What a crock of nuclear loving bullpuckey

Cost of Solar Power to Drop 75% by 2020?
by Stuart Burns on AUGUST 20, 2013


Not one to shy away from overstatement, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a writer we would normally quote extensively; well-renowned as the Telegraph newspaper is, for which he frequently writes in the Business section, but his article last week on solar power trumping shale gas even had us sitting up and taking notice.

True, many of the figures quoted in his article come from firms involved in the solar industry and as such we can expect them to put a positive gloss on the numbers, but we wouldn’t count the US Energy Department to be biased and they are quoted as saying they expect the cost of solar power to fall by 75% between 2010 and 2020.

By then, average costs will have dropped to $1 per watt for big solar farms, $1.25 for offices and $1.50 for homes, achieving what the Telegraph terms the Holy Grail of grid parity with new coal and gas plants without further need for subsidies. That’s the crunch, isn’t it – the subsidies. But if we think subsidies in the US or UK have been high, consider Germany, early starter in the solar power race.

Households have been bled dry to subsidize solar power – around €100 billion or more has been frittered away on costly feed-in tariffs. In addition, German investors have lost their shirts on a string of solar ventures that have gone bankrupt, only to see the gains leaked out to copycat companies in China which are able to undercut German rivals in their own market with cheap labor and giveaway credit.

Still, that artificially created market has spurred investment around the world; even the US defense establishment is heavily involved, with Evans-Pritchard quoting a string of projects, each of which will help bring down costs and improve efficiencies....

(AU) 100% Renewables feasible by 2030

Vermont Yankee timeline

Vermont Yankee timeline
• Nov. 30, 1972: Vermont Yankee opens in Vernon.
• 1998: Federal government’s plan to remove on-site highly radioactive waste for safe storage is shelved.
• 2002: Eight local utilities sell Vermont Yankee to Entergy Nuclear of Mississippi for $180 million.
The sales deal included a revenue-sharing provision: If the plant continued to operate after 2012, it would share 50 cents of every dollar earned above a specified price, for 10 years.
That same year, Entergy and Vermont agree to abide by the Public Service Board’s decision on whether the nuclear plant could continue providing power after March 2012.
• May 2006: Legislature passes measure saying the Public Service Board needs lawmakers’ approval before considering extending the plant’s license for 20 years after it expires in 2012. The legislature also approves a plan to temporarily store spent (but still radioactive) fuel rods on-site, in concrete casks.
• Aug. 21, 2007: A cooling tower structure at Vermont Yankee partially collapses, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the structure and causing Entergy to reduce power output by 50 percent until repairs are carried out.
• 2008: Vermont Yankee runs out of indoor storage space for spent fuel rods...


The timeline is a column to the left of the main article-
Reversing course, Entergy to close Vermont Yankee in 2014
Gov. Shumlin calls move 'the right decision for Vermont.'
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130827/NEWS07/308270007/Entergy-closing-Vermont-Yankee-2014-promises-safe-decommissioning?nclick_check=1

NOAA: Virus likely causing dolphin deaths

Source: AP via Seattle Times

By BROCK VERGAKIS

NORFOLK, Va. —
Federal officials say a virus is likely what's causing hundreds of dead bottlenose dolphins to wash ashore along the East Coast.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 333 dolphins have been stranded between New York and North Carolina since July 1. That's more than nine times the historical average for the region during July and August.

Earlier this month, NOAA declared an unusual mortality event to provide additional resources to study what's causing the deaths.

NOAA says the tentative cause of the deaths is the cetacean morbillivirus. Dolphins with morbillivirus typically experience skin lesions, brain infections and pneumonia. The virus killed off more than 700 dolphins in the 1980s. Using that die-off as a guide, officials say the deaths could spread southward and last through spring 2014.

Read more: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021694023_apusdolphindeaths.html

RMI (Lovins) infographic Solar Options for Homeowners

Nnadir and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are in sync

ALEC's Agenda (from their website) -

Amory's Angle: Three Major Energy Trends to Watch

Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming

If you want to learn about climate science, look to climate scientists, I always say. But if you want to learn about climate policy and energy technology, well, you might try looking elsewhere. - J. Romm

Climatologist Myles Allen Says We’re ‘Doomed’ If We Keep Burning Carbon, Then Embraces Dubious Silver Bullet
BY JOE ROMM ON MAY 29, 2013 AT 7:33 PM
Why carbon capture and storage isn’t “the solution” to our climate problems

If you want to learn about climate science, look to climate scientists, I always say. But if you want to learn about climate policy and energy technology, well, you might try looking elsewhere.
A case in point is British climate scientist, Myles Allen. He noted in the Daily Mail On Sunday (MoS) that “we’re doomed to disastrous warming” if we keep burning carbon — even if a recent paper he coauthored about a low climate sensitivity turns out to be true. But then he went on to argue that the only solution — and he does mean only solution — is to mandate that companies capture and store the carbon they release.


Actual caption in MoS: “Futile: Subsidising windfarms, like Whitelee on the outskirts of Glasgow, is a pointless policy, argues Professor Allen.”


Allen’s policy discussion is precisely the kind of nonsense you’d expect in the Mail, whose climate coverage is so atavastic, it makes the Wall Street Journal editorial page look like Climate Central. It is simply head-exploding that any serious climate scientist would publish a piece in publication discredited by so many climate scientists.

Back in 2010, two top climate scientists and the National Snow and Ice Data Center accused the Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them or their work. Last year, the UK’s Met Office, part of its Defence Ministry, took the unusual step of releasing a statement utterly debunking David Rose’s assertions in the paper as “entirely misleading” — and pointing out that they spoke to Rose before the piece came out but he chose to ignore what they had to say.

And so we’re subjected to this cranium-destroying headline and sub-head:

Why I think we’re wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist
The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britain’s eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention…. from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves

Ahh, those green fanatics. How much wiser our climate policy would be if not for their obsession with clean energy policy!! Seriously....

Between 2006 and 2010 (inclusive) globally solar grew at an average rate of 58%

In 2011 China doubled down on building manufacturing and the prices started plummeting, causing the rate to rise to 74% in 2011.
Here is the global version of the chart in the OP



The number you floated was obviously hyperbole, but let's take a look at 4 doublings over the next ten years, or on second thought, to make it simpler I'll use a doubling every 3 years.

If cumulative capacity of solar were to double thru 2015 to 12.5GW, then double again through 2018, again thru 2021, and once more thru 2024, we could hit 100 GW of capacity at that time.

The US used 95.1 quads (1quad=1.05EJ or 33.5GWy) of PRIMARY ENERGY off all types in 2012. Of that, only 37 quads was actually consumed by a final user. This distinction is important.

If we assume a capacity factor of 18%, that 100GW of solar would be 18GWy of production for Final Consumption.

Total Energy produced by the US Electric Sector for Final Consumption was 415GWy in 2012.

Of that, nuclear provided 88GWy while renewables including hydro provided 127GWy. The remaining 200GWy were provided by coal and natural gas.

If 4 more doublings of solar occurred over an additional 12 years it would bring the total to 1600GW of capacity or - still assuming 18% cf - 288GWy of Final Consumption.

The EPA is preparing rules to regulate carbon emissions. How much room for continued growth do you see?

Oh, and before you answer that, you might want to consider one more important piece of the puzzle:

Cost of Solar Power to Drop 75% by 2020? US Military Embraces It
by Stuart Burns on AUGUST 20, 2013


Not one to shy away from overstatement, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not a writer we would normally quote extensively; well-renowned as the Telegraph newspaper is, for which he frequently writes in the Business section, but his article last week on solar power trumping shale gas even had us sitting up and taking notice.

True, many of the figures quoted in his article come from firms involved in the solar industry and as such we can expect them to put a positive gloss on the numbers, but we wouldn’t count the US Energy Department to be biased and they are quoted as saying they expect the cost of solar power to fall by 75% between 2010 and 2020.

By then, average costs will have dropped to $1 per watt for big solar farms, $1.25 for offices and $1.50 for homes, achieving what the Telegraph terms the Holy Grail of grid parity with new coal and gas plants without further need for subsidies. That’s the crunch, isn’t it – the subsidies. But if we think subsidies in the US or UK have been high, consider Germany, early starter in the solar power race.

Households have been bled dry to subsidize solar power – around €100 billion or more has been frittered away on costly feed-in tariffs. In addition, German investors have lost their shirts on a string of solar ventures that have gone bankrupt, only to see the gains leaked out to copycat companies in China which are able to undercut German rivals in their own market with cheap labor and giveaway credit.

Still, that artificially created market has spurred investment around the world; even the US defense establishment is heavily involved, with Evans-Pritchard quoting a string of projects, each of which will help bring down costs and improve efficiencies....

Nuclear, the gift that keeps on taking - San Onofre wants bail out for their screw-up