

            Many car companies make luxury models …

            The sales numbers for Teslas are closer to those of Maserati than Ford or Lexus, and only a desperate fool on the losing end of a debate would compare Tesla to the latter. I don’t have anything against rich people, by the way, I just don’t want to have to pay for their expensive toys, whether it’s a yacht, a Maserati, or a “green” car.

          9. Tesla makes a car that it claims will need a new battery about every seven years, which will cost over $35,000 to replace.

            Where do those numbers come from? Battery warranty is 8 years (125,000 miles), and replacement cost is $8,000 on 40 kWh battery, $10,000 on 60 kWh, and $12,000 on 85 kWh.

            Base Model S is $62,400. Maserati is twice as much at 126K. This places it well within territory of Lincoln (Ford’s luxury brand), and Lexus. Rav 4 EV (powertrain made by Tesla) has base price of $49,800. You can lease a Honda Fit EV for $259/month, 0 downpayment, unlimited miles. Those aren’t Maserati prices either.

          10. only a desperate fool on the losing end of a debate would compare Tesla to the latter

            I guess you haven’t seen Tesla’s foolish projections on upcoming models: a sedan half the price of Model S and a small SUV. His projections have been pretty spot on in the past (if not beating his own estimates).

            “In about three to four years, that’s when we aspire to bring into production a sedan that’s about half the price of the Model S, and then shortly thereafter a small SUV as well,” said Musk, who is also Palo Alto, California-based Tesla’s biggest shareholder. “These should be quite affordable. The price would be on the order of $35,000.”

            Why anybody interested in nuclear power maligns this development is really a mystery to me, and may be entering smoking gun territory (in the sense used by Rod). Electricity demand is projected to be flat for some time in the US, and nuclear salesmen want no new demand (certainly not if it’s also tied to energy storage and advanced battery development). Go figure?

          11. EL – I was talking about the Tesla Roadster, because … well … you said, “Tesla makes a luxury model roadster.”

            Idiot.

          12. only a desperate fool on the losing end of a debate would compare Tesla to the latter.

            So you were entirely mistaken that Tesla sells cars to “a few rich, idiot a-holes” (in the Maserati category). You appear to now agree (and understand) that the Model S competes with Ford and Lexus luxury brands (on initial purchase price), and beats them on cost of ownership. I thought you said this wasn’t the case?

            Which is it … does Tesla have a car that that compares with Ford and Lexus brands (or does it not). Calling someone an idiot doesn’t really answer this question (which it seems to me is a pretty easy one to answer … even without the name calling).

  16. A-Rod (as in Atomic-Rod),

    Please verify Admiral Rickover’s statement that he opposed nuclear power except to the extent that it was needed for naval vessels. I think the Admiral had that right.

    As to the social cost of global warming gases (GWGs) such cost, as in any reliable market, needs to be reliably associated with the generation or release of those GWGs. The damaging effects of GWGs can be minimized by the market effects of such association. The tool to use is a GWG-tax on fuels and other sources of GWGs. The tax amount would be in proportion to the “run of mine” releases from a unit measure of the fuel – whether it is coal, petroleum or natural gas. To illustrate the implementation of this tax, consider the United States. All domestic producers would be charged the GWG-tax at well-head or mine-mouth. The tax rate would be high enough to move the market for commuter automobiles, buses, delivery vans and trains from gasoline and diesel to battery electric. This would be sufficient to move the market toward the design of new buildings with integrated energy savings and storage devices, solar thermal water heating, geothermal interior temperature moderation, solar PV electric power generation and “utility-scale” wind turbine generation, concentrated solar power, PV, CPV generation and utility scale energy storage – perhaps by repurposing hydroelectric generating systems. Once a new energy infrastructure was in place over-the-road trucking would be replaced by well scheduled electric rail freight and high-speed passenger rail (or mag-lev) would displace most air travel.

    Import duties would apply to all imports of GWG-producing fuels, unless those imports had been equally taxed at their point of origin – with no subsidy flowing back into their production. Imports of other goods and services produced in jurisdictions that did (a) produce less than two short tons of CO2 equivalent GWGs per capita or (b) use only fully taxed (and unsubsidized) GWG-producing fuels would be subject to import duties. This does not require any nation to raise its level of taxation. It simply requires that its tax system be adjusted to tax harmful GWG-producing fuels with the option of lowering other taxes, or reducing emissions to a globally tolerable level. Of course, if world population growth does not continue to abate, it may be necessary to lower the permitted emissions per capita.

    Finally, le coup des gras – a tax on all alpha, beta or gamma particles raised from the shielding bosom of the earth into the biosphere or air, water and soil – and the sooner, the better.

    1. Finally, le coup des gras — a tax on all alpha, beta or gamma particles raised from the shielding bosom of the earth into the biosphere or air, water and soil — and the sooner, the better.

      As a tax, I have to say that it is a comprehensive one. Especially, since a typical person emits over 8000 beta and gamma particles every second just from the K-40 and C-14 contained in his or her body.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts