Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Oil from Algae

One 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 ExxonMobil announced it will invest (reportedly) $600 million in developing this.

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.

In the Grand Game (which I described here), 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.

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).

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.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Cold June for Los Angeles 2009

Well, this is certainly interesting!  The weather is usually cool in June in Los Angeles, 
in fact the phrase here is June Gloom.  But this year was colder than usual.  This is even
more pronounced at LAX, the airport right on the coast.  We are seeing a consistent pattern
develop, with colder waters offshore California causing the sea to contract slightly and 
sea levels drop.  No fear of sea level rise at all, although the powers-that-be in California's
government agencies hold hearings and pay consultants to tell them alarming tales of what might
happen, someday, if all their dire predictions come true about polar icecaps melting.  

The Atlantic ocean is also colder than usual, and zero tropical storms have formed, and zero
hurricanes, too.  That is not so strange, yet, since most hurricanes occur in August and 
September.  I am watching the hurricane count with great interest this year, as it is working 
up to be a dud, again proving that climate change due to atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is a lie.  
The mantra is now the Deniers vs the Liars.  I'm a proud member of the Denier camp.  With all the 
evidence now available that man does not and could not cause global warming, any people who 
cling bitterly to that lost cause are either deluded or liars.  Liars know the facts and 
intentionally say just the opposite.  This is one of the legal elements of a fraud lawsuit. 

From the National Weather Service just yesterday:


PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA
600 PM PDT TUE JUN 30 2009

...DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES WERE BELOW NORMAL ON EVERY DAY IN JUNE
AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES AND AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT...

DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES AT BOTH DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES AND AT LOS
ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WERE BELOW NORMAL ON EVERY SINGLE DAY
IN THE MONTH OF JUNE. IN FACT...HIGH TEMPERATURES AT EACH LOCATION
HAVE BEEN BELOW NORMAL SINCE MAY 22ND...A STRETCH OF 40 DAYS IN A
ROW AND COUNTING. WHILE RECORDS FOR CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITH BELOW
NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE NOT TYPICALLY MAINTAINED...THIS IS A FAIRLY
NOTEWORTHY STRETCH OF COOL WEATHER...THE RESULT OF A PERSISTENT
UPPER LEVEL TROUGH LINGERING ACROSS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES...DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURES...THE AVERAGE OF
THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TEMPERATURE ON EACH DAY...HAVE NOT BEEN
ABOVE NORMAL SINCE MAY 22ND. HOWEVER...DURING THAT STRETCH...MEAN
TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN EXACTLY NORMAL ON 5 DAYS...INCLUDING 3 DAYS
DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE.

ALSO AT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES...HIGH TEMPERATURES REACHED OR EXCEEDED
80 DEGREES ON JUST TWO DAYS DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE...THE LOWEST
NUMBER OF SUCH OCCURRENCES SINCE JUNE 1982...WHICH HAD ONLY ONE
SUCH DAY. THE AVERAGE DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2009 WAS 74.5
DEGREES...5 DEGREES BELOW THE NORMAL OF 79.5 DEGREES.
INTERESTINGLY...THE AVERAGE HIGH FOR JUNE WAS JUST SLIGHTLY WARMER
THAN THE AVERAGE MAXIMUM FOR THIS PAST JANUARY...WHEN THE DAILY HIGH
AVERAGED 74.2 DEGREES. OF COURSE...THAT WAS ABOUT 6 DEGREES ABOVE
NORMAL FOR JANUARY.

AT LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT...THE HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR THE
MONTH OF JUNE WAS JUST 71 DEGREES...THE LOWEST MONTHLY MAXIMUM FOR
ANY JUNE SINCE RECORDS BEGAN THERE IN 1944. DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES
VARIED BY JUST 5 DEGREES DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE AT LOS ANGELES
AIRPORT...FROM A LOW OF 66 ON THE 3RD...TO A HIGH OF 71 DEGREES ON
TEN SEPARATE DAYS...MOST RECENTLY ON THE 27TH. THE AVERAGE HIGH
TEMPERATURE FOR JUNE 2009 AT LOS ANGELES AIRPORT WAS 69.3
DEGREES...3.4 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...AND THE LOWEST AVERAGE JUNE
MAXIMUM SINCE 1982. IT WAS ALSO LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE HIGH
TEMPERATURE DURING THIS PAST JANUARY WHICH WAS 69.5 DEGREES.




BRUNO

Friday, July 3, 2009

Peak Oil and Unicorns Both Mythical

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.

Peak oil, however, is a myth.

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.

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.

Peak oil is a myth, just as unicorns are mythical.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html

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.

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.

THE GRAND GAME:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A fascinating window into the future, especially the oil future, may be found by watching oil commodity futures prices. 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.

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!

(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. )

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Musings on Many Things - 2

A few more items crossed my desk and screen this week.

++ 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.

++ 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.

++ 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?

++ 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.

++ 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.

++ Cap and Trade discussions continue in California under AB 32, with a blue-ribbon panel of advisors announced just a few days ago.

++ 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.

++ 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.

++ 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.

++ 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.

++ Today is Father's Day, and I am very happy to have two fine sons with whom to share this day.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Radioactive Tritium Leaks from Nuclear Plant

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.

Near Chicago, Illinois, Exelon's Dresden Nuclear Plant was found to have leaked radioactive tritium into local monitoring wells. Exelon apparently has a history of leaking tritium-laced water into the biosphere but covering it up.

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.

From the article in the Chicago Tribune: "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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

Natural gas power plants yield no tritium. They also yield no plutonium, which is used for making nuclear bombs.

It is time to stop the insanity of calling for ever more nuclear power plants.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

The Coming Nuclear Death Spiral

I have written several times before on the nuclear death spiral, and will add to that in this posting.

This will likely fall under the California attorney solicitation rules, so I state here at the outset that THIS MAY BE A SOLICITATION. 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.

NUCLEAR DEATH SPIRAL

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SELF GENERATION (Distributed Generation)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PERMITS

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.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

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.

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.

CONCLUSION - UTILITIES BEWARE

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.

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.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
rsowell@resowell-law.com
Marina del Rey, California

STNP New Nuclear Plant Cost

Another cost estimate for a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. is shown below, with the article here. 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.

This cost estimate is for $10 billion, and is to construct two reactors at 1,350 MW each on the site of the South Texas Nuclear Project, 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.

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?

"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].

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]."

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.

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.

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.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.