Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Tracking the Stimulus - August 28, 2009
A significant point missed in "Tracking the Stimulus" is that it is a joke to consider the Stimulus Program to be "transparent". Two examples among thousands:
" My alma mater is a rich private university with a huge endowment, and it received $10 million to help pay for a new physics building, which represents about 5 percent of the building's cost. It would be amazing if even 10 percent of Americans would vote to give away money borrowed from the Chinese Communists in this manner. This is an interesting new age twist on the concept of transparency.
" Utilities have weathered the financial storms better than any other enterprises, and they well understand the benefits of increased automation. Utilities have almost always prudently introduced new technologies in a cost effective manner, and they are financially strong. Does anyone seriously believe that in a referendum, a majority of voters would tax themselves to give electric utilities tax money to do the job that they do every day on their own based on sound profit and loss principles? Again, transparency redefined in this brave new world of top-down decision making and commissar dictates.
A more accurate description for all of this is "stupid".
Ed Dykes
China's Motivations - September 02, 2009
It will be totally wrong to suggest that China does not have ambitions beyond its current influence. Someone in China belonging to influential circles wrote a report suggesting that China should work towards dismembering India. Why so?
The reason is very easy to find out. Indian Democracy is a potential motivator for Chinese dissidents and the government does not like it at all. If you look around India, China has followed a policy of encircling India all along.
Indians have watched with great amusement the growing commercial relations between China and America which as it turns out is now totally one sided with china amassing huge funds in American dollars.
I see lot of point in Americans telling the U.S. government that this flow of money to China should stop henceforth and American jobs should be protected. In India itself we are now having huge one-sided trade with China.
While I am not opposed to trade per se, but democracy must be brought to bear on China. There are plenty of Chinese who dislike the political system inside their country. Irrespective of what China currently says or does the fact remains that they continue to be world's worst polluter. In a closed society like China it is impossible to find out how the workers fare in life and what type of human rights violation take place.
A free society will always be at a disadvantage in economics against a closed or dictatorial society.
Alok Misra
Providing Nuclear Leadership - September 04, 2009
Have we totally forgotten that the waste generated by a nuclear plant is deadly, highly toxic waste that must be contained and heavily guarded for fifty thousand years? Two thousand future generations will be required to spend their money, resources and time to deal with this waste that we are generating. Has everyone really thought about this? Do we want to burden our children, grand children -- two thousand future generations -- with this responsibility?
Keith Kropf, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, Inc.
What am I missing in this picture: people are sincerely arguing that we build $6,000/kW - $8,000/kW nuclear plants? Plants that generate waste for which there is no consensus on disposal methods or costs? Plants that have been shown to have considerably higher decommissioning costs than are collected over their lifetime? Plants that involve a fuel cycle and risk management scheme that result in nuclear being the most subsidized energy source known to man?
Just for argument's sake, why not look at them in the best light possible -- strip away all of the unknown costs and the issue of how gigawatt-sized central generators fit in the existing transmission network. Let's assume that you can actually build a plant for $6,000/kW and never have to add capital again. That the estimated construction time happens. Infinite and cost-free wheeling. No waste disposal or decommissioning costs. And that the fuel costs and O&M are fixed over the life of the plant. Now tell me how those bus bar costs -- roughly 19.5 cents/kWh under this incredibly optimistic scenario -- are competitive in today's grid?
Like many uncomfortable truths, a great mythology has been created to explain the death of the nuclear energy business in the United States. The chief myths: the public did not have a rationale sense of the risks of nuclear and could not accept it; that licensing issues dragged out construction periods, driving up costs; and that the post-TMI regulatory arena imposed unnecessary and costly design revisions. However partially true, they are all red herrings. Nuclear died because the investor-owned utility business would not accept the risk of not being able to get obviously uneconomic capital costs recognized in rate base. In short, nuclear priced itself out of the market and it's only gotten worse.
Somewhere during the last Administration when Cheney and friends were talking energy policy, it occurred to me that Rip Van Winkle had returned. Not as an 18th century figure in the Hudson Valley, but as a '70s utility executive who slept through the intervening three decades. We heard about the idea of lifting the ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel. I thought I heard talk of breeder reactors. Lately someone tried to exhume the Thorium fuel cycle. Even now we have Duke Energy and the Florida utilities attempting to pursue power plants that are more expensive than Shoreham, our most expensive completed plant on record (you Long Islanders are still paying for that one)!
Why is the nuclear option still presented as a serious one?
Gerry Runte
Clean Energy | ARES Corporation
A nuclear revival appears hardly possible in Germany, which has mandated the retirement of its 19 reactors when each achieves a full-load service life of 32 years. The last atomic plant will have been shut down by 2021. These reactors have avoided fatal accidents, but at times up to six of the current 16 plants have been off the grid simultaneously. Some were undergoing routine maintenance, others had been throttled to avoid overheating river cooling water, while still others experienced emergency shutdowns due to faulty components. Spectacular transformer fires, although not specific to nuclear technology, foster the speculation that needed equipment replacements may be neglected as phase-out deadlines approach. In the aftermath of these emergencies, government inspectors have discovered hundreds of unreported but potentially dangerous incidents in plant log books. The Swedish company Vattenfall, owner of two accident-prone reactors, fired its German CEO and business manager in consequence.
Many predictions of nuclear power growth overlook the hydrological requirements inherent to this technology. Recurrent drought conditions in Georgia, Texas, and most western states make it difficult to imagine nuclear projects in such regions being allocated preemptive water rights. Receding glaciers in the Alps likewise narrow the expectation of any European nuclear renaissance. Even the German Christian Democrats, who once decisively opposed nuclear phase-out, recently affirmed their opposition to any new reactor construction. Yet their simultaneous demand to extend the service life of existing plants has been repeatedly overshadowed by licensing violations at radioactive waste repositories.
Germany has achieved a peak solar capacity of over 6 GW, roughly equivalent to the nuclear power plants that have been concurrently shut down. Yet although more than 15 percent of the country's electricity is now provided by renewable technologies, there is no immediate prospect of superseding nuclear energy by these means alone.
However, the German green power company Lichtblick recently announced an agreement with the Volkswagen Corporation for manufacturing in-home generators both to replace domestic heating furnaces and to supply electrical power to the grid. This development should be evaluated as an alternative to new centralized plant construction. Considering the advanced age of many nuclear reactors, perhaps a "cash for clunkers" program would hasten their retirement if enough people were willing to install Volkswagen generators in their basements.
Jeffrey Michel
Forecasting Wind - September 09, 2009
Sorry, but the elephant in the room is wind energy, and it is expensive, high maintenance and unreliable.
Any sane national energy program would put scarce financial resources into nuclear for long term and coal for near term. Responsible people would point out that wind creates more problems than it resolves, and at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense.
Wind energy is akin to being forced to buy $8 per gallon gasoline that is only available two days a week.
Mike Vande Voort
Wind energy forecasting is better titled -- "The Impossible Dream". The notion that somehow one can forecast the whims of the wind is pure fantasy. Witness what happened when the Northwest had the recent heat wave. When temperatures soared to 106 degrees, where was the 2,000 MW of wind that BPA had? Well, it was producing a paltry 24 MW.
Even if you could predict the wind, what use is an energy source that is unavailable at a most critical time? In Texas, ERCOT recognizes the same problem and counts wind as only 8 percent dependable capacity. The bottom line is that you will get renewable energy from wind power but not necessarily when or where you want it, and because it so unpredictable, costs will be high because consumers will have to pay for the backup power to support its lack of dependability.
Ron Corso
Wind has always been iffy, that's always been the problem with wind power. Any forecasting algorithms are not likely to change the nature of wind flow. These algorithms are strictly predictions, not guaranteed accuracy.
Utilities would be much better served to utilize more reliable renewables such as biomass. Biomass is reliable, 24/7 during the period it is available. Secondly, wind rarely blows during periods of peak demand. Wind power may be the answer for an individual with no other access to electric power, but for utilities it presently creates more problems than it solves. When wind power is available, usually there is a great deal of other energy available, much of it less expensive than wind power.
Joseph Langenberg
Mercury's Insidious Nature - September 11, 2009
I always read your editorial pieces with great interest. I appreciate the diversity of topics, the thoroughness of your knowledge, and the balanced view you often provide in educating and influencing your readers. Please allow me to introduce myself. I work as the General Manager for Underwriters Laboratories' Energy practice. Over UL's 115 years of experience, we have traditionally been focused on the safe consumption of energy, specifically in the forms of electricity (nearly all low/medium voltage electrical devices carry the UL mark) and transportation fuels (mostly dispensing and storage equipment). However, with the nation's move toward distributed generation, UL now is very involved in setting standards and certifying DG technologies, such as photovoltaics, wind turbine generating systems, and balance of system components (inverters, connectors, etc.). We have testing laboratories for renewable energy in the U.S. and China and are building new facilities in Germany and Japan specifically for PV testing.
On a personal note, I was very intrigued by your article today. I have two boys who are ages 6 and 4, and both have been diagnosed with autism. Although the causes of autism are not well understood, there has been much research studying the links between mercury and autism. While this has caused considerable controversy due to the fact that a form of mercury was used for many years as a preservative in vaccines, for me the bigger concern has always been the mercury pollution caused by coal power. When I began working in the Energy sector, I did not realize that there would be such a linkage between my professional and personal life, and it has caused me to take an even deeper personal interest in the evolution of energy policy within the United States.
Of course, it is very rare that I would mix my personal life with work. But I was motivated to write to you today to thank you for pointing out so clearly the issues with mercury. The neurological damage you mention is very real, both for children, and potentially for adults. The rate of autism has increased dramatically over the past decade, and per the CDC is now at 1 in 150 (1 in 86 for boys). Medical research into causation and treatment is still in its infancy. Still other neurological disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are also not well understood, and specific scientific evidence of causation remains elusive. My personal experience with autism has convinced me that we are still years, if not decades, away from understanding the human brain well enough to protect it via medication from the unintended miasma generated by our society's rapid development over the past century. Current and future generations will look more to healthy lifestyles rather than fix-it drugs. We need to embrace technologies that will enable us to continue to experience the fruits of economic progress while avoiding the unintended (and still not well understood or widely accepted) consequences. Quite literally, our children's quality of life depends upon it.
Thanks again for giving this matter attention and for considering my viewpoint.
Jeff Smidt
General Manager
Global Energy Business
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
I'm just curious what these wonderful CFL bulbs in every house in America will do to the toxicity levels of Mercury in the environment. Most households are unlikely to send these to the hazardous waste facilities when they can simply throw them away in our landfills.
Michele Cook
So 72 out of 291 had "dangerous contamination levels" -- or as noted 25 percent. Or reporting it a different way 3 out of every 4 fish collected did not have dangerous levels of mercury. Some questions that should be asked about the test:
1) What is meant by "dangerous contamination levels"? Are there published maximums for fish? What were the actual contaminant levels and how do they compare with the listed maximums?
2) Did they sample the water where the fish were obtained and measure the mercury levels? If so how did those levels compare with the regulatory requirements?
3) How old were the fish? Mercury contamination could build up over the years.
4) Was it this study that included fish came from waters near power plants?
5) Where did the other fish come from?
A side note: What difference does it make that this started before Obama became president? Presumably that was an editorial comment and not part of the study as I would be very suspicious if it was the latter.
Bruce Mitchell
KS: Started before Obama indicates that the study is neither Republican nor Democrat.
Natural Gas Producers Pumped - September 14, 2009
I am not sure what you mean by the industry having to prove it can deliver clean and efficient supplies. I think they have been doing that for decades. The only new thing is producing from the source rocks themselves. I would caution that reserves in the ground are one thing and the smooth steady supply is another. I would suggest we take a new approach to this future natural gas supply that would avoid the long standing history of up and down prices, rig counts, and varying storage levels. It seems to me good minds could sit down and come up with a plan of development that would help create a steady supply of clean affordable energy. A public private effort to avoid the bumps and plan a good trip, come up with a vision and pursue it. Otherwise history teaches us that there will be the same stuff we've had before.
Jack Moody, RPG
Asset Development Office
Mississippi State Mineral Lease Program
& Natural Resources Development Program
Solar Systems Never Cheaper - September 16, 2009
When most people say that a solar system will pay off in 16 years they usually don't include any considerations for the time value of money. If you value your investment at 2 percent per year, which is much lower than most people desire for a return on their investments, the solar installations would take 20 and one-half years to "pay off".
This is the main reason that other than niche applications solar photovoltaic systems won't really make any sense until there is a technological breakthrough on the cost of manufacture.
It is nice that the cost of solar systems has fallen due to competition but the tone of the article indicates that the pricing currently is not at a sustainable point for system manufacturers so the prices can be expected to increase again in the near future.
George Olsen
Respond to the editor.
