The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part One

This post marks the first of several articles on commercial nuclear power plants, providing facts and figures from various credible sources.   It is notable that in some parts of the world, it is already March 11, the third anniversary of the disastrous Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdowns.   This article does not address the numerous safety issues at nuclear power plants, as that will be addressed in future articles.

Clinton nuclear power plant, Illinois
image source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Update: Introduction to the TANP Series:

The articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power, TANP, show 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 4 times as much water for cooling 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, and (13) US nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized (at least six ways) yet 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. This introduction will be expanded as additional articles are published.  See links to each article at the bottom of this article.  [note, as of August 10, 2014, the 30 articles have more than 5,000 views total.  And as of October 9, 2014, more than 7,500 views.  This far surpasses my expectations.  The most viewed article, by far, is  Article Thirty - "Conclusion on Nuclear Power Not Economic Nor Safe", followed by Article 13 - "US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized," then by Article 2 -   "Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail."  However, Article 21 - "Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979" is moving up fast in the number of viewers.  -- end note]
[Update 11/22/14: Total views now exceed 10,000, with Article 13 in the lead with more than 2,000 views.  The Conclusion, Article 30, is in second place with just over 1,400 views. Viewers from the USA are most frequent, followed closely by viewers from France.   -- end update.] 

[Update 10/5/2015:  Total views now exceed 20,000, with Article 28, Thorium Reactors in the lead, Article 30, Conclusion slightly behind in second place, and Article 13, US Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized slightly behind that in third place. -- end update]

[Update 2/2/2018:  Total views now exceed 25,000, with Article 30 (Conclusion) with the most, followed by Article 28 (Thorium reactors), and Article 13, (US Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized) slightly behind that in third place. -- end update]

Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

This first article shows that, contrary to what nuclear proponents would have everyone believe, nuclear power plants just cannot compete economically.  In fact, as the following article states, windturbines make nuclear power plants un-economic. With low off-peak prices, when onshore wind produces the most power, nuclear power plants at baseload just cannot compete. The response is to shut down the nuclear power plants.

“Blame it on the wind. “Renewable energy has flooded the wind-rich region, driven by New York’s renewable portfolio standard,” the . . . report notes. “Upstate New York off-peak power prices have fallen to $32 per megawatt hour as of mid-2013 from $55/MWh in 2008. Transmission bottlenecks prevent the (nuclear) plants from tapping the state’s eastern markets, where power prices are 30% higher.” “ — refers to the Ginna and Fitzpatrick nuclear power plants, both located in New York State.

http://grist.org/news/the-six-u-s-nuclear-power-plants-most-likely-to-shut-down/ Nov, 2013

Here is the list of closed plants, or that have announced closures due to economics or maintenance costs:

Vermont Yankee in Vermont,

San Onofre in California,

Kewaunee in Wisconsin,

Crystal River in Florida, and

Oyster Creek in New Jersey

.  

Note that San Onofre was closed due to botched replacement steam generators, two at each reactor.   More on that economic fiasco in a future article.

 

The grist article lists six more plants that are in dire straits economically:

Ginna, Indian Point, and Fitzpatrick in New York,

Pilgrim in Massachusetts,

Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania,

Davis Besse in Ohio.

In addition to all those above, Exelon has troubles making a profit from its six nuclear plants.  Per the Chicago Tribune,

Clinton, Dresden, Quad Cities, Byron all have been losing money due to wind energy and low natural gas prices.   It remains to be seen how much longer Exelon can bleed cash and instead chooses to shut down the plants. 

Here, then, is truth number one:  nuclear power cannot compete.  It is not the most economic choice for power generation.  In fact, it is a losing proposition.  Nuclear power plants almost always run at 100 percent or close to that, meaning they do not reduce output at night when demand for power is lowest.  Their cash operating costs, for items such as labor, fuel, and consumables like water and chemicals, are higher than the price the utility will pay them.   The fact that they do not reduce output at night forces them to compete with themselves, putting an unwanted and un-needed product into the market, driving down the prices.   A future article will discuss nuclear power plant operations and their inflexibility.  

Update 4/29/2014:  Nuclear utility files for bankruptcy.  Energy Future Holdings, the former TXU Corp in Texas, serving the north Texas area, owns the Comanche Peak twin-reactor nuclear power plant.  It appears the company's debt was too great.    see link  -- end update

Update 4/30/2014:  More on Exelon being unable to compete with natural gas and wind-produced energy - "The largest owner of nuclear power in the nation, Exelon has been leaning more heavily on its regulated utilities in recent years. With depressed power prices and increasing competition from wind and natural gas, the company's nuclear plants haven't been rolling in the profits they once did for Exelon and the company has threatened [nuclear] plant closures if conditions don't improve." [emphasis added]  see link  -- end update

Update 5/28/2014: Exelon has 3 nuclear plants that fail to win power sales bids, because they cannot compete in the market.  "Three nuclear plants owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. failed to secure contracts to provide power to the electrical grid at an annual auction held last week.

Exelon’s Byron and Quad Cities plants in Illinois were priced out of the auction by competing power providers, the company said Tuesday, placing the future of those assets in question. Its Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, which is slated to close in 2019, also didn’t clear the auction."

Furthermore, the state is to decide if it will further subsidize the nuclear industry by paying the plants to stay open - on some pretext that nuclear power generates zero carbon dioxide.  "But [Illinois] House Speaker Michael Madigan [D. - IL] wants to help keep those plants open. They are among the top employers in the towns and counties in which they operate. A resolution sponsored by Madigan was introduced to the [Illinois] House last Friday urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the electric grid operators, to adopt policies that are "friendly" to nuclear power. Translation: enact a new rule to curb carbon emissions, which would be a boon to Exelon because its nuclear plants do not release greenhouse gases."   see  link  -- end update.

Other posts in this series may be found at links below. The list will be updated as postings occur. 
Part One -- this post
Part Two - Presposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponent 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 - 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 - 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

[Update - 5/31/14:  Motivation and qualifications for writing TANP.  Planned to have about 30 articles total, with nearly all of those already published, this series puts forth the many arguments and the evidence on modern commercial nuclear power plants and why they should never be built.  The articles discuss economics, impacts on customers, safety and numerous near-misses, environmental impacts, huge subsidies, unproven technologies that are in development, motivations for countries to install nuclear reactors, why France has so many reactors but medium-sized islands have none, and what lessons we should have learned from our existing history with nuclear power.   

These articles draw on my deep experience in chemical process engineering, my university classroom studies of nuclear engineering theory and design, decades as a practicing process engineer and consulting engineer, justifying then designing and implementing a private power plant to prevent rising power prices from shutting down my company's chemical plant, and understanding the legal requirements for utilities and nuclear plants.  I also had the privilege of a comprehensive guided tour of the Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio, conducted by the plant manager, when the plant was completed but had not yet had the first load of fuel installed.  Many friends and colleagues encouraged me to write these articles on nuclear power, since it appears I may be one of the few who have the combination of training, experience. and willingness to write on these matters. --end update. ]

Heating Degree Days Increasing in US

An interesting trend is occurring in the United States in Heating Degree Days, HDD.  The much-discussed "Pause" in global average surface temperature corresponds to an increase of 20 HDD per year.  

HDD are described in the Energy Information Agency's page as: 

"A degree-day compares the outdoor temperature to a standard of 65°F; the more extreme the temperature, the higher the degree-day number and the more energy needed for space heating or cooling.

. . . Cold days are measured in heating degree-days. For a day with a mean temperature of 40°F, 25 heating degree-days would be recorded. Two such cold days would result in a total of 50 heating degree-days for the two-day period."

Data since 1998 to 2011 for HDD in the US showing increasing trend of 20 HDD per year. 

It is unfortunate that the EIA data stops at 2011. (as of this writing, March 2014).  The winters of 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 should be added to the data.  This current winter, 2013-2014, will likely have much higher than average HDD due to the multiple cold waves that swept the nation.  

HDD can be used as an objective measure, independent of the agenda-driven warming alarmists, to determine the direction and extent of climate change.  From the above graph, it is clear that HDD are increasing.  

This bears close watching. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California.  

Sowell Speeches

Speaking to UC Irvine
student chapter of AIChE in 2013

For groups who want a polished, professional and entertaining public speaker, I am available to speak on a variety of topics.  I have made many speeches over the past few years, with 21 speeches at the last count.  Topics include climate change and the law, energy policy, refining, engineering, process safety, intellectual property, and construction law.  Audiences include professional groups, a law school symposium, industry groups, civic groups, student groups, and private industry.   Speeches last from 20 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the host group’s needs and the time available. 

My background is a practicing and consulting process engineer in the continuous process industries for more than 20 years world-wide, including oil refining, petrochemicals, basic chemicals, and power generation.  Following my engineering career, I studied law and now practice in science and technology law.

Typical comments on my speeches include:

“Mr. Sowell is one of the best speakers we have had” – Alan Benson, President of Southern California Section, American Institute of Chemical Engineers.  I have been invited to speak 8 times in the past 9 years.

“Outstanding speaker.  I wish you were a professor here and we could take your class” – student in chemical engineering at University of California, Irvine, in 2013.  UCI invited me to speak 3 times in the past 2 years.

 "This information is vitally important, and you should present this to every member of Congress and the Senate," -- Paul Helfrey, PE in Chemical Engineering, member Southern California Section AIChE, on the Warmists are Wrong, Cooling is Coming speech. 

      List of Sowell Speeches since 2007.  Links to selected speeches are provided.

1 1.       BP Refinery Explosion – South Texas AIChE, Houston Texas  

Speaking in Houston, TX  Sept 2008, to
South Texas AIChE re BP Refinery Explosion Legal Issues

2 2.       BP Refinery Explosion –  Southern California AIChE

3 3.      AB 32 – Southern California AIChE Los Angeles California

4 4.       Global Warming Laws and AB 32  National AIChE, Nashville Tennessee

5 5.       AB 32  ACEC engineers’ group, Ventura California

6 6.       AB 32  San Diego (San Marcos) Economic Development Group

7 7.       AB 32  Dennis Prager Listening Group in Santa Monica, CA

8 8.       BP Refinery Explosion – Tesoro Refinery, Wilmington CA

9 9.       AB 32 – Anaheim, CA  -- Builders Group

   10.   Patents – Southern California AIChE

1 11.   Intellectual Property – Southern California AIChE

1 12.   AB 32  -  Northern California AIChE, in Walnut Creek, CA

1 13.   Peak Oil and US Energy Policy – Tulane Law School Energy Summit, April 2012, New Orleans

1 14.   Peak Oil and US Energy Policy – UC Irvine Student AIChE

1 15.   Changed Conditions and Construction Projects – Hazardous Materials – LAX management

1 16.   My Career and the Future of Chemical Engineering – Southern California AIChE

1 17.   CAFÉ Standards and Energy – Southern California AIChE, September 2013

1 18.   Practical Tips for Chemical Engineers – UC Irvine student AIChE
  

Speaking at Tulane Law School, April 2012 on
Peak Oil and US Energy Policy

1 19.   Practical Tips for Chemical Engineers – UCLA student AIChE, October 2013

2 20.   Top Ten Issues in Chemical Engineering – UC Irvine student AIChE, January 2014

2 21.   Warmists are Wrong, Cooling Is Coming – Southern California AIChE, May 2012

2  22.  Explosion in Ammonia Fertilizer Distributor at West, Texas - Southern California AIChE, September 2014 (Discussed engineering and safety issues, plus legal issues)
 
 23.  Process Plant Design and Optimization - UCLA student AIChE.  October-December, 2014.  A series of 4 one-hour lectures.

Ethics in Chemical Engineering speech, 4-13-2015 at UC-Irvine

  24,  Ethics in Chemical Engineering - UC-Irvine student AIChE.  April 13, 2015.  

     The speeches are enthusiastically received, with many groups inviting me back for additional speeches.   To schedule a speech for your group, contact me directly by email at sowell.law.05 @ gmail.com, or send me a message via LinkedIn or FaceBook. 

(C) copyright 2014 - 2015 Roger E. Sowell

Gone With The Wind - Nuclear Bye Bye

On WattsUpWithThat.com, I had an interesting exchange over windturbines and the energy from them.  Most commenters were snarky, hostile, or condescending, but one, dbstealey, was as always very courteous.  I gave him a considered and thoughtful reply, reproduced below and posted here. 

Reply to dbstealey at 1:50 pm. 

Good evening, dbstealey.   I want to thank you for your kindness to me over the years that I have visited WUWT, especially in my earliest days several years ago.  You had a different handle then.  I appreciate your question above, and will try to give a thorough answer. 

You asked, “Would wind power even exist in commercial amounts if not for massive subsidies?” 

The short answer is, probably not.  But that is not a complete answer.  The answer must also ask, would nuclear power exist if not for massive subsidies?  Of course not.  Would General Motors?  Would Chrysler?  Would various other business entities exist if the government had not provided support in the form of subsidies, tax credits, bail-outs, low-interest loans and grants?  How many mortgage lending institutions received federal bail-out funds?

The question of government subsidies is one of encouraging an activity that the government deems to have, or be, a public good.  As just one example, home owners can deduct a portion of their mortgage payment and thereby pay less in taxes.  This, in theory, encourages home ownership rather than renting.   The simple fact is, the federal government and many states have decided that wind energy is an activity that has a social value, a public good.  Therefore, there are subsidies for wind energy projects typically amounting to a small percentage of the total investment, perhaps 30 percent.  There are also requirements that the utility purchase the power, among other requirements that I won’t list in detail here. 

Now, to consider the benefits of wind energy, and then the negative effects.  First, the benefits.  I want to preface this by saying that my considered opinion, based on my education, industrial experience, research, studies, feedback from live audiences in speeches, feedback from comments on my blogs (I have two blogs), and animated discussions with my friends and colleagues, is that commercial nuclear power plants are a net negative and should all be shut down as soon as possible.   Anything that advances that goal, without creating more harm, must therefore be supported.  Wind energy, especially land-based wind energy, advances the goal of shutting down nuclear power plants.  I will explain.

Because land-based wind blows primarily at night, during off-peak hours, utilities have an excess of power and usually reduce the price of off-peak power.  The lower power price is intended to attract more users.  Those who purchase off-peak power have a substantial benefit from the lower prices.  A side benefit, as I wrote above in a comment, is that some nuclear power plants cannot compete economically with the low off-peak power prices.   Older nuclear plants must invest in expensive replacement equipment such as steam generators.  That investment must have a revenue stream to provide a payout.  Low prices at night reduce the revenue stream to the nuclear plant and prevent the project from having an acceptable payout period.  Such uncompetitive nuclear plants are either already shut down or the operators have announced their imminent shutdown.  This alone is a reason to rejoice, and to support more land-based wind power.

Besides making nuclear power uneconomic, wind energy reduces consumption of fossil fuels – despite the futile arguments of the low-information commenters above.  Engineering facts trump religious-style belief, every time.  As an engineer who has practiced for more than 20 years world-wide in some truly dangerous process plants including oil refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas plants, chlorine plants, hydrogen plants, and others, I have seen the results of sloppy reasoning, bad data, and actions based on belief rather than hard facts.  The results are usually an explosion and one or more human deaths.   I have no patience for those who refuse to critically examine the data, the data collection processes, any adjustments that are made to the data, the calculations made upon the data, and the conclusions drawn from the above analyses.   In my field, we get it right or people die.   It is just that simple. 

Reference was made earlier by the bleating sheep that Germany’s experience is that wind energy increases CO2 emissions.  I expect that was a very badly conducted study, as engineering logic proves otherwise.   I gave counter-references that show the opposite, both from NREL and Iowa.  It doesn’t really matter that the bleating sheep show their religious-style, bitterly clinging to their beliefs in the face of sound engineering reason.

The benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption have nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions.  It has everything to do with reduced costs to run a utility grid – if one does not burn the fuel, one does not have to purchase that fuel.  The savings should be passed along to the customers, if the utility regulatory agency is performing its job.   Reduced fossil fuel consumption also reduces toxic air pollutants, sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).   It may also reduce emissions of particulate matter if coal-fired plants are part of the utility generating plant.  Reductions in toxic air pollutants is certainly a desirable goal. 

A further benefit of wind energy, especially land-based, is the eventual migration of people away from cities and into the plains states where wind energy is closer to home.  I won’t go into detail on the multitude of problems that arise from crowded urban life, and the equal multitude of benefits from small-town life.   However, to briefly illustrate, the exploitation of Niagara Falls and the hydroelectric power from that natural setting led to manufacturing locating nearby to take advantage of the abundant and cheap power.   As more and more wind energy systems are established across the middle of America, more and more businesses and industries will move to the power.   

A final benefit of wind energy is that conventional power plants require less cooling water as they consume less fuel.  Water is a precious commodity, and everything that can be done to reduce water consumption is a benefit.  Enough on the benefits.

The negative effects of wind energy are usually listed as too expensive, too unsightly (meaning somebody thinks they are ugly), deadly to flying creatures, too noisy, they are dangerous due to blades breaking apart, and of course, too unreliable.   In order, then, starting with too expensive.  The installed costs per MW have been steadily declining for years, and are expected to continue that decline as research is applied and better designs are proven.   A reference for those who want to verify the cost trends can be found in the California Energy Commission’s Comparative Costs of Central Station Electricity Generation, January 2010, Figure 3.   Onshore wind, as they call it, costs just under $2000 per kW in 2010 and is expected to decline 40 percent over the next 20 years, to about $1200 per kW.  In contrast, a Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear power plant, single-reactor, costs $4000 per kW but is expected to rapidly increase to almost double to $7300 per kW in 20 years.  All those are in constant, uninflated 2009 dollars.   Of course, the nuclear plant costs are low-balled, as nobody in the US can build a nuclear plant for less than $8,000 per kW installed.  One suspects the CEC numbers are overnight costs only for the nuclear plant. 

The crucial point from the CEC study is that onshore wind’s levelized cost ranges between 6.5 and 8 cents per kWh, depending on wind speed and financing mechanism. Nothing else in the CEC’s entire list of generating alternatives comes close to those costs, excepting only geothermal and large hydroelectric plant upgrades.   Note that the wind levelized costs account for existing subsidies. One can add about 2 cents per kWh to obtain an un-subsidized levelized cost.    

Next, too unsightly (meaning somebody thinks they are ugly).  Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.  I have seen many wind turbines in my life, and have yet to see an ugly one.  I also talk with people who enjoy the benefit of low-cost off-peak power, and they agree that wind turbines are beautiful. 

Next, deadly to flying creatures.  Flying creature deaths are a problem, but the problem is reduced by the use of monopole supports.  One wonders why the outcry over wind turbines but no similar outrage over electric power lines and equipment and the deaths they cause each year, not only to birds but to squirrels, and snakes.  I suppose that squirrels and snakes just don’t count for much in the minds of outraged wind-turbine haters.

Next, too noisy.  Noise is an interesting concept, and a great reason for the wind turbine haters to pounce.  I suppose that airport noise is not a problem for them.  Nor is the noise from close proximity to railroad tracks as trains pass.  Nor the noise from factories, especially when steam escapes.  The faux outrage is amusing, actually, especially when one considers that ordinances generally preclude locating the wind turbines anywhere close to people.  Certainly commuter trains and airports are far noisier to far more people. 

Next, the danger due to blades breaking apart.  No doubt, sometimes a turbine blade breaks.  I have not really followed this closely, but it seems doubtful that many people have been injured or killed by the flying blade.  Certainly, more people were killed by nuclear power plant disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, than by the more than 40 years of wind turbine operation.

And finally, wind turbines are claimed to be too unreliable.  I first entered this thread with an account of proven energy storage that overcomes the unreliability issue.  The bleating sheep would have none of it, which is fine as it shows their ignorance.   Wind has always been known to be unreliable.  In some areas, it is far more constant and blows more strongly than in others.  Offshore the US north-east coast, and the US west coast have excellent wind, as I wrote above.  I personally have experienced strong and steady wind for many hours, days even, on the shore of Padre Island at Corpus Christi, Texas.  The wind is so steady that hang-gliders launch, then hover above the beach in a group, perhaps 50 to 100 feet up, carrying on conversations with those below.

On balance, then, wind energy is a fabulous means of providing electricity with zero pollution, it reduces fossil fuel use, and can be made reliable with appropriate storage.  The chief benefit at this time is it runs nuclear power plants out of business, causing them to be permanently shut down.  It also gives pause to those who would build a new nuclear power plant.    

Next, you wrote “Promoting wind power smacks of a belief that CO2 is bad. But CO2 is not bad. CO2 is not “pollution”. CO2 is good at current and projected concentrations, and more is better. Based on mountains of real world evidence, I believe that. Do you?”

I could not agree more that CO2 is not pollution, that CO2 is good at current and projected atmospheric concentrations, and more is probably better up to a point.  There are, for example, concerns over breathing impacts at elevated levels of 10,000 ppm.   I am on record in speeches and my blog, as against CO2-control measures such as California’s AB32, federal congressional efforts to curb CO2, and the EPA’s move to regulate CO2 and shut down coal-fired power plants.  I have detailed my views on my blog, where one of my posts was translated into German and posted on a German climate skeptic site.  If anyone cares to look, see “From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic,My Journey”, (this was translated and posted into German), also “Warmists areWrong, Cooling is Coming”, and many other posts.  

The key to me is that the warmists violated the first rule of science and engineering when they began adjusting the temperature data.  One does not adjust data except in highly unusual and rare situations.  Outliers in a data set must be discarded, not adjusted to fit a pre-conceived value.  A far better approach would have been to use only pristine locations for temperature measurements.  That the scientists did not do this is obvious, and laughable to all practicing engineers.   

Next, you wrote “A warmer planet is also good. The fact is that the climate alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything. Every major prediction they have made has turned out to be flat wrong, from global warming, to ocean ‘acidification’, to disappearing ice caps, to sea level rise, and many, many other failed predictions.”

I agree.  In my blog post on Warmists are Wrong, I discussed many of those failed predictions, including no unusual sea level rise, no decreased polar ice, no increase in hurricanes, no rise in average global temperature, and no atmospheric hot spot.  I was pressed for time in that speech so I didn’t include other failures.   

Last, you wrote “When someone is wrong about everything, the question must be asked: “When will you admit that your original premise, and your subsequent beliefs, must be radically altered? Or, is being totally wrong now a good thing?”” 

Again, I agree.  That is a good paraphrase of the question I pose to the warmists. 

Let me conclude in this way.  In my considered, engineering-based opinion, nuclear power is a danger and a threat to the economic well-being of electricity consumers.  I have a special place in my heart for the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and those who barely scrape by month to month or even week to week. High electricity prices causes those vulnerable groups to choose between food, rent, and paying the electric bill.  That is simply wrong, in my view.  Nuclear power increases electricity prices by outrageous amounts, as I witnessed only too personally in the 1970s along the US gulf coast.  It is simply wrong to run them, or to build them, when there are so many better, cheaper, and less deadly alternatives available.  Today, the power plant of choice is a combined cycle natural gas-fired gas turbine plant, with low construction costs, high thermal efficiency of approximately 60 percent, low operating costs with low-cost natural gas at around $4 per million Btu, and very low water consumption for cooling. 

Since wind energy also forces nuclear power plants out of business, that alone justifies the subsidies. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.  

Increased Wind Power Reduces CO2 Emissions

Preface: From time to time, un-informed commenters on WUWT, WattsUpWithThat.com, write that wind power integrated into a utility grid actually increases overall emissions of CO2 and true pollutants such as SOx and NOx.  My engineering colleagues and I have long known that to be false.   This 2013 government study by NREL shows that claim to be false.  From the article, “the study finds that the high wind and solar scenarios reduce CO2 emissions by 29% --34% across the Western Interconnection. . .” because “adding wind and solar to the grid greatly reduces the amount of fossil fuel – and associated emissions – that would have been burned to provide power. . .”  The “high wind and solar scenarios” have one-fourth of the energy in the entire Western grid provided by wind and solar sources.  (emphasis added)

For perspective, Iowa had approximately 25 percent, and California had 4.5 percent of its in-state power generated from wind in 2012.   (end preface)

NREL Calculates Emissions and Costs of Power Plant Cycling Necessary for Increased Wind and Solar in the West

September 24, 2013    

New research from the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) quantifies the potential impacts of increasing wind and solar power generation on the operators of fossil-fueled power plants in the West. To accommodate higher amounts of wind and solar power on the electric grid, utilities must ramp down and ramp up or stop and start conventional generators more frequently to provide reliable power for their customers – a practice called cycling.

The study finds that the carbon emissions induced by more frequent cycling are negligible, less than 0.2%, compared with the carbon reductions achieved through the wind and solar power generation evaluated in the study. Sulfur dioxide emissions reductions from wind and solar are 5% less than expected because of cycling of fossil-fueled generators. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are reduced 2% more than expected. The study also finds that high levels of wind and solar power would reduce fossil fuel costs by approximately $7 billion per year across the West, while incurring cycling costs of $35 million to $157 million per year. For the average fossil-fueled plant, this results in an increase in operations and maintenance costs of $0.47 to $1.28 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of generation.

“Grid operators have always cycled power plants to accommodate fluctuations in electricity demand as well as abrupt outages at conventional power plants, and grid operators use the same tool to accommodate high levels of wind and solar generation,” said Debra Lew, NREL project manager for the study. “Increased cycling to accommodate high levels of wind and solar generation increases operating costs by 2% to 5% for the average fossil-fueled plant. However, our simulations show that from a system perspective, avoided fuel costs are far greater than the increased cycling costs for fossil-fueled plants.”

Phase 2 of the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (WWSIS-2) is a follow up to the WWSIS released in May 2010, which examined the viability, benefits, and challenges of integrating high levels of wind and solar power into the western electricity grid. WWSIS found it to be technically feasible if certain operational changes could be made, but the first study raised questions about the impact of cycling on wear-and-tear costs and emissions.

To calculate wear-and-tear costs and emissions impacts for the new study, NREL designed five hypothetical scenarios to examine generating up to 33% wind and solar energy on the U.S. portion of the Western Interconnection power system for the year 2020. This is equivalent to a quarter of the power in the Western Interconnection (including Canada and Mexico) coming from wind and solar energy on an annual basis. The study models cycling impacts representing a range of wind and solar energy levels between none and 33%, and is not an endorsement of any particular level.

The study assumes a future average natural gas price of $4.60/MMBtu, significant cooperation between balancing authorities, and optimal usage of transmission capacity (i.e., not reserving transmission for contractual obligations). NREL modeled operations of the entire Western Interconnection for that year in five-minute intervals to understand potential impacts within every hour. With these assumptions, the study finds that the high wind and solar scenarios reduce CO2 emissions by 29%–34% across the Western Interconnection, with cycling having a negligible impact.

Cycling lessens the SO2 benefit by 2%–5%, so that SO2 emissions are reduced by 14%–24% in the high scenarios. These impacts are modeled on an overall Western Interconnection level, and changes on a regional basis could vary. Further, the study does not examine cycling impacts on mercury and air toxic control equipment now being retrofitted on coal units to comply with recent EPA regulations.

Cycling actually improves the NOx benefit by 1%–2%, so that NOx emissions are reduced by 16%–22% in the high scenarios. This is because the average coal plant in the West has a lower NOx emissions rate at partial output than at full output.

"Adding wind and solar to the grid greatly reduces the amount of fossil fuel — and associated emissions — that would have been burned to provide power,” Lew said. “Our high wind and solar scenarios, in which one-fourth of the energy in the entire western grid would come from these sources, reduced the carbon footprint of the western grid by about one-third. Cycling induces some inefficiencies, but the carbon emission reduction is impacted by much less than 1%.”

WWSIS-2 does not consider other factors such as capital costs of construction for wind, solar, fossil-fueled power plants, or transmission. These costs are significant, but outside the scope of this study, which focuses on operations.

“From a system perspective, high proportions of wind and solar result in lower emissions and fuel costs for utility operators,” Lew said. “The potential cycling impacts offset a small percentage of these reductions.”

According to the study, on average, 4 MWh of renewables displace 1 MWh of coal generation and 3 MWh of natural gas. The biggest potential cycling impact is the significant increase in ramping of coal units. Other findings include:

• Because of sunset and sunrise, solar power creates the biggest ramping needs on the grid in this study. However, because we know the path of the sun through the sky every day of the year, system operators can predict these large ramping needs and plan accordingly. Solar variability due to fast-moving clouds is much less predictable, but it creates relatively smaller ramping needs.
• Errors in day-ahead wind forecasts can make it challenging for operators to decide which power plants need to be online the next day. However, because forecast accuracy increases four hours ahead compared with 24 hours ahead, a four-hour-ahead decision on whether to start up those power plants that can be ramped up relatively quickly can help to mitigate these forecast errors.
• Despite the differences between wind and solar in terms of grid operations, the study finds their impacts on system-wide operational costs are remarkably similar.

WWSIS-2 was supported by the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as well as its Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. The study was undertaken by NREL, GE, Intertek-APTECH, and REPPAE, and underwent a rigorous technical review process that included utilities, researchers, and analysts. The study can be downloaded at www.nrel.gov/wwsis.

NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for the Energy Department by The Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

The news release is at http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/3299.html

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