Archive for the ‘Greencon Polluter Update’ Category
March 2nd, 2009 | 
Author: 
Very often, the real costs of energy production are emitted from the current per/kwh rate paid by the consumer. This often is as a result that some of the real costs are not available or realised. The cost of carbon on the environment is a ‘clear’ example of not being able to know in advance what the real costs of coal fired generation would be (even if we know that now is debatable). But there are other technologies that profess to have cheap ‘gren’ alternatives’, but when you look a little closer are the total costs realised?
Read this article by Quentin Gee - Feb 25th, 2009
“With coal under fire from climate activists, nuclear lobbyists and public relations teams are increasingly touting the low-carbon benefits of splitting the atom. What the nuclear industry carefully avoids discussing, though, are the direct and the indirect costs of its technology.
So just how expensive is nuclear power?
In our report, U.S. Electricity Policy 2009, Nick Allen and I took a closer look at the economics behind nuclear. The results are startling, and Congress will be hearing about them this week and next as 10,000 student activists, armed with our findings, hit the halls of Capitol Hill for Power Shift.
Here’s what students will be asking about nuclear power as Congress discovers that the youth of the nation take climate change seriously.
Skyrocketing Costs
How much does it cost to build a nuclear plant?
Well, given the rate at which estimates have been increasing, it’s hard to say what the answer will be a year from now. Recent estimates show a 50 percent increase in the cost in just the past year, from $4,000 per kW in 2007 to $6,000 per kW in 2008.
As energy experts Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh explain, a $5,200 per kW construction cost for a new nuclear plant results in costs of about 16 cents per kWh, not including distribution costs. By contrast, the average cost of electricity today hovers around 10 cents per kWh, including distribution.
What makes nuclear’s cost estimates particularly worrisome is that they come in the context of years of federal subsidies to the industry in an effort to make the technology cost-competitive. Public Citizen documented $115 billion in direct subsidies to nuclear from 1947-1999.
The notorious Price-Anderson Act added indirect subsidies as well, and bumped the rate of total nuclear industry subsidies to around $145 billion. The act was intended to provide a sense of investment security for Wall Street, however its effect was to place the financial burden of insurance for nuclear power on U.S. citizens. If a nuclear accident or terrorist attack were to occur, reactor operators would be liable up to only about $10.5 billion. According to a federally funded study, the cost of a meltdown would run as high as $314 billion in 1982 dollars, or over $700 billion today.
Waste and Mining
Nuclear also has waste issues. Currently, dangerous nuclear waste is stored in temporary locations in 39 states. The government recently has been fighting to turn Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, into the nation’s first permanent nuclear waste repository.
The cost for this geologic repository?
In 2001, the Department of Energy estimated that a 0.1 cent per kWh excise tax would be enough. Of course, that estimate assumed the repository would cost about $41 billion, or about $51 billion in today’s dollars. The most recent (and steadily increasing) estimate for Yucca Mountain is $96.2 billion.
Does industry expect the taxpayers to cover the $46 billion difference? In 2006, the Government Accountability Office also politely pointed out “a long history of quality assurance” issues with the project as well as “confusion over roles and responsibilities” for managers at Yucca Mountain. Considering these problems, it’s not surprising that cost estimates are rising ever year.
Uranium mining represents another serious problem. Dangers posed to groundwater and other forms of contamination from mining are unclear, but certainly not to be ignored. Recent comments from Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) during a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing gives a clear sketch of the problem:
“Those looking to mine uranium to fuel future reactors face a desolate landscape littered with abandoned mines and mill sites, still generating unknown levels of health and environmental damage.”
Where Now?
Financially, nuclear power seems an uncertain gamble. The nuclear industry still needs to find a place to store its waste, and many Americans worry about the health implications of being downstream from a uranium mine.
Even more obvious are nuclear’s escalating and disturbing generation costs, despite the federal government throwing billions of dollars at the problem. Congress’ recent elimination of nuclear loan guarantees from the economic stimulus bill at least indicates that someone is paying attention to the hazards and the numbers. We hope they keep up the vigilance.
Our first two posts highlighted the often unspoken real costs of nuclear and coal for powering the country. What solutions exist? Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at some more environmentally friendly alternatives and what the government needs to do to make them work.”
Keep it Green
Posted in 
We read this article today with shock. Why the government can’t undertand that the major reason we are in the power circumstances we find ourselves is due to the fact that power generation was controlled by one enetity – Eskom. It now seems that Eskom is in the controlling seat where tarriffs are discussed for alternative COMPETITVE energy investments. Well that is sure one fine way to avoid foreign direct investment in our Green energy market.
Read this article from Fin24:
Cape Town – Great concern exists that the appointment of Eskom as sole purchaser of all forms of renewable energy creates conflicts of interest, claims the South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA).
In its commentary on the proposed import tariff model for renewable energy drawn up by the National Energy Regulator (Nersa), SAWEA says Eskom clearly has a conflict of interest because it, too, be a large generator of renewable energy if the 100MW wind farm near Koekenaap and the envisaged 100MW concentrated solar energy station at Upington become reality. 
If Eskom has a double role as gatekeeper for the money used to finance the import tariff, as well as being a participant in the generation of renewable energy, this could lead to unfair treatment of the new independent power producers that could be regarded as competitors to Eskom.
SAWEA says Eskom is a commercial entity and the temptation to protect its own interests could be too difficult to resist.
In December, Nersa announced its proposed import tariff model for renewable energy for commentary. The period for commentary expired last week.
A public hearing on the model is envisaged for February 5, and an approved tariff model will be announced on March 9. The tariff is intended as a form of subsidy to promote investment in renewable energy.
Keep it Green
Here at Greencon, we have watched the plummeting cost of oil with horror and dread. The truth of the matter is that the consumer is more easily persuaded to change there habits by price than by the threat of environmental degradation. Activists in the states are also seeing the all to familiar swing away from renew ables, now that the oil price has begun to drop:
“As oil and related energy prices soared to record highs over the past two years, interest in alternative fuels soared, too. Hybrid cars have appeared seemingly overnight, and proposals for solar, wind and other renewable technologies are being made everywhere.
We need to remember, however, that all this action has one cause—high oil prices—and progress could grind to a halt if those prices fall again. It might seem ridiculous to worry about such a thing; don’t we all want to spend less on oil? And isn’t hoping for that just whistling in the dark?
Not necessarily. At present, it is virtually axiomatic in the popular press that growth in demand from the U.S., China, India and elsewhere will keep oil prices high forevermore. But this common wisdom ignores the possibility of recession, or even depression, reducing demand growth to near zero, just as new drilling (mostly overseas) increases supply. Recession is already upon the U.S., and China’s economy is slowing rapidly. As Wall Street collapsed in October, oil prices dropped to around $70 a barrel. Saudi Arabia’s stated goal of maintaining a price floor of $80 a barrel or higher suddenly seemed optimistic.
So what is the problem? In the short run, nothing. But sustained development of new energy sources always rests on the condition of the old ones. Coal did not arise as Europe’s main energy source until Europeans had cut down virtually all their forests for fuel, and the later switch to oil did not occur until the scarcity of coal drove its price high.
In the 1970s Americans responded to high oil prices with alternative energy projects and more fuel-efficient cars. But when prices dropped in the 1980s, we threw caution to the wind—along with the energy projects. We purchased ever larger cars and SUVs and moved to ever more distant suburbs. Sure enough, now that oil prices have spiked again, we are looking at the same alternatives we had relegated to niche markets then.
Today renewable technologies such as wind and solar are close to being competitive with fossil fuels. But we can say good-bye to that prospect if oil prices decline to $60 to $70 a barrel, which could easily happen in a recession, as we witnessed in October. Two years of lower prices can turn hybrid cars into a bad financial proposition for consumers, and green technology start-up companies could go bankrupt as demand for their goods dries up. Even a temporary decrease in petroleum prices would undermine the long-term development of the alternatives we all know we need.
Happily, there is a solution. If investors could rely on a certain lower limit to oil prices, they would have a fixed goal to work toward for making alternatives cost-effective. Knowing the goal removes a large element of risk for entrepreneurs and their financiers, providing a huge incentive to continue development.
A lower limit is easy to accomplish: the federal government has to impose a variable levy on oil to guarantee a floor price. Revenues from that tax could help fund research into alternative energy and offset adverse consequences for lower-income people, who would be hardest hit by the sustained high expense of oil.
Higher taxes? Unthinkable! That sentiment certainly rules in the current political climate. But one thing is certain: the federal government is already running a deficit on the order of $400 billion for this year, and many more billions are promised to save Wall Street; that money will have to come from somewhere. Why not a tax that benefits both the environment and the economy?
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, “Keep Oil Prices High, Please.”
Keep it green
We should not forget that more than 80% of their baseline power is generated from Nuclear Stations. They are already streaks ahead of other European countries with regards to total emissions. Read this excerpt from a bio-fuels on-line journal about the future French ideas.
“France outlines new renewable energy programme
3 December 2008
France is preparing a national plan for renewable energy, which has set aside any assessment of the EU’s biofuels draft directive to generate a 10% share of biofuels in transport by 2020.
France’s Environment and Energy Minister Jean-Louis Borloo offered the national plan for renewable energies on 17 November.
The plan aims to bring the share of renewables in the energy mix by 2020 to 23%. This corresponds to 20 million tonnes of oil equivalent and involves 50 different measures to develop biomass, wind, geothermal and solar energy.
To help achieve these targets, a €1 billion fund will be set up during 2009-11, and the tax credits will be extended to 2012.
Jean-Louis Borloo explained that the change of model and the change of scale is aimed to progress from an essentially carbon-based model to a fully decarbonised model where each home, each company, and each community will become its own energy producer.”
Keep it Green