News Energy Secretary Steven Chu Not to Serve a Second Term

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://energy.gov/articles/letter-s...t-employees-announcing-his-decision-not-serve

Serving the country as Secretary of Energy, and working alongside such an extraordinary team of people at the Department, has been the greatest privilege of my life. While the job has had many challenges, it has been an exciting time for the Department, the country, and for me personally.

Hopefully the next SoE will also have a strong scientific background.

 

[russ_watters]

My hope is that the next will treat nuclear power seriously.

 

[lisab]

My hope is that the next will treat nuclear power seriously.

Me too.

 

[gmax137]

Me too.

+1
oops, too short, "me too"

 

[turbo]

Perhaps the most unrewarding job in government. Between the relentless attacks from the power-company flacks and the PR push from the right, what can get done? I believe Chu had his heart in the right place, but that doesn't translate well to combating attacks n the media.

 

[Astronuc]

The current administration has been promoting 'renewable energy' technology and jobs - wind and solar. Of course, coal and natural gas are strongly supported.

Nuclear is handicapped at the moment because of the suspension at Yucca Mountain, the repository that was supposed to have accepted fuel a decade ago or so. Utilities have had to sue the Federal government to recover the cost of dry storage at their respective sites.

I was trying to find an article that I read this past week. The article was critical of the DOE and they have too often changed/cancelled mission/programs. Apparently the Gen-IV program has been interrupted or deferred indefinitely.

With changes in administrations, big research programs can be (and have been) suspended and efforts and funds redirected to other technologies.

 

[russ_watters]

Utilities have had to sue the Federal government to recover the cost of dry storage at their respective sites.

And the $750 million a year collected (plus the $27 billion already collected but not spent) from our utility bills. It's an anti-subsidy that makes nuclear power more expensive and discourages investment in new plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Cancellation_of_project

 

[russ_watters]

Between the relentless attacks from the power-company flacks and the PR push from the right, what can get done? I believe Chu had his heart in the right place, but that doesn't translate well to combating attacks n the media.

Nonsense. The media has barely made a peep about the burying of the Blue Ribbon Commission report and the lawsuits against the Obama administration for violating federal law in his burying of the Yucca repository itself. I doubt most people are even aware of these issues.

Part of the reason for the silence is that most of the lawsuits were temporarily suspended due to the way the Obama administration buried the repository: The Obama administration announced years ago it was shutting the repository, but the federal law wasn't changed and the NRC hadn't actually ruled on the application to open the repository. The DOE tried to cancel their application, but they don't have the power to do that. Without an NRC ruling to cancel it, there technically hasn't been a violation of the law yet, so the lawsuits can't proceed. He basically put it in a limbo that isn't technically a violation yet, despite the fact that the site has been essentially been dismantled and sabotaged.

Two states with large amounts of military and civilian nuclear waste told a federal court panel on Wednesday that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was flouting the law by declining to decide whether the Nevada desert is a suitable burial spot — even if the Obama administration says the storage plan is dead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/s...-for-nrc-decision-on-yucca-mountain.html?_r=0

Think of it like trying to prosecute a shooter while the bullet is still in the air. But this particular gun was fired 4 years ago and the bullet is still flying. Everyone knows where it's going to hit, but nothing apparently can be done about it yet.

 

[aquitaine]

My hope is that the next will treat nuclear power seriously.

I hope this as well, but I wouldn't count on it. Renewables still have a major political force behind them and I think we're going to have to waste a lot more money on them before people start to realize how useless most of them are. When I see things like this starting to be officially abandoned then I'll know it's finished.

 

[russ_watters]

I hope this as well, but I wouldn't count on it. Renewables still have a major political force behind them and I think we're going to have to waste a lot more money on them before people start to realize how useless most of them are. When I see things like this starting to be officially abandoned then I'll know it's finished.

In the short term (<10 years) I think we're actually in pretty good shape regardless of that politicization due to the resurgence of the US petroleum industry. A few years ago, I thought the only way to get rid of coal was to build nuclear plants, but natural gas is doing a pretty good job of it right now. So we might be in for another decade of spending tons of money on renewables without significant benefit because the replacement of coal with natural gas makes the issues less immediate. Riding the shale oil/gas wave for the next decade will be an improvement over where we are today, it just isn't a long-term solution and it shouldn't be squandered on electricity.

And that's about the timeframe for when proposals like the one you linked become clear failures.

 

[turbo]

Political pressure brought the end to Maine Yankee. My older second-cousins' family leased off their land to allow the construction of the plant, and were allowed to graze their cattle on the land that was outside the perimeter fence. It was a pretty nice place to visit. Never got inside the plant, but it was good to see a plant that could produce that much energy and not see plumes of smoke and rail-cars full of fossil fuels.

 

[rootX]

I hope this as well, but I wouldn't count on it. Renewables still have a major political force behind them and I think we're going to have to waste a lot more money on them before people start to realize how useless most of them are. When I see things like this starting to be officially abandoned then I'll know it's finished.

"Renewables" is a sloppy word. 61.7% of energy in my country, Canada is produced from renewable source - Hydro (www.electricity.ca/media/pdfs/economic/canada_us_affairs/CEA_NAReport_Web_E.pdf). My province 98% energy is from Hydro and they have the cheapest energy price in NA 6.76 cents/kwH (http://www.hydroquebec.com/pdf/en/comparaison_prix_2012.pdf). With global warming up in the north, we might even see further drop in electricity prices.

Wind and solar cannot compete with those prices but still in certain situations like in remote communities you can build a good business case. They can beat diesel prices. And, they might be able to compete with major energy sources if we continue investing in R&D including storage technologies. And, renewable research generally also focuses on things like demand side management or smart grids which will help us consume energy more efficiently.

As for future, I am seeing mix of everything rather than having all energy coming from wind (which is just ridiculous). There is no one solution. Shale is good for short term but some are saying shale prices might also go up soon.

 

[atyy]

My hope is that the next will treat nuclear power seriously.

me too (and I'm not a US citizen).

 

[jim hardy]

Future of fossil fuel is assured.
There's just too much money to be made from carbon tax.

 

[rootX]

Future of fossil fuel is assured.
There's just too much money to be made from carbon tax.

There are big coal-friendly countries like China and India willing to buy those fossil fuels And, both have trouble getting nuclear to work.

 

[aquitaine]

In the short term (<10 years) I think we're actually in pretty good shape regardless of that politicization due to the resurgence of the US petroleum industry. A few years ago, I thought the only way to get rid of coal was to build nuclear plants, but natural gas is doing a pretty good job of it right now. So we might be in for another decade of spending tons of money on renewables without significant benefit because the replacement of coal with natural gas makes the issues less immediate. Riding the shale oil/gas wave for the next decade will be an improvement over where we are today, it just isn't a long-term solution and it shouldn't be squandered on electricity.

And that's about the timeframe for when proposals like the one you linked become clear failures.

You'd think so, but if Denmark is any indication the RE propaganda machines will brainwash people into thinking it was somehow a success. Their wind farms were a clear failure a decade ago but even today people still hold them up as an example of what should be done. An example was a chapter in sustainability in a BA101 textbook I read last year actually had a caption beneath a wind turbine picture that said "Someday wind energy will be developed enough to free us from dependence on foreign oil".

And even within Denmark itself, despite this failure they still haven't accepted the need for nuclear power, so they're going to stick with coal and RE.

 

[aquitaine]

"Renewables" is a sloppy word. 61.7% of energy in my country, Canada is produced from renewable source - Hydro (www.electricity.ca/media/pdfs/economic/canada_us_affairs/CEA_NAReport_Web_E.pdf). My province 98% energy is from Hydro and they have the cheapest energy price in NA 6.76 cents/kwH (http://www.hydroquebec.com/pdf/en/comparaison_prix_2012.pdf). With global warming up in the north, we might even see further drop in electricity prices.

Wind and solar cannot compete with those prices but still in certain situations like in remote communities you can build a good business case. They can beat diesel prices. And, they might be able to compete with major energy sources if we continue investing in R&D including storage technologies. And, renewable research generally also focuses on things like demand side management or smart grids which will help us consume energy more efficiently.

As for future, I am seeing mix of everything rather than having all energy coming from wind (which is just ridiculous). There is no one solution. Shale is good for short term but some are saying shale prices might also go up soon.

When I say renewables don't work I generally don't refer to hydro and geo. They are inexpensive, reliable, and depending on the scale fairly abundant. In other words everything we need from our electricity production sources. Except it has two problems, one is that they are geographically limited. There are some places like the Pacific Northwest (where I live) or Canada that have the "right" geography to get most energy needs from it, but most places do not.

The other problem is that environmentalists don't like them. They are correct to say that dams are ecologically disruptive, but the problem is people want to live in the modern world and not have to pay any price for it, part of that is by convincing themselves that wind and solar somehow don't have major side effects both in terms of production as well as manufacturing. There is a movement that is gaining steam here to remove the dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers, like here. While these dams are old, many were built in the Great Depression (really one of the few net positive public works projects that came out of it), they still provide 3/4 of our electricity and the plan seems to be to replace them with wind, solar, and wave. A plan that, as Russ correctly pointed out, is doomed to fail.

 

[Astronuc]

There are big coal-friendly countries like China and India willing to buy those fossil fuels And, both have trouble getting nuclear to work.

Both China and India have big nuclear energy programs, and China is aggressively building nuclear plants.

• Mainland China has 16 nuclear power reactors in operation, almost 30 under construction, and more about to start construction.
• Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to 58 GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
• China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

http://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/info/files/index_04-16-2.pdf

China bought Western technology at a steep discount. It is expect that they will become a global supplier in the next decade in competition with Korea and Russia, and perhaps India. The US isn't very competitive in the global market.

 

[rootX]

Both China and India have big nuclear energy programs, and China is aggressively building nuclear plants.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

But isn't China's wind energy beating nuclear? (http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...-Become-Chinas-3rd-Largest-Energy-Source.html). I read earlier about future nuclear ambitions of China but they suffered a setback after Japan incident.

As for India, I read they don't have sufficient raw materials. They have thorium but not uranium. Many also question Indian tendency to building nuclear weapons rather than producing energy. (I will link to article about India's nuclear problems as soon I find it)

In addition both countries appear to have poor safety measures and suffer from inefficiencies like bureaucracy that prevent them from doing much.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The other problem is that environmentalists don't like them.

They don't like anything not even wind

 

[Astronuc]

Wind power is now China’s third largest energy resource, behind thermal power and hydropower, according to data released recently by the China Wind Energy Association (CWEA).

This development comes after wind power surpassed nuclear power. During a congress held last weekend, it was also announced that wind-generated electricity in China amounted to 1,004 billion kilowatt-hours in 2012.
. . .
However, China’s current proportion of nuclear power, 2 percent, is set to double by 2020. . . .
For years, China’s wind power capabilities developed at a blistering pace. However, this slowed dramatically in 2012.
. . .

http://asiancorrespondent.com/96579/wind-power-overtakes-nuclear-in-china-for-now/

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...ind-power-amid-challenges/UPI-96591358360261/

 

[rootX]

http://asiancorrespondent.com/96579/wind-power-overtakes-nuclear-in-china-for-now/

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...ind-power-amid-challenges/UPI-96591358360261/

Yes, wind energy suffered because it was pure madness to build so many wind farms without having enough transmission system in place. Most of the energy from wind is not being used. However, I was arguing that China's nuclear energy must be too weak right now if wind can beat it. From the article I am linking below, it appears that even by 2020 wind will be ahead of nuclear (nuclear going upto 6%). Coal is to play a big role in China at least until 2050.

Here are some interesting articles. This was really good "ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=6185741&punumber=8014" because it has energy articles related to important world countries including the US. But the access to these articles is limited. I am just linking them here if anyone's interested.

Challenges Ahead: Currents Status and Future Prospects for Chinese Energy
Yunhe Hou; Jin Zhong
Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE
Volume: 10 , Issue: 3
Topic(s): Power, Energy, & Industry Applications
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MPE.2012.2188670
Publication Year: 2012 , Page(s): 38 - 47
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6185783Growing Pains: Meeting India's Energy Needs in the Face of Limited Fossil Fuels
Parikh, J.; Parikh, K.
Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE
Volume: 10 , Issue: 3
Topic(s): Power, Energy, & Industry Applications
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MPE.2012.2188671
Publication Year: 2012 , Page(s): 59 - 66
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6185786

 

[mheslep]

But isn't China's wind energy beating nuclear? (http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...-Become-Chinas-3rd-Largest-Energy-Source.html). ...

Apparently about a third of installed Chinese wind capacity is not connected to the grid, i.e. installed to look good on paper. If your link is correct in that 60GW of wind towers are standing as of 2012, then per Forbes 40GW pk is in use, with 13GW average power. Sixteen standard 1GWe nuclear reactors running all the time, as they usually do, should still be ahead of wind generation in China.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://energy.gov/articles/letter-s...t-employees-announcing-his-decision-not-serve



Hopefully the next SoE will also have a strong scientific background.

hmmm... How much does it pay?

He sounds a lot like me.

In a wide-ranging and sometimes defiant letter to staff announcing his resignation on Friday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, while highlighting his agency's achievements over the last four years, blasted critics of the administration's investments in the renewable energy market, suggesting that opponents were living in the "Stone Age."

"In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy," Chu wrote. "Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will [be] profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most -- with their wallet."

Get out Stone Age: Check!
Attract private money: Check!

I watched a blip of Senator Kerry at his confirmation hearing:

fast forward to 2:59:00

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Confirmation-Hearing-for-Sen-John-Kerry-as-Secretary-of-State/10737437516-1/

I will be a passionate advocate based not on ideology, but on facts and science. This is a six trillion dollar clean energy market – and we better go after it.
...
... the opportunity of a new energy policy so vastly outweigh the downsides that you are expressing concern about – and I will spend a lot of time persuading you and other colleagues otherwise,” he said.

We’ve got to get into the clean energy race – in Massachusetts one of the fastest growing parts of the economy is clean energy, and it’s the same in California.

It’s a job creator – I cannot emphasise this enough. We reckon the energy market is a 6 trillion dollar market with 4-5 billion users going up to 9 billion in the next 20-30 years.

There are extra opportunities in modernising US’s energy grid – we don’t even have a grid – we have a great big hole in the middle.

I believe I said something to the effect, that I would prefer no one get in this guys way. Too bad Chu is leaving. I think they would have been a great tag team.

 

[OmCheeto]

Secretary Chu has a Facebook page.

He has a link there to his letter of resignation:

Dear Colleagues:

Serving the country as Secretary of Energy, and working alongside such an extraordinary team of people at the Department, has been the greatest privilege of my life. While the job has had many challenges, it has been an exciting time for the Department, the country, and for me personally.

I’ve always been inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, who articulated his Dream of an America where people are judged not by skin color but “by the content of their character.” In the scientific world, people are judged by the content of their ideas. Advances are made with new insights, but the final arbitrator of any point of view are experiments that seek the unbiased truth, not information cherry picked to support a particular point of view. The power of our work is derived from this foundation.

This is the approach I’ve brought to the Department of Energy, where I believe we should be judged not by the money we direct to a particular State or district, company, university or national lab, but by the character of our decisions. The Department of Energy serves the country as a Department of Science, a Department of Innovation, and a Department of Nuclear Security.

...

Wow. I really like this guy. Why do people not like him, I wonder.

 

[russ_watters]

Attract private money: Check!

Massive government subsidies will do that, regardless of if it really is a good idea.

 

[OmCheeto]

Massive government subsidies will do that, regardless of if it really is a good idea.

He kind of addressed that in his letter.

Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.

The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”

bolding mine

Ha! And I see the boss linked directly to the letter with the OP. I should click on links once in a while.

 

[aquitaine]

He kind of addressed that in his letter.

bolding mine

Ha! And I see the boss linked directly to the letter with the OP. I should click on links once in a while.

Some of us consider 20%-60% product subsidies to be massive.

 

[OmCheeto]

Some of us consider 20%-60% product subsidies to be massive.

Yes. Perhaps we should all sit back, ignore Mr. Chu, and watch China take over. I wonder what their subsidies are.

Never mind. Their pseudo-private corporations are doing it already.

American R&D investments are commonly transferred to foreign nations. In this case, taxpayers provided $124 million to A123, and now China will ultimately manufacture and sell any technologies that may have been derived from this investment.

Not too bright America. You should have never let this happen. But god knows we'll do everything in our power to try and make Obama look like a failure.

So who are we going to replace Chu with? Paul Brown maybe? He seems to be more in line with our collective judgement.

Science educator Bill Nye questioned Broun's ability to serve on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, stating, '"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest"' and that '"He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."

Perfect! Idiocracy, here we come.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes. Perhaps we should all sit back, ignore Mr. Chu, and watch China take over. I wonder what their subsidies are.

But China has been making advances under Chu's watch. Putting a stop to Yucca mountain has harmed the nuclear industry as utilities have backed away from new projects because the absence of a final solution is a major liability for the utilities.

China can afford to make huge subsidies as the have a huge trade surplus.

The Obama administration has had some problems with their subsidies of 'green companies'. Of course, part of the problem is that China undercut those companies by offering lower cost products.

China has a near monopoly on heavy rare Earth's. That's a geographic issue and beyond the control of the US government.

 

[atyy]

But China has been making advances under Chu's watch. Putting a stop to Yucca mountain has harmed the nuclear industry as utilities have backed away from new projects because the absence of a final solution is a major liability for the utilities.

What was Chu's role in this - unsuccessful advocacy of Yucca as a repository, neutral, or against?

 

[Astronuc]

What was Chu's role in this - unsuccessful advocacy of Yucca as a repository, neutral, or against?

He facilitated it. If it had been me, I would have resigned rather than facilitate an improper action.

 

[russ_watters]

He kind of addressed that in his letter.

bolding mine

You misunderstand my objection: It has nothing to do with bankruptcy, it is about getting value for money spent. I work on energy projects where companies see the need for a 5 year payback of an investment before considering a project to be economically viable. Rarely, it may be as high as 8 years. Rooftop solar panels pay back in about 20 years*, but if the government provides a 60% subsidy, it pays back in 8 years. So we pretend solar is viable, when the reality is that the government is just forcing us to pay for projects that have no economic benefit for anyone but the people who built them. That's a waste of government (our) money.

*And oops -- the SREC market dried-up so that payback ends up being much longer.

Not too bright America. You should have never let this happen.

Why not? Why waste our money on a project/company that isn't economically viable? I'm all for letting China do it!

Wow. I really like this guy. Why do people not like him, I wonder.

Because he's lying. His DOE is a pure political entity. Decisions are made based on politics, not science -- or, rather, decisions were handed to him by Obama rather than him helping Obama make good decisions. The Yucca Mountain repository was closed because Obama's favorite senator is from Nevada. The working group commissioned to study the problem that created was explicitly forbidden from investigating whether that was a good idea. And then when they released their findings, the report was buried/ignored.

 

[russ_watters]

He facilitated it. If it had been me, I would have resigned rather than facilitate an improper action.

That's why I don't like him. By credentials, he should have been a good energy secretary. But what really happened is that his credentials tricked people like OmCheeto into thinking that he was making good, scientific decisions when the reality was he was just executing Obama's policies, regardless of if they made any scientific (or economic) sense. He's sabotaged his own reputation/legacy by doing this.

 

[OmCheeto]

But China has been making advances under Chu's watch. Putting a stop to Yucca mountain has harmed the nuclear industry as utilities have backed away from new projects because the absence of a final solution is a major liability for the utilities.

China can afford to make huge subsidies as the have a huge trade surplus.

The Obama administration has had some problems with their subsidies of 'green companies'. Of course, part of the problem is that China undercut those companies by offering lower cost products.

China has a near monopoly on heavy rare Earth's. That's a geographic issue and beyond the control of the US government.

Given that you've been in the industry longer than I've been out of it, let me be the first fool to rush in and argue on Chu's side.

Of course, everything I know about Chu, I learned yesterday. And Everything I know about Yucca, I learned 30 minutes ago reading the wiki article.

Yucca study started in 1978. Chu announced its cancelation in 2009. So it was in the works for 31 years.

Cancellation of project

May 2009
Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. ...

Sounds ok to me.

Background

Following the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said:

Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen.

Harry Reid on Yucca, ca 2012

Most importantly, this report makes abundantly clear that no state, tribe, or community should be forced to store spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste without its consent. Yucca was originally selected because of a flawed, non-scientific and political process, and it failed because Nevadans, with good reason, overwhelmingly opposed it.

So it appears to me that Chu was up against a lot. Law suits, the Senate Majority Leader, a more than 30 year old feasibility study, etc. I'd have shut down the project also.

And what's this?

Feb 9, 2012
First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years

Did we really stop building nuclear reactors for 30 years because Yucca Mountain was in limbo?

Can't argue the China stuff, except for the rare Earth monopoly.

The Mountain Pass rare Earth mine is an open-pit mine of rare Earth elements (REEs) on the south flank of the Clark Mountain Range, just north of the unincorporated community of Mountain Pass, California, United States. The mine, owned by Molycorp Inc., once supplied most of the world's rare Earth elements.

Except for, um, I'm currently wrong:

Except that:

Known remaining reserves were estimated to exceed 20 million tons of ore as of 2008, using a 5% cutoff grade, and averaging 8.9% rare Earth oxides.

and

Current activity

The mine, once the world's dominant producer of rare Earth elements, was closed in large part due to competition from REEs imported from China, which in 2009 supplied more than 96% of the world's REEs.

What I think I'm trying to say here is that it needn't be so.

Go MolyCorp*!

-----------------------------
*I do not have any money invested in said company. I simply like rare Earth magnets.

 

[Astronuc]

Spent fuel at reactor site is a significant liability for a utility, because they have to maintain security, assuming the US DOE doesn't step in a buy the facility (and assume all liability) once it stops generating power.

Ideally there would be a DOE facility, a central interim storage site, somewhere where spent fuel could be shipped (away from the NPP sites) and stored while awaiting final disposition. There was an idea for a MRS (monitored retrieval storage) facility, but that was nixed in the Clinton years, IIRC.

I've heard, but not verified, that Reid supported Yucca mountain when he though he could personally financially benefit from it, but when he could not, he became decidedly opposed to it. Reid is a dubious character in my book.

There are alternative sources of REE to China, e.g., Lynas in Australia. There are significant environmental issues, e.g., the presence of thorium and other decay products from actinide elements, that must be properly disposed, as opposed to dumping in tailings ponds or piles.

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newscolumnists/greg/8578388/lynas-again-halted-as-china-gets-desperate-on-rare-Earth's

And of course, the Chinese industry is attempting to manipulate the market, and the US has little leverage.

 

[OmCheeto]

That's why I don't like him. By credentials, he should have been a good energy secretary. But what really happened is that his credentials tricked people like OmCheeto into thinking that he was making good, scientific decisions when the reality was he was just executing Obama's policies, regardless of if they made any scientific (or economic) sense. He's sabotaged his own reputation/legacy by doing this.

As I said earlier, I haven't followed Chu at all, until yesterday.

You may see him as a political puppet, and a liar, but I still see him as a Nobel laureate, stuck in Washington, with a congress, heels firmly planted in the stone age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lpj74dA5Rk

I wouldn't apologize for Solyndra either.

Why not? Why waste our money on a project/company that isn't economically viable? I'm all for letting China do it!

I'm still not sure how a bankrupt company(A123), with a final day on NASDAQ market cap of $12.3 million, can be worth $250 million to the Chinese. I know I wasted $4000 for every $1 in taxes that went to A123. hmm... Maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[mheslep]

...The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes...

Failures are important the a market economy because they disrupt and instruct. Yes the free market had a Pets.com, but there was not Pets.com2, 3, 4 and so on. When government programs fail the response is often try-it-again, try-harder platitudes like the above. A change in power via elections can make some changes, but the larger the government the more immune it is to substantive change even via elections.

 

[aquitaine]

So it appears to me that Chu was up against a lot. Law suits, the Senate Majority Leader, a more than 30 year old feasibility study, etc. I'd have shut down the project also.

A 30 year old feasibility study? How come the Government Accountability Office stated pretty clearly that it was a result of politics and there were no safety or technical concerns.

I'm still not sure how a bankrupt company(A123), with a final day on NASDAQ market cap of $12.3 million, can be worth $250 million to the Chinese.

It is because their technology is better and actually did have real applications in consumer electronics. They were very successful in cordless power tools, and had they chosen to focus on real markets like portable electronics (cell phones, laptops, etc), the story of A123 would have ended very differently. Instead they drank the renewable energy kool-aid and with substantial government support ended up essentially handing over an otherwise excellent technology to the Chinese.

Rooftop solar panels pay back in about 20 years*,

If Trimet's experience is any indication it will take around 100 years to break even, 3 times as long as the panels expected lifetime.

 

[russ_watters]

If Trimet's experience is any indication it will take around 100 years to break even, 3 times as long as the panels expected lifetime.

Oy. That's a sculpture, not a solar plant. There is a lot of that out there, though. It's a symptom of the biggest problem with solar: It's often a feel-good fad that people do more so they can say "Look at me! I built a solar plant!" than for economic reasons. People regularly make the decision to buy a (for example) 100kW solar plant when for less money they could put in 100kW of energy conservation technology.

A buddy of mine used to work here:
http://www.buildinggreen.com/articleimages/1805/Adventure.jpg

http://www.avinc.com/resources/pres...watt_system_technology_demonstrator_installed
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2009/4/29/The-Folly-of-Building-Integrated-Wind

P.S. There's only one "PSU" and it isn't in Oregon.

 

[russ_watters]

...more than 30 year old feasibility study...

It was built. Ready to open. Not a "feasibility study."

Law suits

As far as I know, there were no active lawsuits against the project. There are active lawsuits against the cancellation though.

...the Senate Majority Leader...

Had no real power here. Only a political alliance with Obama.

Did we really stop building nuclear reactors for 30 years because Yucca Mountain was in limbo?

TMI was a lot of it in the beginning, but Yucca probably has more to do with it today.

 

[OmCheeto]

Oy. That's a sculpture

That was my first impression.

P.S. There's only one "PSU" and it isn't in Oregon.

Hey! I'm an alumni of that notaPSU in Oregon...

 

[OmCheeto]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

The site is currently under reconstruction, with an investment of over $400 million.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

 

[russ_watters]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

In a lot of cases, they've gotten stupid voters (all of us) to pay for a lot of it. In many, they have stupid architects or marketters who want to spend money on sculptures or props for marketing photos. The picture I posted was of the Camden Aquarium. The wind turbines are right above the entrance, so people can see just how "green" they are. They aren't there to generate electricity, they are there to generate business.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

No doubt. Power plant scale facilities take longer to pay back because that's the only business they are in and they have a longer term outlook*.

But if you are a company with a specific energy efficiency goal, spending money on a 20 year payback project and ignoring a 9 year payback project runs counter to that goal.

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

Er, no you didn't, unless you expected it to go down after you bought it, before going back up to where you bought it 10 to 20 years later. I don't think you would buy it with such expectations!

*Picking the first utility grade plant off a google I could find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Solar_Power_Project
Not certain what the current form is, but originally it was 550 MW, budgeted at $6 billion. That's pretty awful ($11/watt). It's twice the per watt budget price of nuclear, with at best 1/5 the capacity factor, for an effective 1/12th the output. Generously, I'd calculate it will generate $96 million a year in electricity (1/5 capacity factor, $.1/kWh), for a payback of 62 years, which is twice the expected lifespan of such a plant. Not including maintenance costs!

Next one was better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems
A piece of it:

As an example of cost, in 2002, one of the 30 MW Kramer Junction sites required $90 million to construct, and its operation and maintenance cost was about $3 million per year (4.6 cents per kilowatt hour).[3] With a considered lifetime of 20 years, the operation, maintenance and investments interest and depreciation triples the price, to approximately 14 cents per kilowatt hour.

$3/watt is very good for a solar plant. 20 years to break even at $.14 /kWh is a tall order though -- they'd better hope the performance doesn't degrade much in that time.

These are both in California. California has pledged to be 33% renewable by 2020 and they don't care what it costs, despite their already crippling debt.

 

[rootX]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

I would say to abuse the government subsidies. It's a profitable business under a solar friendly government. But, solar prices are generally too high (+18.8 cents/kWh pg 28 http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012_low.pdf )

 

[aquitaine]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

Throw enough tax money at something and they'll pile in.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

Yes, they do see things in 5-8 years...because RE is what is popular now. In reality this is nothing more than a resurrected 1970's feel good fad, although because of the extensive infiltration into our education system it is likely go on for longer than it did the last time.

Speaking of Germany I'm glad you brought that up. Let's see how that massive RE investment has done:

Our first stop is at the solar subsidy sinkhole.

The Baedeker travel guide is now available in an environmentally-friendly version. The 200-page book, entitled "Germany - Discover Renewable Energy," lists the sights of the solar age: the solar café in Kirchzarten, the solar golf course in Bad Saulgau, the light tower in Solingen and the "Alster Sun" in Hamburg, possibly the largest solar boat in the world.

The only thing that's missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.

As is so often the case in winter, all solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity at the same time. To avert power shortages, Germany currently has to import large amounts of electricity generated at nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. To offset the temporary loss of solar power, grid operator Tennet resorted to an emergency backup plan, powering up an old oil-fired plant in the Austrian city of Graz.

Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.

Next is skyrocketing electricity prices that hurt the poor.

And then finally grid instabilities that are likely to cost job.

As you can see, ordinary people have had to pay a high price for the funneling of their tax money to certain corporate special interests, such is the folly of central planning.

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

And now your return has been vanquished by a fatally flawed business model. In reality you've got it backward, the RE proponents are the ones thinking in the short term to get that feel good fix. You do realize those wind turbines will only last for 30 years, right?

 

[OmCheeto]

I would say to abuse the government subsidies. It's a profitable business under a solar friendly government. But, solar prices are generally too high (+18.8 cents/kWh pg 28 http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012_low.pdf )

Prices are too high? Good.

Watch the video again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lpj74dA5Rk

...the price of solar decreases by 70% in 2.5 years...

As a solar advocate, Chu's quote, is music to my ears.

----------------------------
ps. Sorry I can't respond to everyone's comments, but I'm late for work.
Yes. I know.
Voices; "You've been up for 3 1/2 hours. What were you doing with all that time, Om?"
Om; "I was watching some guy named Kai describe how he hatcheted an evil person. I actually watched the video twice. Then I posted a comment on Facebook about it. I got 4 thumbs up!"

 

[jim hardy]

Utilities are forced by state legislatures to buy the power at higher rates. So we all subsidize it in our electric bills.

There are large tax incentives for renewable, so big money invests to shelter other income. Much of it is foreign corporations.

Follow the money .

I too like solar, but on a smaller scale like residential water heating.
Each solar BTU collected saves a fossil fuel BTU . Whatever you collect you don't have to buy from electric company.


Here's a plant built by an outfit in Florida. It preheats water for a steam power plant.
There's some uncomfortable chemistry involved and as the NYT article below mentions it's really not good economics.
But , every solar BTU they collect is one they don't have to buy from the natural gas company.


photo courtesy FPL http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/martin.shtml
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/images/martin.JPG


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/05solar.html?_r=2&

The plant also serves as a real-life test on how to reduce the cost of solar power, which remains much more expensive than most other forms of electrical generation. FPL Group, the parent company of Florida Power and Light, expects to cut costs by about 20 percent compared with a stand-alone solar facility, since it does not have to build a new steam turbine or new high-power transmission lines.

“We’d love to tell you that solar power is as economic as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not,” Lewis Hay III, FPL’s chairman and chief executive, said on a recent tour of the plant.

But it makes the requisite corporate fashion statement.

that's my opinion - old jim

 

[atyy]

You may see him as a political puppet, and a liar, but I still see him as a Nobel laureate, stuck in Washington, with a congress, heels firmly planted in the stone age.

Even Nobel laureates can be wrong.

Here's one paper by a Nobel Laureate (Cohen-Tannoudji) saying a paper by Chu is wrong. http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0602 I don't know who's right, but at least one must be wrong.I guess the main concern is that renewables while nice to have, are not sufficient. An example of a calculation and discussion for the UK is David McKay's http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml .

"I am worried that we won’t actually get off fossil fuels when we need to. Instead, we’ll settle for half-measures: slightly-more-efficient fossil-fuel power stations, cars, and home heating systems; a fig-leaf of a carbon trading system; a sprinkling of wind turbines; an inadequate number of nuclear power stations.

We need to choose a plan that adds up. It is possible to make a plan that adds up, but it’s not going to be easy.

We need to stop saying no and start saying yes. We need to stop the Punch and Judy show and get building."

 

[Locrian]

Each solar BTU collected saves a fossil fuel BTU .

I think it saves less than one fossil fuel BTU, as the energy used to produce the solar cell likely came from fossil fuel. Or is that such a small amount it is effectively zero? I'd be surprised if that was so.

 

[jim hardy]

I think it saves less than one fossil fuel BTU, as the energy used to produce the solar cell likely came from fossil fuel. Or is that such a small amount it is effectively zero? I'd be surprised if that was so.

Thanks Locrian - i see the ambiguity now.

What i had in mind was solar water heating , not solar electricity.

Solar electric panels are maybe 20% (more likely ~10%) so it doesn't make sense to heat water with solar generated electricity. Use that precious electricity for worthwhile stuff like refrigerating your food and playing classical music on your stereo, and enjoying PF...

That FPL plant in the picture uses solar to preheat water that is on its way to a fossil boiler.
It isn't a photoelectric plant. The boiler feeds steam to a turbogenerator.
The mirrors heat a thermal oil to around 400 degrees, and that hot oil preheats the feedwater that's headed for the boiler.
So, in that plant every BTU from solar is a BTU that doesn't have to be made in the boiler by burning gas or oil.

Same would be true of a rooftop solar water heater.
Every BTU you collect is one BTU that didn't come in through your KWH meter.
In fact a residential heater probably does better than 1::1, big picture.
Since a typical fossil plant is ~40% efficient, every BTU collected on a rooftop water heater is 2.5 BTU's that don't have to be made in electric company's boiler. So your rooftop heater saves 2.5 BTU of fossil fuel for every BTU it collects.

In my opinion that's what we should be doing.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Thanks for the observation.

I wonder whether Mr Chu is enough of a home handyman to appreciate this.
I would like to see some practical engineering talent in the cabinet.
We need politicians who change their own motor oil.

old jim