tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89902504297909818442024-03-18T20:11:19.966-07:00EnergyGuy's MusingsRoger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-50674175571527843472009-10-11T10:04:00.000-07:002009-11-11T03:37:22.855-08:00Green Jobs and EnergyWhat are green jobs, and how does energy production tie in? The current thinking among the Carbon is Killing Us Crowd, those who devoutly believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is already causing catastrophic world-wide changes, is that green jobs derive from reducing or eliminating a fossil-fuel economy in favor of increasing a renewable energy-driven economy.<br /><br />As one example, in California, the Air Resources Board (ARB) states that job losses in low-intensity industries will be more than offset by job gains in high-intensity industries. Their definition of "job intensity" is such that a major power plant that burns natural gas (and has few employees per unit of production, kWh electricty) has a very low job intensity. In contrast, a wind power farm with hundreds of windmills has a high job intensity due to the greater number of employees required to service and repair the windmills. This is a two-fer for the greenies, as evil carbon is not emitted, and more people have a job.<br /><br />Yet, just a few decades ago, it was patently obvious that high labor cost was a hindrance to economic efficiency. To name just a few fields, bookkeepers were quite common before the computer age, but automation now does the job. Automated factories require far fewer employees than did the older, manually operated factories.<br /><br />The green power revolution is said to cut jobs in traditional, fossil-fuel plants, and create many times the jobs in the green collar field.<br /><br />This week saw a major announcement of job losses in the fossil-fuel plants, as <a href="http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/7991445963/s-articles/s-oil-gas-journal/s-processing-2/s-refining/s-operations/s-2009/s-10/s-sunoco-idles_eagle.html">Sunoco announced the closing of an oil refinery in New Jersey</a> with the loss of 400 permanent jobs and hundreds more independent contractors. Should we wait to see the announcement of what, 3 times that number of green jobs? That would be roughly 1500 to 2000 more green jobs if the greenies' jobs-math is correct. One must wonder (as I certainly do) just how long is required for those 1500 to 2000 new green jobs to appear, and those displaced workers have steady paychecks again. Will that be by Christmas, so everyone has a merry Christmas? I doubt it. <div><br /></div><div>The closure of the Sunoco refinery also plays into <a href="http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-and-unicorns-both-mythical.html">the Grand Game</a> - the world-wide competition to provide energy. New refineries are under construction world-wide, and a couple of major expansions are underway in the U.S. India started up a very large refinery almost a year ago, and is exporting the products, some of which are imported by the U.S. Excess refining capacity drives down the price of petroleum products - this is basic economics - and that encourages greater consumption. More and more refineries will close, especially those that are smaller and inefficient compared to the larger and modern refineries. </div><div><br /></div><div>As petroleum prices decrease, the economic incentives for renewable power plants also decrease. Hybrid electric, and pure electric vehicles have an initial cost premium that is supposed to be offset by the fuel savings - but only if petroleum fuels are sufficiently costly. At this time, the additional $3 to $4 thousand premium for a hybrid vehicle is simply not a wise investment. </div><div><br /></div><div>Obama's Cash for Clunkers program accelerated the purchase - distorted the market - of high-miles-per-gallon vehicles and the (literal) destruction of older, gas guzzling cars. Thus, the demand for gasoline is lower than it otherwise would be, the gasoline price is also lower, and refineries in the U.S. are shutting down. Yet, now the automotive companies see fewer customers following the Cash for Clunkers fiasco, as a person with a new car will not likely set foot in a car dealership for several years. </div><div><br /></div><div>And so it goes in the Grand Game. Hybrid cars that are not worth the price, oil refineries shutting down, fossil-fuel workers out of work, renewable power plants stagnating due to low economic incentives, and oh yes, crops barely beating the killing freeze this year to provide raw material for the bio-fuels industry. Who knows what the summer of 2010 will bring in that arena. </div><div><br /></div><div>One wonders if the farmers will be asked to hire more workers as green jobs, and park the tractor in the barn. We tried that for centuries, using manual labor on farms. Those are exhausting, monotonous jobs that paid very low wages. Still, they are green jobs. There are approximately 700 newly-jobless workers in the New Jersey area. Does anyone think that farmers will hire any of them? </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-78789379118805768922009-10-04T14:00:00.000-07:002009-10-08T21:55:59.482-07:00Dilute Energy SourcesA thread on <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/a-tree-ring-study-estimating-past-rainfall-and-drought-shows-the-southeast-usa-drought-was-mild-compared-to-past-events/">WattsUpWithThat.com strayed onto nuclear power</a> the other day, and I offered a few comments. This seems appropriate to reproduce them here, with additional comments added. <div><br /></div><div>As some may remember from the 1960s an old saying "What if they gave a War, and nobody came?" Today, we can rephrase that for the South Texas Nuclear Project's proposed expansion as "What if they wanted to build a new nuclear power plant, and nobody invested?" The city of San Antonio is scheduled to vote on their level of participation in the STNP expansion, with the date presently set for October 13. This date keeps getting pushed back, so we shall see. The topic is wildly controversial, with very few people trusting or believing the nuclear advocates who insist that the plant can be built for only $13 billion, and be producing power four years after start of construction. My assessment, published in comments to various articles at mysanantonio.com, is that the expansion will cost at least $22 billion, and require 10 years or more to produce power. It is more likely to cost $25 billion. </div><div><br /></div><div>As background, the City of San Antonio already owns 40 percent of the existing twin-reactor STNP, with the City of Austin owning 20 percent. It is quite instructive that the City of Austin this time declined to be a party to the STNP expansion. Austin learned its lesson quite well in the original fiasco, in which the nuclear proponents for STNP stated the plant would only cost $900 million, yet its final cost was $5.4 billion, for a cost over-run of $4.5 billion or six times the original estimate. There is no recent experience in the United States, but the new Generation III nuclear plant presently being built in Finland is billions of Euros over-budget, and so far behind schedule (it was to be started up by now, 2009), that the builder cannot provide an end date to the construction at this time. What an industry - who can trust the promoters? Their track record is horrendous. </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><dd class="comment even thread-even depth-1 commentlist_item" id="comment-198397" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5em; color: silver; "><div class="comment" id="div-comment-198397" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><div class="comment_text" style="margin-top: 5px; display: block; "><p>The exchange of comments on the WUWT thread is shown below.</p><p>A commenter (beng) wrote the following. My response is below that. </p><p>(beng) : "Sorry, WUWT, for being OT.</p><p>Roger Sowell, the present state of nuclear power development is similar to <i>objective</i> climate research — they have been and are presently mostly dead-in-the-water in the US. Environmentalism and litigation have done their jobs very well over the decades.</p><p>If the US had maintained its can-do attitude, we would already have safe and proliferation-proof nuclear plants reprocessing their own fuel. The US is now falling behind the progressive (non-European) countries in science and technology development in general. Space exploration has been the exception, but now even that is at risk.</p><p>Sorry, but “renewable” energy sources are and will always be bit players in the big view. It’s a basic thermodynamic thing — low-density energy sources (wind, solar, even hydro) can never replace high-density sources like fossil fuels and especially nuclear (very high density). Unless we want to return to an 18th century society."</p></div><div class="reply"></div></div></dd><dt class=" none" style="position: static; "><small class="date" style="color: silver; float: right; line-height: 2.3em; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-right: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 5px; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left- text-align: center; position: relative; right: 0px; font-size:0.5em;color:silver;"><span class="date_day" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-size:3em;">4</span><span class="date_month" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-weight: bold; font-size:3em;">10</span><span class="date_year" style="display: block; line-height: 0.9em; font-size:1.4em;">2009</span></small></dt><dd class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 commentlist_item" id="comment-198534" style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245) !important; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size:1em;color:silver;"><div class="comment" id="div-comment-198534" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><strong class="comment-author vcard author" style="height: 32px; line-height: 32px; "><span class="fn"><a href="http://www.resowell-law.com/" rel="external nofollow" class="url" style="color: rgb(81, 81, 81); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: silver; ">Roger Sowell</a></span></strong> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><small>(13:19:30)</small> :</span><div class="comment_text" style="margin-top: 5px; display: block; "><p>beng,</p><p>What a pessimistic viewpoint!</p><p>The reality is that renewable energy sources are now major players, as designed. The incubation and encouragement of innovation via government assistance has provided economically viable renewable power generation plants. Although the Road Not Taken argument makes it impossible to know where we would be today if not for the government assistance, the fact is that we do have viable solar power, viable wind power, viable geothermal power, and very promising wave power. Ocean current power is the next big thing, and it needs zero storage.</p><p>For California, only because I live here and am familiar with these numbers, in 2008 (source and percent of total state power generation):</p><p>Natural Gas 46.5%<br />Nuclear 14.9%<br />Large Hydro 9.6%<br />Coal (out of state) 15.5%<br />Renewable 13.5%</p><p>Renewables provided more than large hydro, and almost as much as nuclear in that year. As renewables continue to grow, and coal is eliminated, it will soon be the second largest power source. That is hardly a “bit player.”</p><p>The horrible realities of nuclear energy (outrageous cost, toxic byproducts that endure for centuries, among others) spurred development of renewables also.</p><p>The US government has very recently increased emphasis on offshore renewables development in wind, wave, and ocean current. Other countries also are developing their offshore renewable resources.</p><p><a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/renewables-in-outer-continental-shelf.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(81, 81, 81); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: silver; ">http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/renewables-in-outer-continental-shelf.html</a></p><p>The thermodynamic argument is laughable! A dilute resource is just as viable as a concentrated resource. By your argument, sunshine is not viable because it is so dilute. Yet billions of plant leaves silently refute your argument every day, and have done so for billions of years. By extension, water vapor is not a viable energy source because it is spread out across the entire atmosphere. Yet thousands of hydroelectric plants give mute testimony that such a dilute resource (in the form of rainfall) is perfectly capable of providing economic energy. And, before hydroelectric plants were built, waterwheels provided power for centuries.</p><p>Thermodynamics has a place in the debate, but not where you seek to place it. A far better argument is one of economics. If I can build a windmill (taking advantage of that highly dilute resource, wind) and provide power at a lower cost than the highest alternative resource (e.g. a new nuclear power plant or a gas-fired peaker plant), then that is all that matters. Perhaps I tie the windmill to a water source, and use the windmill to pump water uphill into a hydroelectric plant, rather than direct generation of power. In this manner, I obtain a time-shifting of the power in the wind, and I do not care that the wind blows mostly at night while my electric demand is during the day. Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with that aspect, simply economics does.</p><p>As to the US and its can-do attitude, it of course still exists. What we learned in the 60s and later the 70s is that radioactivity is too deadly to ever be widely implemented except under very carefully regulated and monitored conditions. There is a reason that children should not play with firearms, and there is a similar reason why nuclear fission processes are heavily regulated. If that increases the cost of building a power plant, and the time required to build it according to the laws, then so be it.</p><p>As I have stated before, if you do not like the existing laws, you are welcome to change them. This is the USA. We have in place procedures to do exactly that. Good luck to you.</p></div></div></dd></span></div><div><br /></div><div>A bit earlier in the comments, "crosspatch" offered that the modern Generation III nuclear power plants are much less costly due to a simpler design, which uses what he referred to as "the same technology that makes toilets work" or float valves. That hardly gives one a good feeling that the plant will actually operate safely. Float valves are notoriously unreliable - has anyone ever had to repair one of these on a toilet? Here is crosspatch's comment, and my reply.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><dd class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 commentlist_item" id="comment-197750" style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245) !important; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size:1em;color:silver;"><div class="comment" id="div-comment-197750" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><strong class="comment-author vcard author" style="height: 32px; line-height: 32px; "><span class="fn">crosspatch</span></strong> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><small>(10:21:32)</small> :</span><div class="comment_text" style="margin-top: 5px; display: block; "><p>"You might want to recognize a few facts about the US nuclear power industry’s abysmal record of building power plants on schedule and on-budget. Cost overruns of 5 or even 6" [this is crosspatch quoting what I had written earlier - RES]</p><p>[crosspatch's statement here] There has not been a single nuclear plant started in the US that I know of since 1979. Your figures are sheer propaganda and not related to any reality. Today’s plants are MUCH simpler to build than those plants were. China has ordered 200 of the AP series plants from Westinghouse.</p><blockquote><p>Two of the drivers of plant construction costs are the cost of financing during the construction phase and the substantial amount of skilled-craft-labor hours needed on site during construction. The AP1000™ technique of modularization of plant construction mitigates both of these drivers.</p><p>Overnight construction costs<br />The AP1000 was designed to reduce capital costs and to be economically competitive with contemporary fossil-fueled plants. The amount of safety-grade equipment required is greatly reduced by using the passive safety system design. Consequently, less Seismic Category I building volume is required to house the safety equipment (approximately 45 percent less than a typical reactor). Modular construction design further reduces cost and shortens the construction schedule. Using advanced computer modeling capabilities, Westinghouse is able to optimize, choreograph and simulate the construction plan. The result is very high confidence in the construction schedule.</p><p>…</p><p>Simplification was a major design objective for the AP1000. The simplified plant design includes overall safety systems, normal operating systems, the control room, construction techniques, and instrumentation and control systems. The result is a plant that is easier and less expensive to build, operate and maintain.</p><p>The AP1000 design saves money and time with an accelerated construction time period of approximately 36 months, from the pouring of first concrete to the loading of fuel. Also, the innovative AP1000 features:</p><p>* 50% fewer safety-related valves<br />* 80% less safety-related piping<br />* 85% less control cable<br />* 35% fewer pumps<br />* 45% less seismic building volume</p></blockquote><p>With so many of these plants currently being built worldwide, the construction has been modularized and the process refined so that they go in quickly. The plant design has eliminated much of the complexity of older designs. Passive emergency systems means they work without having to be activated by a computer or a person and can not be accidentally deactivated by a computer or a person.</p><p>To greatly simplify, it works like this:</p><p>If the pool surrounding the reactor core begins to heat, water evaporates. It condenses on the inside of the containment vessel and the water returns to a reservoir. When the water level in the pool drops to a certain level, float valves operate allowing water from the reservoir to flow and replace the water lost in the pool due to evaporation. Basically the same technology that makes toilets work. This can continue for two weeks worst case (longer in winter when the containment dome can shed heat to the outside air) without any pumps, external power, HVAC, anything. At the end of that period, cooling water sprayed on the containment vessel (fire hose) will allow operation indefinitely.</p><p>But in any case, you cost overrun argument is silly as there is not a single modern plant to which that argument can be applied in the US.</p><p>Also, much of the additional cost is due to “lawfare” applied by misguided, uneducated, fear mongering groups who would want to scare the living crap out of people about nuclear power. They have convinced a great portion of California that nuclear plants are unsafe in seismic areas, for example. We have reactors capable of surviving greater seismic loads than Earth can dish out. What is the equivalent seismic load of a depth charge going off next to a submarine hull?</p><p>The anti-nuclear movement is based on ignorance and works by stoking irrational fear in people. The only legitimate concern is spent fuel. If you reprocess that fuel on-site, that concern is gone, too. That is why China is doing it, India is doing it, France is doing it, Japan is doing it, and Germany will now likely be doing it. The entire world EXCEPT the US will be generating carbon-free power in huge quantity while we base our energy policy on rainbows, unicorns, and technology that might be here someday.</p><p>It is idiotic.</p></div><div class="reply"></div></div></dd><dt class=" none" style="position: static; "><small class="date" style="color: silver; float: right; line-height: 2.3em; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-right: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 5px; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left- text-align: center; position: relative; right: 0px; font-size:0.5em;color:silver;"><span class="date_day" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-size:3em;">3</span><span class="date_month" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-weight: bold; font-size:3em;">10</span><span class="date_year" style="display: block; line-height: 0.9em; font-size:1.4em;">2009</span></small></dt><dd class="comment even thread-even depth-1 commentlist_item" id="comment-197830" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size:1em;color:silver;"><div class="comment" id="div-comment-197830" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><strong class="comment-author vcard author" style="height: 32px; line-height: 32px; "><span class="fn"><a href="http://www.resowell-law.com/" rel="external nofollow" class="url" style="color: rgb(81, 81, 81); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: silver; ">Roger Sowell</a></span></strong> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><small>(12:26:12)</small> :</span><div class="comment_text" style="margin-top: 5px; display: block; "><p>Crosspatch, and Mike Borgelt,</p><p>Those are the same tired (and untrue, ultimately) arguments the nuclear industry made 40 years ago — and look where we ended up. “We have a good design,” and “these plants are inherently safe,” and “we know how to build these plants.”</p><p>Sure you have, and sure they are, and sure you do. [sarc off] You cannot kid me, crosspatch, because I have worked all across this globe building and running process plants, refineries, chemical plants, and power plants. You can probably sell that propaganda to the gullible, non-technical public, but not to me nor any of my colleagues. We know better.</p><p>But the arguments at this point are futile. I will be accepting the apologies of all the nuclear nuts, after a so-called Generation III nuclear power plant is built here, in the US, not in other countries. The cost overruns and schedule delays will be public record. The higher cost of electricity will be common knowledge. (on second thought, nuclear nuts will likely not apologize, but instead will make perpetual excuses how it was not their fault, if only the environmentalists and their lawyers had stepped aside none of the cost overruns would have happened).</p><p>The nuclear power industry has always had rose-colored glasses, in a hopeless dream to build the most expensive, toxic legacy-creating, misguided form of power man has ever devised. The retail power price increases due to massive cost overruns will harm the poor and those on fixed incomes, and it will be those people who share your misguided optimism who are squarely to blame.</p><p>One last point, and that is end-of-life-cycle increased accidents. The existing nuclear power plants are entering the final phase of their operating lives, and they will (because they must) experience increased system failures and radiation emissions. This has already begun as pressures exist to maintain or increase operating rates, systems and pipes corrode, tritium leaks into groundwater, and other systems slowly fail over time.</p><p>With at least 50 nuclear power plants older than the average (in the US), the odds are increasing with every passing day that an accident that releases deadly radioactivity will happen. This is not good for your cause.</p></div><div class="reply"></div></div></dd><dt class=" none" style="position: static; "><small class="date" style="color: silver; float: right; line-height: 2.3em; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-right: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 5px; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left- text-align: center; position: relative; right: 0px; font-size:0.5em;color:silver;"><span class="date_day" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-size:3em;">3</span><span class="date_month" style="display: block; text-align: right; font-weight: bold; font-size:3em;">10</span><span class="date_year" style="display: block; line-height: 0.9em; font-size:1.4em;">2009</span></small></dt><dd class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1 commentlist_item" id="comment-197895" style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245) !important; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size:1em;color:silver;"><div class="comment" id="div-comment-197895" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><strong class="comment-author vcard author" style="height: 32px; line-height: 32px; "><span class="fn"><a href="http://www.resowell-law.com/" rel="external nofollow" class="url" style="color: rgb(81, 81, 81); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: silver; ">Roger Sowell</a></span></strong> <span class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><small>(13:47:09)</small> :</span><div class="comment_text" style="margin-top: 5px; display: block; "><p>crosspatch, I respect your writings on WUWT, as you usually have interesting and (mostly) accurate things to say. But this time, IMHO, you fell quite a bit short of that mark.</p><p>Do you really want to hinge your argument for nuclear power plant safety on float valves, the “technology that makes toilets work?” I suppose toilet float valves work with close to 100 percent success somewhere in the universe, but not on this planet. Even a 99.9 percent success rate is not good enough for a nuclear power plant. That missing 0.1 percent represents 0.36 days, or roughly 8 hours of each year when the float valve will not work. Not nearly good enough.</p><p>I have spent too many hours fixing faulty float valve systems on toilets for that to be a convincing argument. I suppose next you will tell us that these are nuclear-grade float valves, not the cheap junk that are installed in actual toilets. Still, a float valve is one of the LEAST reliable of all instrumented control systems, and I have seen thousands of these in industrial (e.g.non-toilet) applications in my career. Their failure rates are legendary.</p><p>For just a partial list of float valve failure mechanisms, consider that float valves stick open, stick closed, stick partially closed, they corrode, they rust, they bend, they spring a leak and fill with fluid (water), the hinges freeze, and many, many others.</p><p>Thanks for the laugh on that one, I will be sure to include it in my presentations in the future! I think a bumper sticker is also in order.</p><p>“Don’t worry folks! These new nuclear plants are SAFE!!! We use the same float valve technology that makes your toilets work!!”</p><p><br /></p><p>And a few final comments from me. The entire concept of allowing water to vaporize (boil) to prevent a runaway nuclear reaction from exploding or melting down has several problems. First, the amount of water that must be boiled then condensed is immense. Consider that a nuclear reactor produces approximately 3 times the amount of heat compared to the amount of electricity produced. Thus, for a 1250 MWe reactor/power plant, the nuclear reactor side is producing the equivalent of 3,750 MWe of heat. </p><p>The heat transfer surface (interior of the reactor dome, as offered by crosspatch) that is required to condense this amount of water would be absolutely immense. Further, the design apparently has the heat being transferred across a very thick wall of steel, then to the ambient air (hence the reference to better heat removal during winter, and it can be continued indefinitely by shooting water on the outside of the containment dome). </p><p>Finally, heat transfer to air has a very low "efficiency" or what is referred to technically as the heat-transfer coefficient. In practice, that means that a very large surface area is required to transfer the heat to the air. The smooth exterior of the containment vessel just does not have the surface area. </p><p>I do hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is competent at performing the necessary heat transfer calculations, and uses the appropriate heat-transfer coefficients. These new reactor designs are a disaster just waiting to happen. </p></div></div></dd></span></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-14936606365216545982009-09-30T14:18:00.000-07:002009-09-30T14:26:19.310-07:00Dumb Move by GM to End Saturn<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">"GM CEO Fritz Henderson said in [a] statement that Saturn and its dealership network will be phased out [following breakdown of talks to acquire Saturn by Penske]." [words in brackets my addition - RES] source: the Associated Press, September 30, 2009. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">This has to go down in history as one of the dumbest business moves of all time. Shutting down Saturn, the car company that rescued GM a decade ago. Saturn, the car company that revolutionized the car buying experience - no haggling on the price. Everybody pays the same for a given model. Saturn, the car that runs and runs and runs, dependably, reliably, and with very low maintenance. Saturn, the car that tow-truck drivers almost never had to tow. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">I have owned 3 different Saturns, all 4 door sedans with the 4 cylinder engine, all manual transmission, and they ran like the fine machines they are. Never any maintenance or engine problems. Easy to work on, to change the oil and filter, to change the spark plugs, and that is all the tuneup they required. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">Brilliant, GM. Just brilliant. No wonder your company is bankrupt. </span></span></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-40463114835187150922009-09-27T09:25:00.000-07:002009-09-27T10:00:18.431-07:00Oil in AbundanceSome fear-mongers drone on and on that oil is a scarce resource and that Peak Oil has happened. They view the rapid consumption of oil as a very bad thing, and spin fantasies about apocalyptic events created by a shortage of oil, such events due to happen any day now. Or perhaps next year. Or, really no later than about 20 years. They are quite interesting, these Peak Oilers. Their views are so optimistic in one sense, yet so pessimistic in another. <div><br /></div><div>The optimism, and this is misplaced in my view, is that Man can and will develop sufficient green energy supplies - not based on fossil fuels - to keep every energy demand satisfied without oil, whether for transportation, heating, cooling, industry, entertainment, military, or otherwise. The green energy revolution they insist will be found does not emit carbon dioxide or other killer greenhouse gases, (although there is absolutely no proof that such emissions kill anything), instead, these green energy sources use the sun, the wind, the tide, plant material, even animal fats to produce vast amounts of energy. The technologies for the green energy are being frantically pursued by the laboratories, the scientists, engineers, financiers, and governments. Yet, to date, only small amounts of energy are produced from this massive effort. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Peak Oilers' pessimism is for the ability of the earth to provide more oil, and for those in the oil business to find and produce that oil. Apparently, in the minds of the Peak Oilers, only those in the green energy field are smart, and those in the oil business are not too bright. Yet, history shows just the opposite to be true. Consider the efforts of <a href="http://www.oxy.com/News_Room/Pages/News_Release.aspx?releaseid=169580">Occidental Petroleum very recently</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oxy, as it is commonly called, found a large amount of oil in California's Kern County, a place that was known for oil but was thought to contain no significant additional quantities. In fact, a refinery that processed local crudes in that area was to be shut down due to lack of crude supplies and imminent financial losses. The refiner, Shell, was not allowed to shut the refinery down but was forced to find a buyer, which they did. The buyer soon filed for bankruptcy. </div><div><br /></div><div>A key element of Oxy's Kern County find, according to some sources, was the technology they used to evaluate the rocks deep in the earth without drilling. This takes considerable technology, involving seismic surveys, and computer analysis of the seismic results. If one has seen the movie Jurassic Park, a movie director's version of this is included where the fossilized skeleton of a dinosaur deep in the ground is discovered by a computer that analyzes seismic waves. Oxy declines to discuss their technology because that is an important competitive advantage in a very competitive industry. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yet, we can surmise how this technology works. There are two components, improved imaging, and identifying the images. Seismic waves are sound waves produced from a sharp and very loud noise at the surface, then reflected upward by rocks deep underground. Different types of rocks, and different shapes of rocks, reflect the sound waves in different ways. The key is to have multiple sensitive microphones at key locations, listening for and recording the reflected sound waves. The phenomena is very much like an echo canyon, where a person can shout a short phrase, wait a second or so, and hear the sound echo back. A computer then assembles all the recorded sound waves, and processes them for issues such as time delay until returning to the surface, and strength. The exact interpretation process is proprietary because so much value lies in these computer programs. </div><div><br /></div><div>The second issue is identifying the images. With a sufficiently large pool of data, one can label the images as to being a particular type of rock, its location, and whether there is likely to be oil or not. This data is obtained by actually drilling, and carefully recording the contents of the rock cuttings as the well progresses downward. What is actually discovered is compared to the computer images, and statistics are brought in to play. The geologists are also consulted, as they play a key role in understanding what rocks are where, and how old they are, and whether they are likely to contain oil or not. The Peak Oilers apparently do not understand much, if any, of this entire process, but instead hold the wrong view that oil companies are a bunch of brainless bumblers who haul a drilling rig out into a wasteland, then drill like mad, hoping to find oil. That may have been true in the early days of oil discovery, but no more. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, congratulations to Oxy. Well done, guys and gals. One can only wonder how many additional oil discoveries will be made, using the high technologies of the modern oil company. </div><div><br /></div><div>It helps, of course, to have the price of oil above $70 per barrel. OPEC has fumbled yet again, just as they did in the late 1970's with their sudden and dramatic price increase for oil. With oil at $70 per barrel, it makes economic sense to re-evaluate old oil fields, deeper drilling, and more seismic surveys. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-4526314733624521472009-09-27T08:15:00.000-07:002009-09-27T08:22:42.078-07:00Sea Level SillinessWe hear repeated bleatings from the Carbon is Killing Us crowd, the AGW true-believers, that the sea levels will rise and coral reefs around the world will die. What utter silliness. <div><br /></div><div>We know that the seas rose many meters just after the most recent ice age, most likely on the order of 300 to 400 feet. Coral reefs did not die during the ice age, nor did they die during the ice melting period with the sea levels rising. As discussed elsewhere, several times during the past 12,000 years, the rate of sea level increase was much higher than that of today.</div><div><br /></div><div>Coral reefs are darlings of the tree-huggers because they support a variety of sea life, and they look pretty in photographs. It is also fun to fly to a tropical paradise, don the snorkel, face mask, and swim fins, and swim around near a tropical coral reef. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, who are we going to believe, the obvious facts staring us in the face, or the gloom-and-doom AGW Carbon is Killing Us crowd? </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-84304757500615810482009-09-06T23:27:00.001-07:002009-09-06T23:43:49.103-07:00Zero Cost LNGCan LNG, even after re-gasification and compression into distribution pipelines, ever be considered to have a zero cost? The answer is very, very close to yes, but only if one uses the same idiotic rationale as does the nuclear power industry. <div><br /></div><div>For many years, the nuclear power advocates (see <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/nuclear-nuts.html">Nuclear Nuts</a>) have bleated incessantly that nuclear power is the cheapest form of electric power, citing the infamous South Texas Nuclear Project for production costs of 1.35 cents per kWh. Fine, marvelous, superb, stupendous achievement. One hardly requires an advanced degree in finance, or a Certified Financial Analyst designation, to easily determine that no one in their right mind would build a new 2200 MW nuclear power plant for $17 to $25 billion and sell the power for 1.35 cents per kWh. Yet that is the completely misleading and irresponsible disinformation that nuclear nuts spread in their daily campaign for nuclear power. </div><div><br /></div><div>On the same basis, therefore, what would be the price of LNG? Could it be zero? Probably not zero, but it would be far cheaper than nuclear power. Even the electric power produced from a natural gas power plant would have nearly zero cost. The way the nuclear nuts obtain their 1.35 cents is merely to ignore the many billions in capital costs to build the plant, and focus instead only on the fuel cost, labor, and maintenance. Natural gas from LNG is almost free on that basis. The gas fields are directly connected to the LNG plant, and the LNG plant provides its own energy by consuming a bit of the natural gas. The re-gasification plant also consumes zero energy, as it too is powered entirely by burning a bit of the re-gasified LNG. Even the LNG ships that transport the LNG across oceans have zero operating cost, as they too are powered by burning re-gasified LNG. </div><div><br /></div><div>The next time one hears a nuclear nut telling anyone that nuclear power is the cheapest power around, at only 1.5 to 3 cents per kWh, tell them that electric power from natural gas is far cheaper. Tell them that LNG is just about free. Then when they begin to argue, ask them if they want to include capital costs, and compare prices on that basis. Otherwise, nuclear nuts should just shut up. </div><div><br /></div><div>Their little game has been exposed. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-3999979533088281562009-08-31T23:38:00.000-07:002009-09-01T00:04:54.702-07:00Global Warming and Zero Wind<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX8OV7b0OgWs_OuiLO7UpE1lcFYmm4Pm5PWAR-wreh_c64x-tz4Qxhj3YxVMQopU0TnZj9ZRX8cn7aktpFrtHESZlOsLK4wWy8D8z45El6Ee5Ho-mxax1s_vQ9ODY-q5n_8GaHxG27-pUq/s1600-h/us+(1)-frost"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 234px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX8OV7b0OgWs_OuiLO7UpE1lcFYmm4Pm5PWAR-wreh_c64x-tz4Qxhj3YxVMQopU0TnZj9ZRX8cn7aktpFrtHESZlOsLK4wWy8D8z45El6Ee5Ho-mxax1s_vQ9ODY-q5n_8GaHxG27-pUq/s400/us+(1)-frost" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376390336861084066" /></a><br />Unseasonal frost alerts and warnings were, and are, being issued by the National Weather Service in August of 2009. The northern states of Wisconsin, Michigan, upstate New York, Maine, and other New England states all have had such frost warnings in the past few days, as shown above in the bright blue areas in those states. <div><br /></div><div>Is it a coincidence that masses of high pressure air, bearing no wind, settle over these areas? Is it coincidence that the humidity is lower than usual in the high pressure air? The cold temperatures are due, we are told, to heat radiating away from earth through the still, dry air and into the almost perfect blackness of outer space. Yet, we must understand that the CO2 concentration in the air remains the same. </div><div><br /></div><div>One must suspect, as I certainly do, that winds or the lack thereof, play little to zero role in the vast GCMs, global climate models or general circulation models, so much favored by the AGW crowd who insist that Carbon is Going to Kill Us All -- sometime next week, likely on Tuesday. Yet it is quite apparent that the cold temperatures are due, at least in large part, to dry air masses that remain in a locale with little or no wind. It seems that the U.K. (England etc.) had a few days or weeks this past winter in which a high pressure cell remained fixed over the country, leading to very cold temperatures and no wind. The complaint was that the windmills produced no power during that period, and were useless. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is also quite apparent that the IPCC's predicted increase in humidity, caused entirely by too much CO2 in the atmosphere that radiates heat downward and into the ocean, is not occurring. The dry air masses that are causing the early frost warnings in the northern U.S. states have, by definition, very low humidity. Yet, the CO2 continues to increase as measured by the station in Hawaii at Mauna Loa. Is there a disconnect here?</div><div><br /></div><div>This leads to several questions. </div><div><br /></div><div>1) Is global warming real? </div><div><br /></div><div>2) Does CO2 actually increase air humidity?</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Where is the humidity increasing? </div><div><br /></div><div>4) If the CO2 is already at alarmingly high levels, shouldn't the humidity already be increasing, and these dry air masses that lead to frost warnings be a thing of the past? </div><div><br /></div><div>5) If, as the IPCC claims, the tropics will have increased humidity, how will they know? Have any IPCC scientists ever been to the tropics? Did they notice that humidity is already very high, and not much increase can occur? </div><div><br /></div><div>Many of us, myself included, are not trained as climate scientists. Yet, we are trained (as I am) in chemistry, physics, analytical thinking, statistical methods, and quite a few more in my particular case. I must add engineering principles, process control principles, legal principles of causation, production and introduction of evidence, material evidence and hearsay, expert witnesses, forensics, and rhetoric. </div><div><br /></div><div>Just how long must we, as a country in the U.S., and other countries around the world, be expected to believe the IPCC when the evidence so clearly in front of us belies their deepest held and professed theories? To paraphrase an old but good one, Who are you going to believe, the IPCC or your lying eyes? </div><div><br /></div><div>Crop-endangering frost in August in the Northern Hemisphere. In a global warming world, per the IPCC. Next they will be telling us all that snow last winter that blanketed Canada from coast to coast (for weeks on end) was really just white powder, likely due to China's power plants pumping out their aerosols. No telling what they will fabricate (or is it prevaricate?) to explain away the vast amounts of snow and cold weather this next winter will bring. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is an ill wind that blows...nope, not this time. No wind. No humidity. But lots of frost. And CO2 continues to rise. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-28526179253293758012009-08-30T07:56:00.000-07:002009-08-30T08:37:53.946-07:00Money Well Spent for CNG VehiclesThe DOE <a href="http://www.energy.gov/recovery/cleancities.htm">awarded almost $300 million in grants</a> this week to promote non-petroleum fuels in transportation. There were 25 grants to 24 different entities nationwide, because South Coast Air Management District received two separate grants. SCAQMD is the air pollution control district in Southern California with jurisdiction including Los Angeles. The combined effect of the program is to eliminate 38 million gallons per year of petroleum products consumption, in favor of more consumption of natural gas and bio-fuels. However, some of the vehicles will burn propane, which is produced both from petroleum and as a co-product of natural gas. <div><br /></div><div>The savings of 38 million gallons per year sounds impressive, but place in context of total petroleum demand, it is barely a drop in the ocean. 38 million gallons per year is the same as 2,523 barrels per day. The U.S. consumes approximately 11 million barrels per day. Still, this is a move in the right direction. </div><div><br /></div><div>As T. Boone Pickens advocates, more wind power frees up natural gas that would have been burned to produce that power. The natural gas is then available for vehicle consumption. Furthermore, every barrel of gasoline replaced by natural gas means that we import two fewer barrels of oil. When diesel fuel is replaced by natural gas, we import three fewer barrels of oil. This is somewhat simplified, but is not far off the mark. </div><div><br /></div><div>The interesting thing is the cost effectiveness of these programs. The money will be spent on creating refueling infrastructure, plus purchasing trucks and other vehicles that will consume the alternative fuels. The DOE money represents approximately $7 .70 per gallon, one-time cost. Looked at another way, that is $118,000 per barrel per day. A new refinery costs approximately $28,000 per barrel per day, so DOE is spending roughly 4 times what a new refinery would cost on a per-barrel basis. </div><div><br /></div><div>It could be worse. The federal government is known to spend money on some ridiculously frivolous things; at least this time the money is spent on reducing oil imports, and reducing transportation fuel costs by consuming natural gas. The bio-fuel and electric hybrid portion, though, will increase transportation fuel costs. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><col width="131" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4790;width:98pt"><col width="64" span="4" style="width:48pt"><div> </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-17232544538639562132009-08-21T21:38:00.000-07:002009-08-21T21:53:18.861-07:00Bio-Diesel from Municipal WasteThe day has arrived, almost. Synthetic diesel fuel made from municipal solid waste and sewage sludge will be used by ground service equipment at Los Angeles International airport, LAX. Rentech <a href="http://cleantech.com/news/4859/lax-rentech-synthetic-diesel-rtk">announced</a> this week it has contracts for 1.5 million gallons per year of its bio-diesel that several airlines will purchase. <div><br /></div><div>The bio-fuel will be made in a plant near Los Angeles (where there is abundant trash and sewage sludge). Startup is expected in late 2012, but this presumes there will be a break in the impasse over environmental permits. </div><div><br /></div><div>For some perspective, diesel sales in California typically are approximately 400,000 barrels per day, or 16.5 million gallons per day. Thus, the bit sold by Rentech will not make much of a dent in refineries' production. </div><div><br /></div><div>But, with all the green energy credits available for converting waste to bio-fuel, the plant may be a money-maker. As an added bonus, the plant produces and sells electricity. </div><div><br /></div><div>What is not known, yet, is the delivered price of the fuel to the airlines. Will it cost more than petroleum-based diesel? Will the state tax this fuel in the same amount as conventional diesel?</div><div><br /></div><div>This is but one small part of the green revolution. Presumably there will be some green jobs in designing, building, operating, and maintaining the plant. California could use some more jobs, with unemployment at 11.9 percent based on the numbers announced today. </div><div><br /></div><div>What is interesting about this process is that it should be immaterial how much CO2 is emitted, because it is all from biological origin. This CO2 will simply recycle through the cycle, from air to plants to useful materials to the trash and back into the plant. The part burned by the diesel engines will also create CO2, and this will join the cycle. Thus, the EIR will not have a very long section in discussing the harmful effects of CO2 from this plant. What a concept. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-43525640727265809802009-08-09T20:58:00.001-07:002009-08-09T21:14:03.766-07:00Earth Cloudiness 1969 and 2009<div>What a difference four decades makes! Below is a August 2009 photo of the Earth from space, showing almost no clouds. Below that is a famous photo from July 1969 taken from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, showing the Earth almost covered in clouds. </div><div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/sat_goes10fd_580x580.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 580px; height: 580px;" src="http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/sat_goes10fd_580x580.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-200907/6856996fec800a6d4a8569c151eb51dd.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 377px; height: 400px;" src="http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-200907/6856996fec800a6d4a8569c151eb51dd.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><div>View of Earth from Apollo 11, July 1969, showing clouds covering much of the surface. Such cloudiness increases the Earth's albedo and leads to reduced air temperatures. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-64731605152043851812009-08-09T20:42:00.000-07:002009-08-09T20:47:06.392-07:00Natural Gas Pipelines in the US<div>Natural gas pipelines, as shown in the map below, cross much of the U.S. and have done so for many decades. This map shows only the major pipelines, and there are far more pipelines operating at low pressure that distribute the natural gas into businesses and homes. This map provides an excellent visual reminder that natural gas is safe and flows reliably and cheaply into almost every business and home in the U.S. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/images/map_us_ng_pipelines.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 702px; height: 456px;" src="http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/images/map_us_ng_pipelines.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-3646856101812129492009-08-09T13:14:00.001-07:002009-08-09T13:21:14.655-07:00Farewell Mr. FatBigotWith some surprise I saw today that one of my favorite blogs, The Fat Bigot Opines, is no longer posting or accepting comments. I write this in the hopes that Mr. Fat Bigot himself reads this, or in the alternative, someone else sends the word to him. <div><br /></div><div>Mr. Fat Bigot wrote a wonderful blog at TheFatBigotOpines.blogspot.com, with a witty, pithy, sometimes scathing point of view on many topics, typically from his British perspective and flavored with his attorney background. </div><div><br /></div><div>I read almost every blog entry over the past several months, always with great interest and sometimes amusement. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. FB, I wish you all the best in your new endeavours. (British spelling there, in your honour). </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-1145523386060119872009-08-08T12:35:00.000-07:002009-08-08T12:55:35.710-07:00Cogeneration Reduces Grid Purchases<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In the steel-making plant of Essar Steel Algoma, a </span></span><a href="http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1660806"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">new gas-fired cogeneration plant</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> is reducing the load on the grid to the tune of 70 MW and at a cost of only $135 million. This is just one example of a theme I hit from time to time, that as power prices increase, industries will build their own power plants, or self-generate and reduce their purchases from the utility-supplied electrical grid. This happens at much smaller levels, also. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here is an</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/citycenter-las-vegas-sustainable-gamble"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">8.5 megawatt cogeneration plant</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> in a Las Vegas hotel, which could easily be duplicated at 1000 hotels or more across the country. Hotels have a need for electricity and hot water for their guests and restaurants, and are ideal for cogeneration from natural gas. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Another project is a tri-fecta, with </span></span><a href="http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/07/13/GE-Energy-inaugurates-cogeneration-plant/UPI-77161247492405/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a 12 MW gas-fired cogeneration plant</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> installed in a tomato-growing greenhouse. The greenhouse utilizes the heat and CO2 from the engine exhaust, and electric power is sold to the grid. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">With all this cogeneration activity today, with low electric prices, one can only imagine the flurry of activity when (or if) nuclear power plants are built again and severely raise power rates, and the costs of Global Warming legislation such as California's AB 32 are realized. Self-generation is not a fad, not a toy, and not a pipe dream as those in the nuclear power industry insist. Engineers have worked diligently and creatively for decades to provide robust, safe, clean, and economic alternatives to high power prices caused by poorly-considered nuclear power plants with their $20-plus billion price tags and decade or longer construction times. Imagine the surprise on the utility executives' faces when the new nuclear power plant is finally started up after 10 to 12 years, at a cost over-run of 200 or even 400 percent, and their customers say "No thanks, I have all the electric power I need at one-fourth the cost of yours." </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There is no need for them to act surprised. This is exactly what happened in Louisiana just a couple of decades ago. It is known as the Nuclear Death Spiral. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 21px;font-size:15px;"><br /></span></span></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-79663039759063162042009-08-08T10:48:00.000-07:002009-08-08T11:21:14.705-07:00Natural Gas Power Plants BoomingIt is always a pleasure to watch the market work, especially when unrestricted by overly-burdensome government regulations. When natural gas was regulated in the 60's and 70's, a shortage of natural gas occurred and then-President Carter announced we had an energy crisis, a shortage. There was a crisis, allright, but it was a crisis of over-regulation and stifling the creative energy of oil and gas men. When those regulations were relaxed, amazingly, the energy crisis disappeared. Natural gas today is far more abundant, and less expensive as a result. Based on the huge reserves of natural gas, and the confident prospect of even more being placed into production for the foreseeable future, power companies are building combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants all around. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">First, a</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><a href="http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-31-2009/0005069938&EDATE="><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">350 MW combined-cycle natural gas power facility in Brockton, Mass</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, then </span></span><a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090808/NEWS01/908080325/TVA+curtails+plans+for+reactors+at+Alabama+plant"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">TVA </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; line-height: 21px; "><a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090808/NEWS01/908080325/TVA+curtails+plans+for+reactors+at+Alabama+plant"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">is moving ahead with plans for an $820 million, gas-fired power plant </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">instead of a nuclear plant, finally (to name just three), </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">CPV wants to construct </span></span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/676931"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a 1,200-megawatt, high-efficiency gas [fired power] plant </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">that can help supply electricity demand in southern Ontario, Canada, instead of a nuclear plant. </span></span></span></span></span><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, in the forlorn and gloomy world of new nuclear power, nothing is being built in the U.S., and those who planned to build nuclear power plants are scuttling those plans in favor of, what else, natural gas power plants (see above for two examples). Utilities do have some sense, after all. They also have shareholders who have the right and the power to sue the corporation in a shareholder derivative suit. The corporation could, of course, claim the business judgement rule defense, as their company loses money and the stock price plummets - all because they built a nuclear power plant that cost tens of billions of dollars, took a decade or more to complete, and then found their customers reducing their power demand by self-generation. With apologies to Field of Dreams writers, "If you build it, we won't buy."</div><div><br /></div><div>Some pundits write that the natural gas industry is behaving irrationally with prices low, and production continuing as storage volumes are filled. That analysis shows a failure to grasp the fundamentals of business: buy low, and sell high. This is not complicated stuff, here. With natural gas prices at or near historic lows, yet the almost certainty that prices in the coming winter will be higher due to increased demand caused by cold weather and a (hopefully) increased economy, it makes all the sense in the world to produce gas now, store it, and sell it later for a nice profit. This cycle of produce and store in summer, and sell in winter has been with us for a couple of years at least. With global warming on the wane, indeed, winters are growing more severe, thus the demand for natural gas to heat buildings and homes is assured. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is no conspiracy, no market manipulation, no chicanery, just common business sense by people who know what they are doing. Buy low. Sell high. A winning formula. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-44669046277007476412009-08-04T18:32:00.000-07:002009-08-04T19:30:35.834-07:00More Cooling from LNG Flowing<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;">"Sempra LNG, a subsidiary of San Diego-based Sempra Energy, <a href="http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/4593660482/s-articles/s-oil-gas-journal/s-transportation/s-articles/s-another-gulf_of_mexico.html">said on July 31</a> that its second North American LNG terminal, this one near Lake Charles, La., has begun commercial operations." And with that, LNG importing into the U.S. Gulf Coast now has 4 terminals operating, plus two under construction. The only LNG terminal on the West Coast is just south of San Diego, as Mexico has fewer qualms about operating an LNG facility than squeamish Californians. But, much of the re-vaporized natural gas is sent to California, where it is burned as fuel in low-emission power plants and used as transportation fuel. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">The advent of numerous LNG receiving and vaporization terminals is great news for everyone, as this ensures a low price for natural gas for decades to come, plus ample supplies of clean-burning, reliable, safe, and versatile fuel. No other fuel can match the versatility of natural gas, as it is used for power plants that are base loaded, also load following, also peak load service, for heating in homes, cooking in homes, process heating in industry, and as a chemical raw material for indispensible products such as ammonia for fertilizers, and industrial hydrogen. Natural gas is also used directly as a transportation fuel in cars, trucks, and buses. Natural gas is so abundant and so cheap that there are plants that convert it into synthetic diesel. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Even though the US has discovered and is exploiting huge deposits of natural gas from shale formations, it continues to be economic to import LNG from overseas. Some is from the Middle East, but other areas also have vast deposits of natural gas and convert the gas to LNG for export. Trinidad and Tobago have LNG plants, and so does Australia. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">The re-gasification process requires heat input, or, stated another way, the environment cools somewhat around LNG re-gasification.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Natural gas: a safe, clean, non-toxic, abundant, low-cost, fuel that is welcome around the world, and serves as a political buffer to those European nations that suffered last winter from threats and actual shut-offs of natural gas from Russia. Plus, no one has ever been irradiated from natural gas, unlike toxic nuclear fission power plants. No natural gas furnace or gas turbine needs de-contamination after its useful life is over, as do nuclear power plants. When a natural gas power plant reaches the end of its useful life, workers in normal safety attire take the plant apart, bolt by bolt, and send the parts and pieces off to recycling. Production of natural gas does not forever poison the production site, unlike yellow cake for uranium that is used as nuclear fission fuel. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">And, no plutonium is created by natural gas combustion. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Why would anyone want to build any other kind of power plant than natural gas? Especially one of the nuclear fission variety that costs 6 times as much, takes 3 or 4 times as long to build, and must charge triple or quadruple the price for the power produced? Nuclear power plants easily cost $10,000 per kW, while natural gas plants cost $1500 per kW. Also, new nuclear power plants under construction attract opposition group lawsuits the way bees are drawn to honey. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">The kicker in modern times, though, may be the lower water consumption from a natural gas fired power plant, compared to the vast quantities of water required by a nuclear power plant. On an equal power output basis, a nuclear power plant will require twice as much water due to the inherently inefficient use of heat in the nuclear power plant. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;color:#333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;">Natural gas. The only logical choice. </span></span></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-14509157643708995942009-07-27T17:45:00.000-07:002009-07-27T22:59:01.744-07:00Recession Causes Refinery ClosuresOne of the results of the ongoing economic recession is very low refinery utilization rates, and low operating margins. One <a href="http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/07/20/u-s-oil-refiners-face-major-cuts-slow-recovery/">recent source</a> states that marginal refineries will shut down, especially those that are independent refineries with no oil production of their own. <div><br /></div><div>That could very well happen, especially if crude prices rise as the U.S. dollar fluctuates in value, which it very well could do. The demand for products is not likely to increase soon, in fact, it will likely decrease as the end of the summer driving season nears. Diesel fuel consumption is not likely to increase because that is tied to overall economic activity, and despite (or because) of the Obama administration's intervention into the economy, there is no sign that diesel fuel demand will increase anytime soon. </div><div><br /></div><div>California, the largest state economically as well as by population, is in intensive care mode even though last week a compromise budget was passed. The compromise did nothing to cure the economic problems, but merely postponed them for a few months. In fact, some local governments are threatening lawsuits against the State of California for not sending money to the local governments. This is a bit like four people about to eat lunch, with money enough for only three, then the biggest and strongest robs the weakest of his lunch money. There still is not enough money to go around, it is merely distributed differently. The impact on national fuel demand is due to the ripple effect from California's problems. Each state in the U.S. has some impact from California's fiscal irresponsibility, because California grows (perhaps grew is the correct word here) food crops and has three major ports (San Francisco, Los Angeles/Long Beach, and San Diego). </div><div><br /></div><div>As to which refineries will close, traditionally the smallest in a competitive market are vulnerable, or those with the least efficient processing. As I wrote earlier, in California a refinery closure that was proposed drew the ire of a U.S. Senator and threats of anti-trust litigation. That refinery is now in bankruptcy proceedings. One must wonder if any other refinery must tolerate such treatment at the hands of Senators. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, the above-referenced article states that Shell is considering shutting at least a part of a large refinery near Houston, the Deer Park complex. Shell Deer Park has a refinery and petrochemical complex. </div><div><br /></div><div>At what point will the tax-and-spend and more-regulations-are-good forces realize that industry is the golden goose in America? It takes very little for massive refineries to choose to shut down and their tank farms converted into receiving terminals. Foreign refineries such as the new refinery in India are quite willing to refine crude oil and ship the products to the U.S. The loss in tax revenues to the local governments will be noticed. The improvement in air quality will not. </div><div><br /></div><div>The looming cap-and-trade regulations, and additional burdens of ethanol-blended gasoline and bio-diesel will further erode refinery utilization, causing further shutdowns. Does the USA actually want to have the transportation infrastructure dependent on the vagaries of weather? That is exactly what is at stake with bio-fuels from corn, soy, and other crops. As one<a href="http://www.ewg.org/report/Biofuels-and-Bad-Weather"> recent article</a> states, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px; font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size:12px;">When the Bush administration and Congress required gasoline refiners to blend in 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015, they made the impossibly rosy assumption that American farmers would always enjoy good weather. But as every farmer knows, years with perfect growing conditions are uncommon and getting more rare.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size:12px;"><p style="font: normal normal normal 1em/1.5em 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-top: 3px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">In early April, Environmental Working Group Founder Ken Cook warned that the government’s food policy amounted to “hope for good weather.” </p></span>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-29174814385323160332009-07-19T19:27:00.000-07:002009-07-19T20:06:03.925-07:00OPEC Reaction to Energy Storage SystemsIn the Grand Game of global energy supplies and technology (which I <a href="http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-and-unicorns-both-mythical.html">describe here</a>), OPEC is of course a key player. OPEC has some control over a few things, chief among which is the production rate of oil under their member states' control. In general, when OPEC increases production, oil prices fall, and vice versa. A key result of lower oil prices, and a major part of the Grand Game, is that the economic incentive for renewable energy decreases. For example, if a consumer is considering the purchase of a new car, either conventional engine or hybrid engine, he must pay more for the hybrid engine vehicle. However, the hybrid engine vehicle will use less gasoline and thus have reduced operating costs. The price of gasoline is a key variable in the calculations. If a sufficient number of consumers purchase the hybrid cars, gasoline demand will be lower than otherwise, and OPEC must reduce production to maintain the price of oil. However, if economies and populations are growing rapidly, the decreased oil demand may merely mean that OPEC is not required to invest in additional production capacity. <div><br /></div><div>In the electric power side of the Grand Game, OPEC is not quite as directly involved, while others are key players. The big debate in the electric power side is renewable energy vs fossil-fired energy vs nuclear energy. OPEC is involved because the price of electric power influences, to some extent, the economic attractiveness of electric vehicles or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. Electric vehicles that draw power from the grid compete directly with gasoline vehicles, and thus the connection to OPEC. </div><div><br /></div><div>The renewable energy group includes solar, wind, wave, ocean current, hydroelectric, geothermal, municipal solid waste, and some forms of methane such as bio-gas and landfill gas. This discussion is about producing electric power, thus bio-fuels such as bio-diesel and bio-ethanol are not discussed. The great drawback to many of the renewable energy production technologies is their intermittent nature: the wind is highly variable, the sun shines only for a few hours each day at strengths suitable for power generation, and not at all when clouds or rain block the sun, and waves are variable. The intermittent nature of these renewables can be mitigated with an electricity storage system (ESS), or some other form of storage that consumes renewable electric power and reproduces that power later and upon demand. </div><div><br /></div><div>Direct storage of electricity is possible, as batteries and ultra-capacitors have shown. The cost per kWh delivered is very high, however. Other ESS include high-speed flywheels, pumped storage hydroelectric, compressed air energy storage, high-pressure hydraulic storage, and a few others. A key breakthrough in <a href="http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/grid-scale-energy-storage-flywheel.html">flywheel ESS was announced</a> a few days ago, for a large, grid-scale ESS that is to store 30 GW of power, and release power in MW quantities upon demand. </div><div><br /></div><div>It will be interesting to observe OPEC's reaction to this flywheel ESS. The rules of the Grand Game require that OPEC do what it can to maintain the demand for oil, and the price of oil at a relatively high price. This maximizes OPEC revenue and ensures their survival. The flywheel ESS, if it indeed works as advertised, will release a flood of new renewable power projects in wind, solar, and wave technologies. This may reduce electric power prices, depending on the cost to build and operate the flywheel ESS. If the electric power prices are reduced sufficiently, plug-in hybrid cars or pure electric cars will become very attractive, thus reducing the demand for OPEC oil and the gasoline refined from it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, it may be expected that OPEC will increase oil production, decreasing the price of oil and thus the cost to consumers of gasoline. It remains to be seen whether OPEC can increase oil production sufficiently to compete with the new reality of cheap, essentially unlimited electric power.</div><div><br /></div><div>One interesting outcome could be that OPEC reduces output to create a spike in oil prices, thus increasing their revenue. This would be a short-lived situation, but it could increase OPEC's revenue for the few years remaining until the flywheel ESS are built and integrated into the grid, and intermittent renewable power plants are built in great numbers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, the flywheel ESS may allow power production at such a low price that nuclear power plants are no longer even considered as candidates for electric production. Nuclear power plants cost many billions of dollars to construct and require a decade-long construction period. The cost of electric power from a nuclear power plant is on the order of 30 to 40 cents per kWh. Renewable-based electricity with flywheel ESS will very likely produce electric power reliably and cheaply, at far less than a nuclear power plant. This is good news for everyone, as there will no longer be an excuse to build toxic, radioactive, ultrazhazardous nuclear power plants that poison the planet with plutonium and other deadly nucleotides for centuries. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-38345053366345320062009-07-15T20:07:00.001-07:002009-07-18T10:17:40.133-07:00Texas Wind Power GenerationThe website <a href="http://mospublic.ercot.com/ercot/jsp/frequency_control.jsp">found here</a> and shown below is simply fascinating. This is the Texas ERCOT Real-Time information on the electrical power grid throughout most of Texas. What is really interesting (to me) is the line-item that shows Total Wind Output, in MW. As I write this, (8:10 p.m. PDT on July 15, 2009), the system records 2,915 MW from wind generators. That is roughly 6 percent of the total generation at that moment in Texas. <div><br /></div><div>I have been following this for several days now, with a view toward confirming or falsifying several statements one reads in various blogs/journals/media about wind and how unreliable it is. I note several things: 1) wind power in Texas never seems to drop to zero. I have seen it down to around 2 percent during the day. Texans use a lot of power each day, and the wind decreases a bit in the mornings; 2) wind power increases at night usually, consistent with increasing winds; 3) the most I have observed from this ERCOT site, is 8 percent of total generation; 4) spinning reserve is invariably more than the wind power generated, but not by much. </div><div><br /></div><div>Here is what the website showed at 22:04 local time (CDT): (reload the ERCOT webpage to update the information)</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;"><table class="formBody3" style="background-color: rgb(57, 98, 143); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; width: 405px; "><tbody><tr><td><table class="formBody3u" style="background-color: rgb(57, 98, 143); width: 397px; "><tbody><tr><td align="LEFT"><span class="componentNameText" style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: bold; font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">REAL-TIME DATA</span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table class="formBody1u" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); width: 397px; "><tbody><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT"><b>Posted Date</b></td><td align="RIGHT" colspan="2"><span style="color:black;">15-JUL-2009 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow2" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(239, 251, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT"><b>Posted Hour</b></td><td align="RIGHT" colspan="2"><span style="color:black;">2204 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT">Actual System Demand (Frequency Control)</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">52712 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr class="SubRow2" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(239, 251, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT"><b>Scheduled Frequency</b></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">60.000 </span></td><td align="LEFT">Hz</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT">Actual Frequency</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">59.960 </span></td><td align="LEFT">Hz</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT">Time Error</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">-1.162 </span></td><td align="LEFT">sec</td></tr><tr class="SubRow2" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(239, 251, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT">Total Generation</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">52198 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT">Current Aggregated Regulation Deployment*</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">-236 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; font-family:Verdana;font-size:8pt;"><td align="LEFT">Adjusted Responsive Reserve</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">4134 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT">Total On-Line Capacity</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">57338 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT">Total Spinning Reserve</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">5140 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="LEFT">Total Wind Output</td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">2915 </span></td><td align="LEFT">MW</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table class="formBody1u" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); width: 397px; "><tbody><tr class="HeaderRow" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bolder; height: 20px; text-align: center; "><td align="CENTER" colspan="3">DC Tie Flows</td></tr><tr class="HeaderRow" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bolder; height: 20px; text-align: center; "><td align="CENTER">Line</td><td align="CENTER">Scheduled</td><td align="CENTER">Actual</td><td align="CENTER">Imp. Lim.</td><td align="CENTER">Exp. Lim.</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="center"><span style="color:black;"><b>DC_E </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">-579 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">-574 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">600 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">600 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="center"><span style="color:black;"><b>DC_L </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">1 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">70 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">100 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="center"><span style="color:black;"><b>DC_N </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">72 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">69 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">210 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">210 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="center"><span style="color:black;"><b>DC_R </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">150 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" face="Verdana" size="8pt" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; text-align: left; "><td align="center"><span style="color:black;"><b>DC_S </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">0 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">30 </span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">30 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow2" style="background-color: rgb(239, 251, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Center"><span style="color:black;"><b>Total </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;"><b>-507 </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;"><b>-504 </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;"><b>910 </b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;"><b>1090 </b></span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table class="formBody1u" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); width: 397px; "><tbody><tr class="HeaderRow" style="background-color: rgb(128, 162, 198); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bolder; height: 20px; text-align: center; "><td align="CENTER">Monitored<br />CSC/CRE Flow</td><td align="CENTER">MW</td><td align="CENTER">MVAR</td><td align="CENTER">LIMIT</td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Left">NORTH-HOUSTON </td><td align="RIGHT">1407 </td><td align="RIGHT">-38 </td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">3203 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Left">NORTH-SOUTH </td><td align="RIGHT">245 </td><td align="RIGHT">58 </td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">1403 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Left">NORTH-WEST </td><td align="RIGHT">-62 </td><td align="RIGHT">52 </td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">826 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Left">SOUTH-NORTH </td><td align="RIGHT">-245 </td><td align="RIGHT">-58 </td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">346 </span></td></tr><tr class="SubRow1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 40, 86); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-align: left; "><td align="Left">WEST-NORTH </td><td align="RIGHT">62 </td><td align="RIGHT">-52 </td><td align="RIGHT"><span style="color:black;">1018 </span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table><tbody><tr><td align="LEFT" colspan="2"><span class="componentNameText" style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: bold; font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;"><span style="font-size:-2;">* Negative(-) = UP REG Deployed<br />Positive = DOWN REG Deployed</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div><div><br /></div><div>These observations are based on the various things put forth by those in the wind-power business. First, that wind power is only 1 percent of total generation. Not in Texas, it seems. From my observations, it appears that an average is about 4 percent. Second, that wind power drops to zero, and other generation systems must take over the load. I have yet to see it drop to zero, but then I have only watched for a few days, and then not full-time. Third, that a power grid begins to have troubles when wind energy approaches five or six percent of the total load (various sources use different figures here). The Texas grid seems to work just fine with wind providing 7 and 8 percent of the load. I have not read nor heard of any troubles in Texas due to wind-power. </div><div><br /></div><div>It would be nice if this data were also presented in a graphical form, as <a href="http://www.caiso.com/">California's ISO</a> does. I would like to see a graph of total grid power generated over the 24 hours in a day, with a second line showing the amount of power provided by wind. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some say renewables are not reliable, and do not provide any energy. Hah. Facts are stubborn things. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh. One other thing: the ongoing operating and maintenance costs for wind-energy is essentially zero. It is far, far, less than the cost of running a nuclear power plant, with their outrageously expensive piping, valves, pumps, heat exchangers, boilers, water softeners, toxic waste fuel storage areas, steam turbines, generators, steam condensers, cooling towers, and the hundreds of personnel required to operate. Not to mention the millions of dollars per year that are paid for the operating license. And wind power plants do not leak radioactive, toxic tritium into the water supply. </div><div><br /></div><div>The wind is free. The wind is non-toxic. The wind does not create a toxic, radioactive waste that endures for centuries. </div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE 1 July 18, 2009: A wind energy <a href="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind_maps.htm">resource link for Texas</a>, also US, also offshore. </div><div><br /></div><div><img src="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/Images/re_wind-class2008.jpg" alt="Texas Wind Power Map 2004" /><img src="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/Images/re_wind-class2008legend.gif" alt="Wind Classification Legend" /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/zzz_re/re_offshore_pwr50m.pdf">This link</a> shows the offshore Texas wind resource measured at 50 meters height; for an area 50 miles offshore and to the shore. The best wind areas (Class 5) are just offshore Corpus Christi, and ranging about 75 miles southward down the coast, and extend approximately 50 miles offshore. This area is more than 3,500 square miles, representing a huge un-tapped resource of wind power. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also offshore Texas, there is an even larger area of Class 4 wind to the north and south of the Class 5 area, comprising approximately 9,000 square miles. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-8777343943305288082009-07-15T19:18:00.000-07:002009-07-15T19:39:08.216-07:00Oil from AlgaeOne of the many oil-alternatives (a substance that can be processed or converted into petroleum-like substances) is an oil that is formed from some types of algae. This week, the technology received a big boost when <a href="http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/alert/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20090714005554">ExxonMobil announced it will invest</a> (reportedly) $600 million in developing this. <div><br /></div><div>The algae grows by consuming CO2 and sunshine, plus water, as do all plants. The product qualifies as a renewable fuel, as do ethanol from crops and bio-diesel. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the Grand Game (which I <a href="http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/peak-oil-and-unicorns-both-mythical.html">described here</a>), oil-alternatives play a crucial role. First, as more oil-alternatives are found or created, there is more competition for traditional petroleum. However, bringing an oil-alternative to market can be difficult, if the cost of production is higher than that of petroleum. Examples of oil-alternatives include tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids plants, ethanol from crops, and bio-diesel. Some would include natural gas-to-liquids plants, an example of which is a natural gas-to-diesel plant. </div><div><br /></div><div>The costs to produce algae-oil will include land, nutrients, water (this may be from rain), harvesting, and processing plants to yield the oil. There may also be a storage cost, if the algae does not grow well, or at all, during winter months. One can envisage a growing season of six or seven months, so that part of the oil produced is stored up for use during winter months. Or, one can envisage large floating ponds on the ocean near the equator, with the algae growing in specially treated water (not sea water). </div><div><br /></div><div>Again referring to the Grand Game, one can envisage the great hot deserts of the world, particularly in Northern Africa, using sunshine to desalinate seawater, pumping the fresh water into the desert to irrigate algae ponds, and producing algae-oil for sale to the world. If this comes to pass, it will greatly change the world. Also, the great deserts of the U.S. Southwest can be used to great advantage. This would be a good use of the abundant sunshine, rather than converting the sunshine to electric power via photo-voltaics. </div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-48151835791409735422009-07-05T22:08:00.000-07:002009-07-06T19:15:29.330-07:00Cold June for Los Angeles 2009<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;"><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">Well, this is certainly interesting! The weather is usually cool in June in Los Angeles, </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">in fact the phrase here is June Gloom. But this year was colder than usual. This is even</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">more pronounced at LAX, the airport right on the coast. We are seeing a consistent pattern</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">develop, with colder waters offshore California causing the sea to contract slightly and </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">sea levels drop. No fear of sea level rise at all, although the powers-that-be in California's</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">government agencies hold hearings and pay consultants to tell them alarming tales of what might</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">happen, someday, if all their dire predictions come true about polar icecaps melting. </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 "><br /></pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">The Atlantic ocean is also colder than usual, and zero tropical storms have formed, and zero</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">hurricanes, too. That is not so strange, yet, since most hurricanes occur in August and </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">September. I am watching the hurricane count with great interest this year, as it is working </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">up to be a dud, again proving that climate change due to atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is a lie. </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">The mantra is now the Deniers vs the Liars. I'm a proud member of the Denier camp. With all the </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">evidence now available that man does not and could not cause global warming, any people who </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">cling bitterly to that lost cause are either deluded or liars. Liars know the facts and </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">intentionally say just the opposite. This is one of the legal elements of a fraud lawsuit. </pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 "><br /></pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">From the National Weather Service just yesterday:</pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 "><br /></pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 "><br /></pre><pre style="font-size: 12px; #000000 ">PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT<br />NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA<br />600 PM PDT TUE JUN 30 2009<br /><br />...DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES WERE BELOW NORMAL ON EVERY DAY IN JUNE<br />AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES AND AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT...<br /><br />DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES AT BOTH DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES AND AT LOS<br />ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WERE BELOW NORMAL ON EVERY SINGLE DAY<br />IN THE MONTH OF JUNE. IN FACT...HIGH TEMPERATURES AT EACH LOCATION<br />HAVE BEEN BELOW NORMAL SINCE MAY 22ND...A STRETCH OF 40 DAYS IN A<br />ROW AND COUNTING. WHILE RECORDS FOR CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITH BELOW<br />NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE NOT TYPICALLY MAINTAINED...THIS IS A FAIRLY<br />NOTEWORTHY STRETCH OF COOL WEATHER...THE RESULT OF A PERSISTENT<br />UPPER LEVEL TROUGH LINGERING ACROSS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.<br /><br />AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES...DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURES...THE AVERAGE OF<br />THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TEMPERATURE ON EACH DAY...HAVE NOT BEEN<br />ABOVE NORMAL SINCE MAY 22ND. HOWEVER...DURING THAT STRETCH...MEAN<br />TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN EXACTLY NORMAL ON 5 DAYS...INCLUDING 3 DAYS<br />DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE.<br /><br />ALSO AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES...HIGH TEMPERATURES REACHED OR EXCEEDED<br />80 DEGREES ON JUST TWO DAYS DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE...THE LOWEST<br />NUMBER OF SUCH OCCURRENCES SINCE JUNE 1982...WHICH HAD ONLY ONE<br />SUCH DAY. THE AVERAGE DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2009 WAS 74.5<br />DEGREES...5 DEGREES BELOW THE NORMAL OF 79.5 DEGREES.<br />INTERESTINGLY...THE AVERAGE HIGH FOR JUNE WAS JUST SLIGHTLY WARMER<br />THAN THE AVERAGE MAXIMUM FOR THIS PAST JANUARY...WHEN THE DAILY HIGH<br />AVERAGED 74.2 DEGREES. OF COURSE...THAT WAS ABOUT 6 DEGREES ABOVE<br />NORMAL FOR JANUARY.<br /><br />AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT...THE HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR THE<br />MONTH OF JUNE WAS JUST 71 DEGREES...THE LOWEST MONTHLY MAXIMUM FOR<br />ANY JUNE SINCE RECORDS BEGAN THERE IN 1944. DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES<br />VARIED BY JUST 5 DEGREES DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE AT LOS ANGELES<br />AIRPORT...FROM A LOW OF 66 ON THE 3RD...TO A HIGH OF 71 DEGREES ON<br />TEN SEPARATE DAYS...MOST RECENTLY ON THE 27TH. THE AVERAGE HIGH<br />TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2009 AT LOS ANGELES AIRPORT WAS 69.3<br />DEGREES...3.4 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...AND THE LOWEST AVERAGE JUNE<br />MAXIMUM SINCE 1982. IT WAS ALSO LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE HIGH<br />TEMPERATURE DURING THIS PAST JANUARY WHICH WAS 69.5 DEGREES.<br /><br /><hr /><br /><br />BRUNO<br /></pre></span>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-61805292135647587692009-07-03T23:01:00.000-07:002009-07-06T16:02:21.426-07:00Peak Oil and Unicorns Both Mythical<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 19px; font-family:'Lucida Grande';font-size:13px;"><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Peak oil is a subject that comes up from time to time, as the scare-mongers who do not understand the oil industry, nor the world-wide energy industry, completely miss the mark. Peak oil is a theory that maintains that the Earth's supply of oil is finite and that we have reached the maximum of oil discoveries and production rate. The theory maintains that as demand for oil increases, production cannot keep pace so a huge price increase in oil will result, thereby disrupting all economies in the world. The Peak Oil hysterics shriek that "we" should immediately stop using oil, and switch to renewable, sustainable, energy supplies. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Peak oil, however, is a myth. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As the graphs in the following link show, the real price of gasoline (U.S., regular) has steadily declined since 1919. This is deadly data to the peak-oil believers. All during this period (1919 to now) peak-oil believers have sounded their alarms. Peak oil never happened, and never will. Oil price increases are due to temporary market distortions, and nothing more. Technology for finding oil improves much faster than oil consumption, thus driving the price down in real terms. Technology is improving faster and faster, with better computers, more sophisticated production techniques, economy of scale in transportation (ships, pipelines, refineries), and vehicles that achieve higher miles per gallon. All these drive the cost of gasoline down.</span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As ExxonMobil’s executives state frequently, what is keeping the price of oil up is restricted access to known oil deposits around the world. The Saudis and others in OPEC knew what they were doing when they nationalized their oil assets, kicked out foreigners, and restricted the production of oil so as to increase the price and thus their revenues. Smart guys, have to admire them for that. Those steps not only increased prices, they reduced production and thereby extend the life of the oil fields. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Peak oil is a myth, just as unicorns are mythical.</span></p><p><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(81, 81, 81); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: silver; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html</span></a></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Just a bit more elaboration on why oil production technology improves. Better seismic geologic data interpretation through improved computers and software allow drilling companies to drill fewer dry holes and hit oil more frequently. Directional drilling allows much more oil production from a given field. Secondary and tertiary production techniques allow much more oil production from a given field. Deeper drilling is possible at lower costs than ever before. Drilling in deep ocean water is possible and cheaper than in decades past. It is a little-known fact that oil companies are prolific inventors, as can be seen from the patent records in the U.S. ExxonMobil, to name just one, receives roughly one patent per day, on average. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We can expect that gasoline prices will drop further as automotive standards change, especially those standards that mandate improved miles per gallon. With the California Pavley standard now approved by the U.S. EPA, (this occurred early in July, 2009), and the U.S. Federal gas mileage standards modified to match California's the normal demand for gasoline will decline. Prices for gasoline will also decline, except as offset by very expensive corn-based ethanol and taxes. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">THE GRAND GAME:</span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The grand game that is being played out around the world involves oil, natural gas, and renewable energy, also automotive technologies, and now climate change legislation. The stakes are high, the players are world-wide, and opportunities for making and losing vast fortunes exist. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">OPEC's role in the game includes adjusting the flow of oil into the world market, which is their only move. Increasing oil production does several things: it decreases world oil prices, and shortens the lifetime of the oilfields under OPEC control. But, OPEC oilfield lifetimes are still measured in dozens of decades, perhaps hundreds of years. The real impact is oil price. As oil prices decrease, so does the incentive for alternatives to oil-based transportation systems such as bio-fuels, hybrid vehicles, and pure electric vehicles. In contrast, higher oil prices due to OPEC production reductions lead to not only more incentives for alternate-fuels, but can make oil-alternates more attractive, too. The oil-alternates include tar sands, coal-to-liquid plants, and shale oil. OPEC leaders try very hard to maintain oil price as high as possible without providing incentives for the oil-alternates to be produced and become a competitor to oil. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Enter technology improvements. Natural gas vehicles compete directly with oil-based transportation fuels gasoline and diesel. Some might wonder why the U.S. does not promote CNG vehicles, but instead appears to disfavor them. T. Boone Pickens understands the game, and knows the crucial role that natural gas vehicles can play. CNG cars with hybrid technology are a complete game-changer. With natural gas at historic low prices, currently around $4 per million Btu, the fuel cost per mile is much less than with gasoline. Governments enter the game when they provide rebates or tax credits for non-petroleum vehicle systems such as CNG and hybrids. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Another technology improvement mentioned above is improved gas mileage. Both California, and now the U.S., have laws that mandate 42 miles per gallon from new passenger cars by 2016. Other technology improvements exist, for example the Tata Motors car in India, and the BYD hybrid car from China. The USA has several advanced hybrids, and battery makers are in a furious race to produce better batteries for the transportation market. Infrastructure improvements also are in the works, with at least one company offering a battery-change service that will not take any longer than filling a gasoline tank. The electric car with a low battery charge would pull into a service station, and have the battery exchanged for a fully-charged one within 5 minutes. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Another factor in the grand game is world-wide demand for transportation, whether as gasoline, diesel, CNG, or electric vehicles. Some countries in the world have mature or shrinking transportation demand, while others are increasing. The economies of India and China are mentioned frequently as increasing the demand for transportation fuels, while the US and Europe are stagnant or decreasing. Note that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a joke, not worthy of consideration. Even Honda, a leading manufacturer of a fuel cell hydrogen car, admits that the manufacturing cost is outrageous and their cars for lease are for marketing purposes only. Their construction costs are on the order of $250,000 each, and the operating costs for hydrogen for the fuel cells is many times the cost of gasoline. Fuel cell cars are not part of the game. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The net effect of these technology improvements in the grand game is the same as OPEC increasing production, that is, it drives down oil price. The demand for oil decreases as the technologies become more accepted and in use, so OPEC can cut production. These also further delay the day when the oil-alternates will become economic, and increase the operating life of OPEC oil fields. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A fascinating window into the future, especially the oil future, may be found by watching oil commodity</span><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/fc?s=CLQ09.NYM"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> futures prices</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. One is available from finance.yahoo, with contracts out eight years. As I write this, the contract for December 2017 is priced at $89.30 cents per barrel. The closing price for oil today was right at $67 per barrel. If peak oil were imminent, crude futures price eight years from now (2017) would be a lot more than $89 per barrel. In fact, one can also look at oil inventories and note that these are at historic highs. This also indicates that the price of crude oil is about to drop due to oversupply in the market. </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The game is grand. The game is fascinating. The game provides immense opportunities for profit, and for loss. As my old buddy Todd Wehner says, Stay tuned, sports fans. This is about to get interesting! </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(Note about my old buddy Todd Wehner: we grew up together from 3rd grade, including every grade through college graduation - except for two years when he went off to a fancy private university. He values his privacy, but I can safely say he has done quite well. He is one of the smartest people on the planet, and one of the funniest. We played intramural softball, and he not only managed our team, also played a position, and kept the scorebook for each game. He has a phenomenal memory, and never missed a play even while he was on deck, batting, running the bases, or playing the field. He just remembered everything and wrote it all in the scorebook when he was in the dugout. ) </span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq. </span></span></p></span>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-24025200594225632762009-06-21T09:19:00.000-07:002009-06-21T09:49:52.894-07:00Musings on Many Things - 2A few more items crossed my desk and screen this week. <div><br /></div><div>++ Pete du Pont, former governor of Delaware, came out strong in favor of nuclear power plants for the U.S. Apparently he has not read about the high cost of nuclear plants, and the subsequent high cost of the power from them. I question why any Republican wants to raise electric power prices, which will happen if and when nuclear plants are built again. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ Meanwhile, the natural gas glut grows greater. The U.S. reserves of natural gas are growing ever-larger as more shale gas is added to the number. There is no way nuclear power can ever compete with the overall cost of natural-gas-based power. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ MIT issued a report on Carbon Capture and Sequestration, primarily focused on coal-fired power plants. Their conclusions include 1) it is very expensive to build, 2) it is very expensive to operate, and 3) there are no good sites for storage once the CO2 is captured. We knew this, didn't we? </div><div><br /></div><div>++ I gave my scheduled presentation on California's AB 32 to the Los Angeles chapter of AIChE this past week, with an outstanding response from a very knowledgeable and attentive audience. It is always an honor to address any group, and I especially love the questions from my fellow chemical engineers. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ California's electric utilities signed agreements for great amounts of solar-based power this week. This makes sense, given the 20 percent requirement for renewable power in this state by New Year's Eve of 2010, plus 33 percent by 2020. Wind-power has little room for growth in California, and geothermal has only a few locations undeveloped. Thus, it will be solar. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ Cap and Trade discussions continue in California under AB 32, with a blue-ribbon panel of advisors announced just a few days ago. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ There is mounting opposition to AB 32 as California's economy sickens further. This week, the unemployment rate jumped to 11.5 percent, the highest ever. More jobs will be lost in the manufacturing sectors as AB 32 regulations are enforced, starting in 2012. A cement plant in Southern California announced they must shut down because the cost to comply with AB 32 is simply too great. They will discharge 140 direct employees, and that will have a ripple effect throughout the economy. If California continues to build and use concrete, their volume must be imported. The foreign imports likely create far more pollution and CO2 than this California plant. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ Graduation just occurred for a great many students, and their jobs prospects in California are grim. Having a state minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage surely decreases the total number of jobs. Having a "living wage" in many cities (including Los Angeles) that is higher than the state minimum wage further reduces the number of jobs available. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ The state of California is in dire circumstances, fiscally. The next fiscal year begins in only 10 days, and the $23 billion state budget deficit remains. The bond rating agencies are prepared to further de-rate California's bonds. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ Meanwhile, reports are surfacing that Green Jobs are being created by AB 32. I suppose that is true, to a certain extent. After all, somebody will have a job installing the new solar power plants, and connecting them to the grid. Somebody will have a job advising the Air Resources Board about Cap and Trade. But, the coffee shop baristas are losing their jobs as coffee shops shut down. People learn pretty quick that a cup of coffee made at home costs less than the $4 at the corner coffee shop. </div><div><br /></div><div>++ Today is Father's Day, and I am very happy to have two fine sons with whom to share this day. </div><div><br /></div><div>Roger E. Sowell, Esq. </div><div><a href="http://www.resowell-law.com">legal website</a></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-58719294206573171452009-06-10T20:37:00.000-07:002009-06-10T20:57:15.945-07:00Radioactive Tritium Leaks from Nuclear Plant<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Those who argue for constructing great numbers of nuclear power plants as the safest and most environmentally benign form of power for the world's future should read this and reflect upon it. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Near Chicago, Illinois, Exelon's Dresden Nuclear Plant was </span></span><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-exelon-10jun10,0,1872899.story"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">found to have leaked radioactive tritium</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> into local monitoring wells. Exelon apparently has a history of leaking tritium-laced water into the biosphere but covering it up. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A bit of research on health effects of tritium shows that tritium's radioactivity is rather weak when external exposure occurs, but can have devastating ill health effects when ingested, as through drinking contaminated water. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">From the article in the Chicago Tribune: </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Exelon officials said leaked tritium has not entered the public water supply. But the company hasn't found the cause or source of the leak."</span></span></i></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></i></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is yet another instance of the nearly constant radioactive leaks from nuclear power plants that nuclear nuts would like to ignore in their quest to poison the planet with radioactivity. Such reports occur frequently from news sources around the globe, and this is with only 400 or so nuclear power plants operating. More leaks will surely occur as more plants are constructed and operated, and as time passes. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As a chemical engineer I know only too well the effects of corrosion on steel and other metal pieces such as the pipes and parts in a nuclear power plant. The costs to a plant are high to detect and prevent leaks by shutting down and replacing pipes before a leak occurs, and the adverse publicity adds to the pressure to keep generating. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As an attorney, I also know the liability incurred by nuclear plant owners who bear full responsibility for any radioactive exposure to people or property under the ultrahazardous tort laws. Essentially, the nuclear plant owner is at fault no matter how the injury from radioactivity occurs. There are numerous fine points to this legal standard, which I will not get into here. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Is nuclear power safe, when the plants leak radioactive water into the ground? Would you drink water with tritium in it? Or allow your family and friends to drink water with radioactive tritium in it? </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Natural gas power plants yield no tritium. They also yield no plutonium, which is used for making nuclear bombs. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It is time to stop the insanity of calling for ever more nuclear power plants. </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Roger E. Sowell, Esq. </span></span></span></div></div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-23153683392414433612009-06-02T20:31:00.001-07:002009-06-03T13:49:43.065-07:00The Coming Nuclear Death SpiralI have written several times before on the nuclear death spiral, and will add to that in this posting. <div><br /></div><div>This will likely fall under the California attorney solicitation rules, so I state here at the outset that <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">THIS MAY BE A SOLICITATION</span>. I ask readers near the end of this piece to contact me for assistance in obtaining relief from the nuclear death spiral effects, by obtaining permits and financial assistance with installing self-generation systems. </div><div><br /></div><div>NUCLEAR DEATH SPIRAL</div><div><br /></div><div>The nuclear death spiral is a phenomenon whereby utilities build nuclear power plants, raise power prices, customers find a way to self-generate and go off the grid, and the utility increases power prices yet again. </div><div><br /></div><div>The nuclear death spiral is the result of utilities in the U.S. building nuclear fission power plants, of which 104 plants are in operation as of today (June 2, 2009). Contrary to the overly-optimistic projections of nuclear proponents, the power plants cost far more than estimated, sometimes by a factor of 5 or more. Yes, nuclear power plants that were promised to cost only $900 million were finally started up years after a cost of more than $5 billion. Most were many years behind schedule. Building a nuclear power plant is the first step in the nuclear death spiral.</div><div><br /></div><div>The power price after starting up those out-of-control nuclear power plants, charged to customers to recoup the investment, went up and up. Raising the power prices to customers is the second step in the nuclear death spiral. </div><div><br /></div><div>The consequence of rapidly increasing power prices is that customers look for alternatives, rather than paying the exorbitant price to the utility. Many customers, especially industrial and large commercial customers, have the ability to identify alternatives, and the financial resources to implement alternatives. And so they did. High electric prices create a financial incentive to install cogeneration of various forms, including gas-fired gas turbines connected to generators, and process heat steam generators to drive steam turbines connected to generators. At one time in my career, I was one of those who evaluated self-generation alternatives and designed and built a few. The result of building a self-generation plant is that the utility no longer sells power to that customer, or at least as much power as before. This is the third step, reducing a utility's power sales.</div><div><br /></div><div>When fewer kWhrs of electric power are sold by the utility, the utility sees less revenue. This is intolerable, so the utility seeks a rate increase from the Public Utility Commission, or other rate-making agency, to maintain the revenue stream. This is the fourth step in the nuclear death spiral. </div><div><br /></div><div>The PUC then grants the rate increase, (the fifth step), and now more customers see an economic advantage in pulling the plug on the utility, and installing their own generating plant. The cycle continues, spiraling downward until the utility is selling power at a very high price, and customers no longer have opportunities to generate their own power. </div><div><br /></div><div>The net effect of the nuclear death spiral, in the past, was to unfairly burden those who could not afford to purchase a self-generation system. These included the poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and those families and persons just struggling to get by month to month. The nuclear death spiral with the very high power prices forced some into making a horrible choice between paying for electricity, or for rent, or for food, or for medications. The nuclear power industry is and was directly responsible for those hardships endured by so many, many people. </div><div><br /></div><div>In this modern day, the situation is different. Those who want to and plan to build new nuclear power plants in the U.S. should be aware of what is facing them. If more of the very high-cost nuclear power plants are built in the U.S., the nuclear death spiral will occur again, but the outcome will be somewhat different this time. </div><div><br /></div><div>SELF GENERATION (Distributed Generation)</div><div><div><br /></div><div>When the nuclear death spiral occurred in the 1980's and 1990's, technology did not exist in as many forms as exist today for self-generation. Large industries, such as refineries, chemical plants, and petrochemical plants, could and did install cogeneration facilities of substantial size and great expense. </div><div><br /></div><div>Today, a customer can install, and in many states is encouraged to install, solar PV, solar thermal, small wind turbines, large wind turbines, geothermal, bio-gas, landfill gas, power from municipal solid waste, small hydroelectric, and natural gas-fired small turbines or micro-turbines. Other technologies will surely be developed or invented as the years pass. Offshore technologies such as wave and tidal power, or ocean current, and run-of-the-river systems will be options very soon. </div><div><br /></div><div>Solar PV uses solar cells in flat panels, usually mounted on a building roof or parking lot, to produce electricity from sunlight. The electricity is converted appropriately and safely into useable power for the home or building, such that the customer buys less power from the utility. The incentive is great in some areas, where a utility charges more for each increment of power that is used. For example, the utility may charge 15 cents per kWh for a base amount of power, 20 cents for power from 100 percent of the base up to 200 percent of the base, and 25 cents for power in excess of 200 percent of the base. It does not require many years for a solar PV system to pay for itself with government financial assistance and avoided power costs of 25 cents per kWh. </div><div><br /></div><div>Solar thermal uses a reflecting collector to concentrate the sun's rays onto a thin pipe that carries a liquid, usually a special oil. The hot oil then boils water into steam, and the steam spins a turbine connected to a generator. Hot oil from solar thermal also provides heat to a thermal refrigeration plant to provide air conditioning instead of running an electric air conditioner. </div><div><br /></div><div>Small wind turbines allow the homeowner or business to generate power from the wind. Much like the solar PV, there are appropriate electronics to convert the wind-generator's power into power for the home or business. This reduces the amount of power purchased from the utility, with the same incentives as described earlier. </div><div><br /></div><div>Large wind turbines are appropriate for a customer with more land, where the wind turbines generate power for sale to the utility, thus offsetting power purchased by the customer. </div><div><br /></div><div>Geothermal uses heat from wells deep in the earth to boil water that is pumped into the wells, producing steam that is used to spin turbines. An alternative is to use hot water from the geothermal wells to boil an organic liquid such that the vapor spins a turbine connected to a generator. An electric customer can invest in, or build itself, a geothermal power plant, and thus sell power to the utility. The power sales offset his own purchases. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are various forms of producing natural gas from waste, including bio-gas and landfill gas. One form of bio-gas is the gas collected from manure, such as at dairy farms or cattle feed lots. The natural gas may be sold as is, or burned on-site to produce electric power and reduce purchases from the utility. Landfill gas uses appropriate collector systems to gather gas formed as landfill material decomposes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Power from municipal solid waste, MSW, may be from burning MSW, or from thermal decomposition, or anaerobic thermal decomposition. The PHREG patent, recently issued to Peter Nick et al, is an example of anaerobic thermal decomposition. </div><div><br /></div><div>Small hydroelectric generates power from flowing water or small waterfalls. Other applications exist where water flowing in pipes must flow through pressure control valves to reduce otherwise undesirable pressure. This occurs in terrain with hills and valleys. </div><div><br /></div><div>Small turbines and micro-turbines burn natural gas in an appropriately-sized gas turbine connected to a generator. The exhaust heat is then used to provide hot water. The system reduces the electric power purchased from the utility, but increases the amount of natural gas purchased. A variation on this is to burn the natural gas in a reciprocating engine rather than a micro-turbine. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>PERMITS</div><div><br /></div><div>Various permits are required to install a self-generation system, with regulations that vary according to state and specific location. In general, one must obtain a permit for air emissions, then a land-use permit, then a construction permit based on an approved design. There may be state agencies, county agencies, and city councils, among other entities that issue such approvals. </div><div><br /></div><div>FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE</div><div><br /></div><div>Many states now offer financial assistance in various forms for self-generation projects, as does the federal government. Financial assistance may take the form of income tax credits, rebates on the purchase price, or creative financing. In some California cities, a homeowner can obtain a loan from a government-approved lender for the installation cost, then add the loan payment to the homeowner's property tax bill. The concept is that savings on the monthly electric bill will provide sufficient cash to the homeowner to pay for the increased property tax bill. </div><div><br /></div><div>If installing a self-generation facility of any type sounds attractive, or for more information on a particular set of circumstances, I encourage you to contact me. My background is chemical engineering, where I evaluated dozens of alternative generation projects in industrial and commercial applications. I now use my engineering experience as an attorney to assist and advise clients in completing the steps necessary to see a project through to completion. Sometimes the steps are numerous, confusing, and time-consuming. A knowledgeable attorney and engineer can smooth the process. </div><div><br /></div><div>CONCLUSION - UTILITIES BEWARE</div><div><br /></div><div>The next generation of nuclear power plants, if they are installed, will have the result of raising power prices again. This time, though, customers by the millions will have a wide range of choices to install self-generation systems and cut their power consumption from the utility. In sunny areas, there may be solar PV and solar thermal systems installed. In windy areas, there may be small or large wind-turbines installed. In other areas, there may be gas-fired generators installed, or any of the other systems described above. </div><div><br /></div><div>A utility must surely consider these facts, before setting out to build a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. People are wiser now, and have the tools to protect themselves from the very high power prices that produce the nuclear death spiral. </div><div><br /></div><div>Roger E. Sowell, Esq.</div><div>rsowell@resowell-law.com</div><div>Marina del Rey, California</div>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990250429790981844.post-66512320344156295422009-06-02T19:47:00.000-07:002009-06-02T20:16:03.479-07:00STNP New Nuclear Plant Cost<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 15px; "><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">Another cost estimate for a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. is shown below, with the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnergy09/idUSTRE5517DA20090602">article here</a>. This cost is an "all in" cost, as opposed to the usual numerical trickery that the nuclear power industry uses, that of "overnight cost." The overnight cost does not include interest during construction, nor does it include escalation for inflation during construction. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">This cost estimate is for $10 billion, and is to construct two reactors at 1,350 MW each on the site of the <a href="http://www.stpnoc.com/About.htm">South Texas Nuclear Project</a>, near Victoria, Texas. STNP is the plant that cost five times its original estimate, and resulted in the contractor being dismissed (Brown and Root), and several lawsuits amongst the owners and contractors. One of the owners, the City of Austin, had to scramble to find power for its customers when STNP was delayed year after year after year. Note that City of Austin is NOT a participant in this STNP expansion. They learned their lesson with nuclear. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">The article goes on to state that NRG Energy has a partnership with the reactor designer, Toshiba of Japan. Is Toshiba planning to absorb some losses to make this plant expansion come in on budget? </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; "><i>"The cost to build a new nuclear power plant in Texas has risen to $10 billion, up from early estimates, but much below price tags of other proposed U.S. nuclear projects, an executive with NRG Energy Inc's nuclear development arm said on Tuesday [June 2, 2009].</i></p><i><span id="midArticle_1"></span></i><p style="margin-right: 20px; "><i>The "all in" cost to build two 1,350-megawatt nuclear reactors in South Texas has risen 40 percent from 2006 estimates which did not include financing costs, Steve Winn, chief executive of Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA), [said]."</i></p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">It will be quite interesting to follow the progress of this project. Their press quote includes a startup date of 2016 for the first new reactor, following completion of the federal licensing process in late 2011 or early 2012. This will be interesting, too, since that leaves barely 4 years to actually build the plant. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">Stay tuned, sports fans. Texans usually ride the bull in the rodeo, and they are about to get taken for another ride. This will provide a fine opportunity for Texans, a smart group, to say "No, Thanks" to the outrageous power prices that result from this nuclear power plant, and switch to self-generation, distributed generation, or cogeneration as they choose. This is worth an entire post in itself, based on the nuclear death spiral. Nuclear is now competing with distributed generation via solar PV, solar thermal, small wind, large wind, bio-gas, landfill gas, power obtained from municipal solid waste, small or micro-turbines based on natural gas, and a few more that my clients and I are developing but cannot yet disclose for various reasons. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">My prediction, if the STNP expansion does receive approval for its Construction and Operating License, COL, for the all-in cost for two reactors is $30 billion in 2009 dollars. First reactor startup will be no earlier than 2020, with the second reactor no earlier than 2024. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; ">Roger E. Sowell, Esq. </p><p style="margin-right: 20px; "><i><br /></i></p></span>Roger E. Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14996901254858762144noreply@blogger.com2