The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 24

Subtitle: St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Tube wear in steam generators at the twin-reactor nuclear plant at St. Lucie, Florida, is the subject of this article 24.  St. Lucie in on a barrier island, a few miles north of Palm Beach.  (see photo).  There are no cooling towers, but inlets to the Atlantic Ocean are

St. Lucie Nuclear Unit 1 and 2, Florida
Atlantic Ocean on right, two containment domes in left-center
photo from Google maps - 6/29/2014

clearly visible.   This plant has the pressurized-water reactor technology, hence it has steam generators very similar to the ones that failed in 2012 at San Onofre in southern California.   The leaking tubes at St. Lucie have been in the news recently, with public concern growing over fears that they, too, may be irradiated when a tube bursts and spews radioactive steam into the skies. (see link, and link, and link for news articles.)

Background

A steam generator is nothing more than a heat exchanger, typically with U-tubes in a vertical configuration.  Hot water from the reactor is pumped through the tubes, flowing in at the bottom, up through the tubes, around the U-bend, and back down and out again at the bottom. (this is somewhat simplified).   On the outside of the tubes, the shell-side, boiler feedwater is pumped in at the bottom.  The boiler feedwater rises in between the tubes and is heated as it rises.  At some point in the upward journey, the water begins to boil.  Steam rises to the top of the steam generator and flows out the top to the steam turbine. 

The point of concern is where the water begins to boil.  The steam bubbles exert pressure in all directions, some of it upward, some downward, and some to the sides.  Since water is incompressible (at least at these conditions), the downward pressure has essentially no effect.  The upward pressure has the most effect, because the mixture of water and steam above the boiling zone is much less dense.  Therefore, steam bubbles push water upward, and rather strongly.   However, it is the horizontal force that is of most concern.  As the water and steam mixture rises, one can imagine that the amount of water decreases while the amount of steam increases.  Therefore, water is also forced horizontally by the steam bubbles.  The tubes, which as already mentioned are vertical, resist the horizontal force and bend to some extent.  The tubes are not rigid, but have thin walls.  The tubes also are not very far apart, perhaps one-quarter inch spacing between tubes.  With violent boiling occurring, the tubes can vibrate and hit each other.  To minimize this banging, manufacturers install stability bars or stabilizer bars.  However, the tubes can also rub against the stabilizer bars. 

None of this is new and surprising, as heat exchanger designers have known this for decades.  The goal is to design and manufacture a steam generator that sustains the tube collisions and rubbing for 20 to 30 years, and continues to produce quality steam without releasing radioactivity to the atmosphere.  It is a very good thing, then, that nuclear reactors take a shutdown to refuel and inspect equipment approximately every 18 months.   Part of the inspection procedure is to pressure test the steam generator tubes, and to perform visual inspections to identify any worn spots or places that fail during the pressure test.  With approximately 9,000 tubes in a single steam generator, it is acceptable to plug a few tubes so that no water flows through those tubes.  This is not limited to nuclear plant steam generators, as pressure testing heat exchanger tubes and plugging those that leak is a common practice in many industries.  For many heat exchangers, more tubes are added in the manufacturing stage than are actually required to meet the heat transfer goal.  The over-design, or safety factor, allows some tubes to be plugged as the years go by, and the heat exchanger continues to serve satisfactorily.

Implications on Safety and Cost

With that as background, the St. Lucie plant is noteworthy due to the unusual number of steam generator tubes with wear.  NRC inspectors are reportedly aware of the steam generator tube condition and are monitoring the plant closely.    The NRC has not required the plant to shut down for safety concerns, at least not as of this writing (June 30, 2014).    The steam generators in Unit 2 were replaced in late 2007, so they have been in service for barely more than 6 years.   The original steam generators lasted 24 years, from 1983 to 2007.    An article with photos and describing the steam generator replacement process is available – see link.

The safety implications are a concern, and if the new steam generators fail prematurely, then there are cost issues also.  As Part 23 in the series showed, southern California utility customers are being asked to pay billions for faulty equipment that resulted in two shutdown reactors.   The people of Florida would also be outraged if this happens to them. 

Until a report is issued by NRC on the tube wear at St. Lucie Unit 2, which is expected late in 2014, it is perhaps best to sit and watch.  Perhaps the people of Florida will be lucky, and their St. Lucie nuclear plant will continue to run without catastrophic tube failure.  Perhaps the utility spokesperson is correct, and the tube wear is slowing down. 

This article will be updated as conditions warrant. 

Previous Articles

The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasizes the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen)  safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two)  nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five)  the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act.  Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them.  Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article. 

Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown And Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen 

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - this article

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 23

Subtitle:  San Onofre Shutdown Saga

The twin-reactor nuclear power plant at San Onofre, California, known as SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station), is now shutdown after a project to replace worn steam generators resulted in premature tube leaks that released a small amount of radioactive steam to the atmosphere.  The plant's majority owner, Southern California

SONGS Nuclear plant aerial view
Pacific Ocean at bottom, Interstate 5 at top
source: Wikipedia

Edison, SCE, chose to shut down the plant permanently rather than determine the cause of the premature failure and correct the problem.   More on the details of the technical side may be found in Part Ten, see link,   and in Part 16, see link.  

The reasons for choosing a different design for the worn steam generators, and the economic aftermath for ratepayers and utility shareholders are the subject of this article, Part 23 in the series. 

Choosing a Bad Design

The NRC has two separate paths for allowing replacement parts at a nuclear power plant: 1) like-for-like, where the new part is so nearly identical to the old part that a comprehensive design review is not required, and 2) differences between the new and old parts are substantial, and a comprehensive design review is required.    SCE informed NRC that the new steam generators, two each for each reactor at SONGS, were like-for-like.  That turned out not to be true.   A couple of differences were 1) more tubes in the new steam generators, and 2) each tube had a slightly smaller internal diameter.   

A utility company is in business for profit, and tries to make more profit where it can and is legally permitted to do so.   Even at a nuclear plant, opportunities occur to increase profits.  One way to increase profit is to increase the plant's output.  As with most process plants, it is normally not economically attractive to replace a constraining part because the increased benefits are small while the added costs for replacing the part are large.   A constraining part in a nuclear power plant could be, for example, a steam generator or steam turbine.  

That economic computation changes, however, when a part is so worn that it must be replaced to stay in business.  At that point, engineers can perform an incremental project analysis to determine if the part can be replaced with a somewhat larger part that produces more profit.  Due to economies of scale, making the part only a few percent larger can cost very little extra.  For example, making a steam generator 5 percent larger in surface area could produce perhaps 5 percent more electrical output.   This is not a hypothetical, as some nuclear plants across the US have increased their generating capacity to a few percent above the design capacity.   This is very likely what SCE was trying to accomplish at SONGS.  

Where SCE erred was choosing the new design for the steam generators.  The design turned out to have more vibration so that adjacent tubes banged into each other, rubbing metal away so that tube walls thinned and holes formed.  The holes allowed the radioactive water to leak into the steam system.   Safety was compromised, and the NRC was correct in stopping SCE from running the plants until the problem was resolved.  

Economic Consequences

This entire episode was also described in a newspaper article which is actually not badly written.  (This is high praise from me, as most newspaper articles on technical subjects get it very wrong.)  see link   

The utility wanted approximately $4.7 billion in compensation from the California Public Utility Commission, CPUC, for making the utility whole.  The customers, or ratepayers, would pay the entire amount in the utility's request.  However, ratepayer advocates negotiated a reduced amount - but not by much.   The settlement agreement provides for $1.4 billion reduction, leaving $3.3 billion for ratepayers.   The CPUC will make a decision on who pays how much for what.   The basics of the proposed settlement can be found here -- see link. 

The higher, policy argument is this: should a monopoly utility be rewarded for making stupid economic decisions?  In this case with SONGS, the amount in question is only $4.7 billion.  SCE is a huge utility, with a bit more than $12 billion in annual revenue, $45 billion in assets, 5 million customer accounts serving 14 million customers, transmission peak of 22,500 MW, and employing approximately 13,000 people.  (source: SCE Annual Report 2013)

As the LA Times article (linked above) noted, this proposed settlement is akin to bailing out the banks in the economic crisis of 2008-2009.   As ratepayer advocates stated, it is simply wrong to reward bad behavior by a utility.  In my own words, somebody should give a utility reason to pause, think it over, and realize that jobs will be lost and the company will suffer for taking such a great risk.   SCE could have easily ordered identical new steam generators, the same as the ones that ran perfectly well for 20-plus years.   That would have been the no-risk alternative.  Instead, the new design was chosen (perhaps) to increase plant output and profit.   

It is the CPUC's job to look out for the ratepayer.     One hopes that the settlement agreement is not accepted, and the utility is forced to bear the entire costs of making a stupid decision.  

Previous Articles

The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasizes the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen)  safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two)  nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five)  the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act.  Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them.  Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article. 

Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown And Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen 

Part Twenty Three - this article

Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

More Bad Climate Data from NCDC

This could be a big issue, perhaps not.  I wrote on SLB in September, 2011 about NCDC temperatures not matching between the US and the individual states - see link.   The latest data error is somewhat different. 

The assertion of error is that the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) database as kept by NCDC (National Climate Data Center) does not take actual, measured temperature data even when such data is available for some, perhaps many, stations.  In essence, the final data set uses "estimated" data.  

Several bloggers at internet sites have made the boffins at NCDC aware of this, as has the Texas State Climatologist.   Drudge carried a report, see link.   Drudge criticizes the EPA and US Supreme Court for making regulations based on the bad data.  

So, is it any wonder that the climate models are totally wrong?  We know the models use data that is corrupted by almost constant adjustment; this has been admitted and even published in peer-reviewed literature.  Now, it appears that a good fraction of the temperature sites are just making up the data.   Why would the temperature dataset use estimated data, when actual data is ready and waiting to be plugged into the database?  

If the problem is corrected, and non-trivial changes result in the many different reports that have issued from various climate centers that use the NCDC data, it will be interesting to see how many of those reports are updated.   I suspect that NCDC will make the corrections, then report out that the differences were de minimis, so trivial that no changes to any reports are required.  

We also know that the climate models themselves are woefully inadequate, as even the IPCC itself has admitted, in writing.    The key sentence from IPCC: 

"This difference between simulated and observed [recent global temperature] trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error."

IPCC's catch-22 is if they attribute the pause to natural variability, they then must concede that any warming from 1970-1998 could also be due to natural variability.

If they admit it is due to b) or c) above, then faulty modeling is obvious. 

Quite an admission by IPCC. They really have themselves in a box.

Now, they also have to wonder about the very input data to the models - is it any good at all?  Or, were (or are) many insiders aware of this all along, and it was kept secret in order to perpetuate the myth that man-made Carbon Dioxide causes global warming?

In light of the President (Obama) telling college graduates that the global warming problem is real, and the 18 warmest years on record have happened in the past 22 years, one must wonder if he will ever be advised that the issue is not "put to rest" as he stated.   see link.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California 

Supreme Court Slaps Down US EPA Power Grab

Subtitle: EPA Can Only Require BACT for Greenhouse Gases

In a ruling passed down today, the US Supreme Court handed the US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, a stinging defeat.  The case is Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA. 573 U.S. ___ (2014)  (page to be added later).   For the entire decision, see link.

The case is about "whether it was permissible for EPA to determine that its motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas regulations automatically triggered permitting requirements under the [Clean Air] Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases."

The Court broke the question into two main issues, the first with three sub-issues and the second with only one issue.  Each is presented and discussed below.  

I-A: The Clean Air Act (Act) does not compel the EPA to adopt an interpretation of the Act requiring a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions.  

EPA had argued that the Act compelled just that result, ignoring that it (EPA) had "inferred from statutory context that a generic reference to air pollutants does not encompass every substance falling within the Act-wide definition on many other occasions." The Court then listed five separate instances of EPA interpreting "air pollutants" in a narrow, not a broad sense.  

Justice Scalia takes the EPA to task, comparing Carbon Dioxide to other harmless gases including steam and oxygen.  The Court opined: "It is plain as day that the Act does not envision an elaborate, burdensome permitting process for major emitters of steam, oxygen, or other harmless airborne substances. It takes some cheek for EPA to insist that it cannot possibly give “air pollutant” a reasonable, context-appropriate meaning in the PSD and Title V contexts when it has been doing precisely that for decades."

I-B: The Act also does not permit the EPA to adopt an interpretation of the Act requiring a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. 

The Court chided EPA here, noting that EPA has "repeatedly acknowledged that applying the PSD and Title V permitting requirements to greenhouse gases would be inconsistent with—in fact, would overthrow—the Act’s structure and design. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA described the calamitous consequences of interpreting the Act in that way."  The Tailoring Rule from EPA described the millions (6.1 million) new sources that would fall under EPA permitting jurisdiction.  Presently, there are fewer than 15,000 such sources. 

The Court described EPA's own words as to the practical outcome of 6.1 million new sources under regulation: permitting delays would cause "construction projects to grind to a halt nationwide."  Also, statutory limits on permit issuance deadlines would be impossible to meet. 

Finally, the Court gave this reason for striking down EPA's interpretation: "EPA’s interpretation is also unreasonable because it would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization."   Such expansion in regulatory authority is not in EPA's power.   As noted in other cases, an agency is to "fill in the details" of legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.  An agency is not to expand the scope of that legislation as if it were Congress itself.  

I-C: EPA lacked authority to “tailor” the Act’s unambiguous numerical thresholds of 100 or 250 tons per year to accommodate its greenhouse-gas-inclusive interpretation of the permitting triggers.  

100,000 tons per year was EPA's tailored value. The EPA chose 100,000 tons per year in order to minimize the administrative burden - and public costs of administration - of literally millions of sources that emit carbon dioxide at threshold levels of 100 and 250 tons per year.  EPA's own documents suggested that it was too burdensome to require compliance at that level.  Therefore, EPA arbitrarily chose the 100,000 tons per year threshold for compliance.  The Court refused this as an acceptable act by EPA. 

The Court concluded that EPA cannot arbitrarily change the express limits in the Act on threshold quantities of emitted gases that will trigger regulation.  That is an unacceptable usurpation of Congressional powers.  Justice Scalia was rather scathing in his writing on that point, saying "An agency has no power to “tailor” legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms. Agencies exercise discretion only in the interstices created by statutory silence or ambiguity; they must always “‘give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.’” "

The Court went on to say that EPA's position would create an unacceptable violation of the Separation of Powers expressed in the Constitution.  That is a strong slap, indeed. 

II: EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with BACT for greenhouse gases.

The Court stated that regulating greenhouse gases via BACT could be either by increased energy efficiency, or adding reduction devices to a greenhouse gas source such as a power plant exhaust stack.  EPA stated that such devices would include carbon capture and storage. 

 The Court concluded that BACT was contemplated by Congress in writing the Act.   The Court stated that adding BACT is not disastrously unworkable, and does not impermissably increase EPA's authority.   

In summary, the Court wrote: "We hold that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to require PSD and Title V permitting for stationary sources based on their greenhouse-gas emissions. Specifically, the Agency may not treat greenhouse gases as a pollutant for purposes of defining a “major emitting facility” (or a “modification” thereof) in the PSD context or a “major source” in the Title V context. To the extent its regulations purport to do so, they are invalid. EPA may, however, continue to treat greenhouse gases as a “pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter” for purposes of requiring BACT for “anyway” sources [sources that would require a permit on the basis of other regulated air pollutants]."

All in all, not a bad day for America.  The EPA got slapped down rather severely, and it appears that Justice Scalia had a grand time in writing this opinion.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California. 

More Renewable BS from President

Subtitle: Obama Confused about Renewable vs Solar Energy

An earlier post on SLB discussed a dozen whoppers told by President Obama in his 2014 commencement address to University of California at Irvine (UCI) graduates.  see link.    

I re-read his speech, and found yet another.  Perhaps he mis-spoke (he is quite adept at that, so his apologists tell us).  Perhaps he was misinformed by his advisors.  Perhaps his speech-writer got "solar" confused with "renewable" in the text of the speech.  Or perhaps all the people involved above are just clue-less.    In any event, here is what the President said:

"And this state, California, is so far ahead of the rest of the country in solar, that earlier this year solar power met 18 percent of your total power demand one day."  

BS.  Off by a factor of 3, roughly.  Note that this line was greeted with applause...clearly a bunch of ill-informed in the audience, too.   Possibly it was

just wrong information, though.  The fact is that California has installed more

California Renewable Energy for 6/19/2014
source: CAISO website

and more solar-generated power, both PV and thermal.  The highest amount generated thus far appears to be from 6/19/2014 when combined solar (PV plus thermal) produced 44,500 MWh (see photo at right).  That is barely 6.4 percent of the total power demand that day of 694,697 MWh.    Note that June 19 is near the summer solstice where hours of sunshine are the greatest.  June is also not the hottest month (that is typically August) so total demand is not at the peak.  One could expect, then, that mid-June will usually have the greatest solar energy as a percent of total energy consumed. 

However, total renewable power on that same day was 17.4 percent, where renewables are comprised of solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas and biomass.  Note that large hydroelectric does not count, at least not in California.   see link for daily results of renewable energy in California. 

It's not hard to imagine that combined renewables reached 18 percent on a day with strong wind, and a bit less total demand a few months ago before summer arrived with more air conditioning load.   It takes quite a bit of effort to dig through the daily reports on the Caiso website, though.  

So, 6 percent vs 18 percent.  Not bad, off by a factor of 3.   Note, though, that this 18 percent for solar in California will likely be (surely must be?) picked up by the media and trotted out far and wide, wrong as it is.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Climate Change Deception from President

Subtitle:  UCI Commencement Speech 2014 Full of Lies

A few weeks ago, President Barack Hussein Obama gave the commencement address at University of California at Irvine (UCI).   His theme was climate change is man-made, it is real, it is a serious threat, and the young graduates from UCI should do something about it.   [Update - 6/22/2014:  Added lie number 13: President said solar in California reached 18 percent of total consumption in California -- see below for more -- end update ]

[Update - 6/28/2014 - added link to nuclear power articles; see point 11 below] 

A friend and colleague, a UCI alumnus in chemical engineering, asked me to review the commencement speech and offer my comments on where the President is wrong.  The speech is long, but I have excerpted a dozen whoppers (lies, false statements) and make some comments below.  

How can the statements be labeled as false, as lies?  The evidence shows the statements are false.  A US President is expected to appoint the best people available to advisory positions, but modern Presidents such as Obama appoint those with his own political agenda.  This is unfortunate for the progress of science and discovery.  However, eventually, Nature wins.  Or as we say in baseball terms, Nature bats last.  

The twelve false statements, with Obama's statement in italics, my comments below:

1)  "you already know the science.  Burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide traps heat.  Levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years." 

BS (Bad Science) The change of CO2 since 1950 has been steadily upward while global temperature – as measured by the scientists themselves – shows ups, downs, and stagnant periods.  Any competent engineer knows that CO2 cannot control temperature.   The second part of that statement addresses current CO2 levels (400 ppm) as greater than the past 800,000 years.  This is based on dubious ice-core samples.  It is mere supposition that measured gas samples from bubbles trapped in the ice are representative of the atmosphere at that time.  

2)  "We know the trends.  The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.  We know what we see with our own eyes.  Out West, firefighters brave longer, harsher wildfire seasons; states have to budget for that.  Mountain towns worry about what smaller snowpacks mean for tourism.  Farmers and families at the bottom worry about what it will mean for their water.  In cities like Norfolk and Miami, streets now flood frequently at high tide.  Shrinking icecaps have National Geographic making the biggest change in its atlas since the Soviet Union broke apart."

BS.  Temperatures were as warm or greater during the 1930s, but scientists have repeatedly adjusted the past temperature record downward. Longer fire seasons are due to years of forest mismanagement, particularly fire suppression.  Average snowpack has not changed over long periods, but it does have fluctuations about an average.  Credible scientists know this, but apparently the President does not.  If he does know, he is lying. 

 Ground subsidence, both natural and due to man's extraction of fresh water, is the main source of "sea level rise."  On the oceans themselves, sea level generally is not rising except where it rains heavily in the ocean.   Arctic ice is shrinking, but Antarctic ice is growing.  Air temperatures have nothing to do with either, while ocean temperatures do. 

 3)  "The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest."  

BS  When anyone tells us the science is settled, ask them why there is any more research done?  There are hundreds of scientists publishing papers that conclude that man-made global warming is false.  See SEPP publications for the real story, also NIPCC, GWPF.

4)  "A UC Irvine glaciologist’s work led to one of last month’s report showing one of the world’s major ice sheets in irreversible retreat."  

BS. Antarctic ice is growing year by year, now at all-time maximum in the modern (post 1978) era.   

5)  "to help coastal communities adapt to rising seas."

 BS.  Seas are not rising due to man-made global warming, but land is falling in a few places due to natural subsidence.  The entire history of humans, for the past 12,000 years, has been a slow retreat from the then-existing shoreline.  As the last global glaciers melted, the sea has been rising.  There is nothing unusually rapid about recent sea level rises.  As proof, one can examine modern maps that show underwater canyons located in a line with major rivers.  The river mouth was far out to sea.  The Congo river in Africa is a striking example, but there are many others. 

6) "Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America."

BS.  There is no such thing as carbon pollution, unless it is soot.  The US has reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and did it without a carbon tax.  Producing more natural gas led to lower gas prices, therefore more power generation via natural gas.  Also, industry retired older less efficient coal plants as scheduled.    

7)  "hundreds of scientists declared last month, that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but “has moved firmly into the present.”  That’s a quote." 

BS The fact is that global measured temperatures (even with all the NASA-provided adjustments) shows zero warming for 18 years.  

8) "In some parts of the country, weather-related disasters like droughts, and fires, and storms, and floods are going to get harsher and they’re going to get costlier." 

BS He is repeating himself, see point 2 above.  Past droughts, storms, and floods were much, much worse.  Fewer people back then led to less damage.  Forest mismanagement leads to more and stronger fires.  CO2 has nothing to do with it.

9) "Now, their view (skeptics) may be wrong -- and a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future -- but at least they have the brass to say what they actually think." 

BS  All the warmists’ predictions are false, based on broken models that use corrupted input data and failed to predict the 17 years of no warming that their own measurements (after adjustments) show. 

10) "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put that debate to rest."  

BS The 97 percent figure has been debunked many times.   The fact is that thousands of scientists have placed their names on a statement that man-made global warming is bunk.

11)  "But they’re waiting to see what does America do.  That’s what the world does.  It waits to watch us act.  And when we do, they move.  And I’m convinced that on this issue, when America proves what’s possible, then they’re going to join us."  

BS.  There are so many things wrong with this statement.  It is, firstly, a huge insult to citizens of other countries.  With coal being exhausted in 60 to 70 years, the biggest threat is finding economic, reliable renewable replacement power.  It cannot be nuclear power due to costs, resource availability, and decommissioning concerns, also meltdown hazards.  [UPDATE- 6/28/2014: this comment by me generated quite some interest, both in the comments below and in emails to me.  My position on nuclear power is presented in a 30-part series Truth About Nuclear Power, see link. -- end update] 

12)  "You’ve got to educate your classmates, and colleagues, and family members and fellow citizens, and tell them what’s at stake.  You’ve got to push back against the misinformation, and speak out for facts, and organize others around your vision for the future." 

BS.  We must combat the disinformation that CO2 is bad.  We must examine the data and conclusions critically, and not accept the wild, unsupportable conclusions of agenda-driven politicians and their paid scientists.  

Conclusion: 

I repeat here what I wrote in January, 2010: "The tragedy of all this is, of course, that the "science" behind global warming due to greenhouse gases (which includes CO2 in the scientists' view) is completely false. Engineers such as Dr. Pierre Latour, and myself, have published on this, and have each made acclaimed speeches across the country on this topic. Recent developments (late 2009 and January, 2010) show that the supposed warming of the earth's average temperature in the 20th century was falsified, the peer review process was perverted, the temperature records themselves were adjusted and manipulated, and the IPCC report relied on questionable studies (not peer-reviewed, in fact, taken from general non-science magazines). The Wall Street Journal reported that the IPCC's alarmists predictions for melting glaciers in the Himalayan mountains was completely wrong (they are not melting), and the IPCC's statement that warming produces more intense storms and natural catastrophes (heat waves, droughts, etc) were also bunk. The IPCC authors clearly knew the truth, but published their outlandish claims anyway. (As an aside, one must wonder how long they thought they would hide the truth, especially in this era of the internet, and literally hundreds of millions of internet users world-wide. The ability to fact-check by millions of independent persons should give pause to those who seek to dis-inform.)"

[UPDATE 6/22/2014:  . 13) "And this state, California, is so far ahead of the rest of the country in solar, that earlier this year solar power met 18 percent of your total power demand one day."  

BS.  Off by a factor of 3, roughly.  Possibly just wrong information, though.  The fact is that California has installed more and more solar-generated power, both PV and thermal.  The highest amount generated thus far, appears to be from 6/19/2014 when combined solar (PV plus thermal) produced 44,500 MWh.  That is barely 6.4 percent of the total power demand that day of 694,697 MWh.    Note that June 19 is near the summer solstice where hours of sunshine are the greatest.  June is also not the hottest month (that is typically August) so total demand is not at the peak.  One could expect, then, that mid-June will usually have the greatest solar energy as a percent of total energy consumed. 

However, total renewable power on that same day was 17.4 percent, where renewables are comprised of solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas and biomass.  Note that large hydroelectric does not count, at least not in California.   see link for daily results of renewable energy in California. -- end update ]

Links to supporting posts -

Warmists Are Wrong - Cooling Is Coming

From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic - My Journey

Obama Lies And Economies Will Die  (shows more climate lies from Obama in 2009)

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California