Clean Energy Is Canceling Gas Plants

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey

I'll just concede that these reactors aren't ready, but there's a few things I want to clear up about my position.

On 10/24/2020 at 9:56 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

I completely agree that unregulated nuclear plants that don't have to pay for safety measures or waste disposal are dirt cheap and yes they would meet budget requirements and complete construction on time.

I don't believe this description fits the plants built before three mile island. I'm not advocating for unregulated, dangerous plants. I'm advocating for consistent regulation and reasonable demands for safety features and waste disposal. There is such a thing as excess. Is it reasonable to allow public response to stop an approved project once it's begun? Perhaps, but that cant be the fault of nuclear itself. 

As per your other points, I think we're both making predictions on the improvements in both sectors. We can speculate on graphene for turbines and heat resistant materials for VHTGR's. Perhaps I'm not reasonably convinced that nuclear will be cheaper than these options. Do you believe that the deployment of renewable farms all over the place is more pragmatic than nuclear assuming they both advance in the ways we're hoping for?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey

I'll just concede that these reactors aren't ready, but there's a few things I want to clear up about my position.

I don't believe this description fits the plants built before three mile island. I'm not advocating for unregulated, dangerous plants. I'm advocating for consistent regulation and reasonable demands for safety features and waste disposal. There is such a thing as excess. Is it reasonable to allow public response to stop an approved project once it's begun? Perhaps, but that cant be the fault of nuclear itself. 

As per your other points, I think we're both making predictions on the improvements in both sectors. We can speculate on graphene for turbines and heat resistant materials for VHTGR's. Perhaps I'm not reasonably convinced that nuclear will be cheaper than these options. Do you believe that the deployment of renewable farms all over the place is more pragmatic than nuclear assuming they both advance in the ways we're hoping for?

It is very reasonable to allow the public to stop an approved or built project because all too often a project has been pushed thru by the nuclear industry paying off gov't officials in some form or another. Most recently there has been Ohio nuclear bribery scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal To keep built plants online.

I think the most pragmatic solution is the lowest cost solution and the market will figure it out.

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

It is very reasonable to allow the public to stop an approved or built project because all too often a project has been pushed thru by the nuclear industry paying off gov't officials in some form or another. Most recently there has been Ohio nuclear bribery scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal To keep built plants online.

I think the most pragmatic solution is the lowest cost solution and the market will figure it out.

 

Yes I acknowledged that it's okay if a project is stopped, but I want people to understand that it's a source of cost for said project. It's equivalent to saying "why are you hitting yourself?" when saying that nuclear is too expensive (while at the same time protesting it).

I think the market should decide on the best decision too, but there's an issue. Subsidies and 86% depreciation isn't an advantage generated within the market, it's an edge given by governing authority. If solar and wind are truly competitive, they shouldn't need the tax credit and the large depreciable sum. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Yes I acknowledged that it's okay if a project is stopped, but I want people to understand that it's a source of cost for said project. It's equivalent to saying "why are you hitting yourself?" when saying that nuclear is too expensive (while at the same time protesting it).

I think the market should decide on the best decision too, but there's an issue. Subsidies and 86% depreciation isn't an advantage generated within the market, it's an edge given by governing authority. If solar and wind are truly competitive, they shouldn't need the tax credit and the large depreciable sum. 

Project stoppage is absolutely part of the cost. But why it happened is irrelevant. What matters is how often it happens and for how long.  Nuclear plants are extremely complex and they have delays for a lot of reasons other than protests. That is the main impetus behind the small modular reactor development. All the delays that program hopes to belay are from size and complexity. People will protest the same regardless of one big reactor or lots of little ones.

And this is going to be nuclear's biggest cost when it comes to pragmatism because very few are going to believe that the reactor is 100% safe. The Chernobyl design was supposed to be incapable of melt down but whoopsie, they overlooked something. 

The depreciation you speak of is available to just about everything to some degree or another:

The modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) is the proper depreciation method for most assets. MACRS allows for greater accelerated depreciation over longer time periods. This is beneficial since faster acceleration allows individuals and businesses to deduct greater amounts during the first few years of an asset's life, and relatively less later. Depreciation using MACRS can be applied to assets such as computer equipment, office furniture, automobiles, fences, farm buildings, racehorses, and so on.https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/macrs.asp#:~:text=The modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) allows a business,assets that deteriorate over time.&text=MACRS allows for faster depreciation,and slows depreciation later on.

And isn't it the case that to take MACRS you only get half of the tax credit?

If nuclear is truly competitive then they shouldn't need government subsidies:

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$145 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($85 billion) and fossil fuels ($60 billion) from 1950 to 2016. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies received a total of US $34 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#:~:text=In the United States%2C the,total of US %2434 billion.

Illinois and New York have approved hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-energy incentives for nuclear power companies. New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland could be next.

On Thursday, regulators in New Jersey are scheduled to decide whether PSEG has shown that it needs the subsidies, which would be paid for through a surcharge on all customer bills in the state. If the Board of Public Utilities approves the requests, New Jersey would join two other states, Illinois and New York, in giving nuclear power plants hundreds of millions of dollars in order to stay competitive in the wholesale energy market. https://www.propublica.org/article/in-a-time-of-cheap-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power-companies-are-seeking-and-getting-big-subsidies

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Project stoppage is absolutely part of the cost. But why it happened is irrelevant.

I don't believe so. If it were commonplace for people to destroy solar farms after they were built, it would be absurd to say that solar doesn't work for this reason. For nuclear, it doesn't seem reasonable to declare current costs as normal, since we have the variable of outside meddling to contend with.

 

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And this is going to be nuclear's biggest cost when it comes to pragmatism because very few are going to believe that the reactor is 100% safe.

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And isn't it the case that to take MACRS you only get half of the tax credit?

1. People don't believe it's safe. Fine. That isn't an issue with the energy solution, it's an issue with the intelligence of the public. These systems should not cost as much as they do. 

2. Not quite. If you claim the credit you can only depreciate 86% instead of 100%. 

I'm looking at the figures you gave for subsidies. Have we been subsidizing wind and solar since 1950 at the extent we are now? I don't believe so. This means that the 30 billion was granted within a smaller time frame (more spent per year than for oil and gas). I'd also take note of industry size. Wind and solar account for a very small portion of generation, and yet according to the numbers you gave, take half the subsidy given to oil and gas since 1950. 

Yes I acknowledge that nuclear shouldn't get a subsidy either for market comparisons. I was thinking back on CCG vs renewable systems. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I don't believe so. If it were commonplace for people to destroy solar farms after they were built, it would be absurd to say that solar doesn't work for this reason. For nuclear, it doesn't seem reasonable to declare current costs as normal, since we have the variable of outside meddling to contend with.

 

1. People don't believe it's safe. Fine. That isn't an issue with the energy solution, it's an issue with the intelligence of the public. These systems should not cost as much as they do. 

2. Not quite. If you claim the credit you can only depreciate 86% instead of 100%. 

I'm looking at the figures you gave for subsidies. Have we been subsidizing wind and solar since 1950 at the extent we are now? I don't believe so. This means that the 30 billion was granted within a smaller time frame (more spent per year than for oil and gas). I'd also take note of industry size. Wind and solar account for a very small portion of generation, and yet according to the numbers you gave, take half the subsidy given to oil and gas since 1950. 

Yes I acknowledge that nuclear shouldn't get a subsidy either for market comparisons. I was thinking back on CCG vs renewable systems. 

Educating and assuring the public is a very real cost for all business. Calling your customers stupid and trying to force something on them is a guaranteed way of going out of business. The maxim "the customer is always right" is reality. If you think your customer is stupid then you just have more cost to incur in educating them. This is how the market works whether you like it or not. Ignoring this cost is absurd.

If people start tearing up solar farms then that is a very real cost that would have to be overcome. There are a lot of protests over solar and wind btw., for aesthetics, health, wildlife, etc. Those are legitimate costs that have to be overcome.

We are discussing nuclear. Wind and solar produce half as much electricity as nuclear does and nuclear has had 80 billion in subsidies over the time period. So we have a better return on renewables than nuclear for clean energy. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

38 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Educating and assuring the public is a very real cost for all business. Calling your customers stupid and trying to force something on them is a guaranteed way of going out of business. The maxim "the customer is always right" is reality. If you think your customer is stupid then you just have more cost to incur in educating them. This is how the market works whether you like it or not. Ignoring this cost is absurd.

If people start tearing up solar farms then that is a very real cost that would have to be overcome. There are a lot of protests over solar and wind btw., for aesthetics, health, wildlife, etc. Those are legitimate costs that have to be overcome.

We are discussing nuclear. Wind and solar produce half as much electricity as nuclear does and nuclear has had 80 billion in subsidies over the time period. So we have a better return on renewables than nuclear for clean energy. 

The approach isn't to call the customers stupid. The approach is to educate people on what these systems are, and why they're safer than the opponents claim. I think you agree that some of these costs would disappear if there was more public support. Remember, the central claim is that these systems would be competitive without the handicaps placed on them.

I'll try to more clearly demonstrate what I mean by my statements on subsidies. 

20% of our power from nuclear, with $85 billion in subsidies spread out over a longer period than for wind and solar.

Wind/solar: 13% of our power in 2018, with $35 billion spent in a shorter span 

If you adjust for time scale, it looks like they come fairly close to each other in terms of subsidies spent vs power generated. I'll do some more looking to see by how much they differ. 

"While the data of the full amount of subsidies is not available, as of March 21, 2013 DOE’s 1603 program funded $18.2 billion in cash grants for renewable energy projects. Furthermore, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the wind industry has received $8.4 billion in subsidies through May 2012. "

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/renewable-energy-subsidies-and-electricity-generation

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

32 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The approach isn't to call the customers stupid. The approach is to educate people on what these systems are, and why they're safer than the opponents claim. I think you agree that some of these costs would disappear if there was more public support. Remember, the central claim is that these systems would be competitive without the handicaps placed on them.

I'll try to more clearly demonstrate what I mean by my statements on subsidies. 

20% of our power from nuclear, with $85 billion in subsidies spread out over a longer period than for wind and solar.

Wind/solar: 13% of our power in 2018, with $35 billion spent in a shorter span 

If you adjust for time scale, it looks like they come fairly close to each other in terms of subsidies spent vs power generated. I'll do some more looking to see by how much they differ. 

"While the data of the full amount of subsidies is not available, as of March 21, 2013 DOE’s 1603 program funded $18.2 billion in cash grants for renewable energy projects. Furthermore, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the wind industry has received $8.4 billion in subsidies through May 2012. "

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/renewable-energy-subsidies-and-electricity-generation

 

 

You said: "it's an issue with the intelligence of the public." same as calling them stupid. I agree that costs would be lower if the public had the warm fuzzies for nuclear. So looks like we are in agreement but you have to factor in the cost of educating the public and that isn't going to be cheap. I always try to learn and I dig through the details and yet you are going to have a very hard time convincing me that anything using molten salt isn't subject to leaks.

As to the subisidies, most of the nuclear subsidies were spent between 1960 and 1990. This is when we built our nuclear fleet. The problem is that after building the fleet out costs were still going up not down. So we decreased the subsidies for nuclear and now we are spending more on renewables and getting a much better result. Costs are decreasing dramatically.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You said: "it's an issue with the intelligence of the public." same as calling them stupid.

I think I used the wrong words. One can be intelligent but uninformed. The better statement would have been "it's an issue with the public's knowledge on these systems". 

[Boat + 1,315]

On 10/26/2020 at 12:08 PM, Coffeeguyzz said:

Boat, NickW

The price of natty has just passed the $3/mmbtu threshold (HH) again today, which is relatively high for the past 2/3 years.

Pretty common to have been bouncing around the $2/$2.50 range during that time.

The future pricing - as always - remains uncertain but the NYMEX strip is (last time I checked)  mostly under $3 going out several years. Historically, these are extremely (unsustainably ?) low prices.

While I will not veer off into the  natgas world, I continue to closely follow the operational aspects of the unconventional hydrocarbon producers and continue to see operational costs in the Appalachian Basin region as being viable in a ~$2/mmbtu world.

The effects will be profound on competing industries ...  solar/wind for one.

It poses absolutely existential threats to regimes relying upon higher hydrocarbon pricing as can be seen with the current financial stress in the Middle East.

 

Nick, that is an excellent observation and description of an illustrative wind farm's potential.

It is pretty understandable, I think, for everyone to put their best spin on situations ("selling the sizzle sells the steak"), but wading through the tons of info/misinfo/disinfo can be a daunting task.

It is through venues like these threads, I believe, that stuff can be put forth, interested/motivated observers can do their own due diligence, and conclusions and preferred options can be had ... irrespective of the differences people place on varying issues of importance.

I am not nearly the expert you are on FF but have observed over the last 15 years or so somewhere around the $3 level nat gas drilling rig counts/production will go up.

[Boat + 1,315]

I would like your guys opinion on how the tech for wind and solar is advancing fast enough that fields and farms will become caniblized and non competitive before their advertised life span is completed. 
We read about this with coal and nuclear but now I see a few rumblings about renewables. Can any energy investment be safe 15 years later? Can advancing tech get good enough fast enough to change how we need to look at investment?

I think about nat gas investment and how battery tech might disrupt everything even 10 years down the road.

Depending on the speed of the transition to EV’s maybe the demand for electricity will be so high it will alleviate some of this “strand

Edited October 28, 2020 by Boat