adoucette
29th October 2005 - 10:46 PM
QUOTE (lengould+Oct 29 2005, 09:07 PM)
Arthur:
In fact I generally agree with your position as well. I simply fail to see your point that "signing onto Kyoto will cripple the US economy". In what way specifically would that possibly happen?
Given the benefits regarding improved public awareness for the (we both agree) need to improve efficiency of use of energy and sustainability of energy sources in ways (we appear not to agree) that should if possible be minimally polluting, including CO2, where's the harm in a treaty requesting voluntary compliance without penalties?
Wholehearted backing of Kyoto by US would also provide many other benefits, including i) subduing the chatter from fossil-fuel industry lobby trying to oppose ANY move. ii) encouraging sustainment of the research projects you reference. iii) reduce problems of economic competitor nations, eg. Canada, in trying to get their own industries to straighten up a bit. (they're all currrently fighting based on "We can't if our competitors in US don't have to) iv) enable public acceptance of some more rational vehicle fuel efficiency standards etc. v) several others.
I just don't see the (apparently to you) hugely scary downside.
Well the ratification of the Treaty was Voluntary, but the emissions cuts are not. Penalties don't kick in till end of Stage 1 (2012).
Canada is facing serious penalties.
Here is the UN's press release on Kyoto:
"The Kyoto Protocol is a legal agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12.
At the end of Stage 1 then the following applies:
The maximum amount of emissions (measured as the equivalent in carbon dioxide) that a Party may emit over the commitment period in order to comply with its emissions target is known as a Party’s assigned amount.
Parties may offset their emissions by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by so-called carbon “sinks” in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector. However, only certain activities in this sector are eligible. These are afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (defined as eligible by the Kyoto Protocol) and forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation (added to the list of eligible activities by the Marrakesh Accords). Greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere through eligible sink activities generate credits known as removal units (RMUs). Any greenhouse gas emissions from eligible activities, in turn, must be offset by greater emission cuts or removals elsewhere.
Additional detailed rules govern the extent to which emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector can be counted under the Protocol. The amount of credit that can be claimed through forest management, for example, is subject to an individual cap for each Party, which is listed in the Marrakesh Accords.
The Protocol also establishes three innovative “mechanisms” known as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading. These are designed to help Annex I Parties cut the cost of meeting their emissions targets by taking advantage of opportunities to reduce emissions, or increase greenhouse gas removals, that cost less in other countries than at home.
Under the clean development mechanism (CDM), Annex I Parties may implement projects in non-Annex I Parties that reduce emissions and use the resulting certified emission reductions (CERs) to help meet their own targets.
Under emissions trading, an Annex I Party may transfer some of the emissions under its assigned amount, known as assigned amount units (AAUs), to another Annex I Party that finds it relatively more difficult to meet its emissions target. It may also transfer CERs, ERUs or RMUs that it has acquired through the CDM, joint implementation or sink activities in the same way. In order to address the concern that some countries could “over-sell” and then be unable to meet their own targets, the Protocol rulebook requires Annex I Parties to hold a minimum level of AAUs, CERs, ERUs and/or RMUs in a commitment period reserve that cannot be traded.
The UN will administer the FINANCIAL accounting of TRADES between countries.
The UN will be the arbiter to decide what is allowed/counted for sinks/emissions.
So to say it is Voluntary is somewhat misleading. Its Voluntary only if your Govt DECIDES its compliance is voluntary.
The only reason they can get away with this is because the UN has no teeth (mainly since the US didn't sign)
But, the UN could impose SANCTIONS on those who are not in compliance. Again, this is unlikely considering the US didn't sign, but it is this slippery slope I think it is very unwise to even consider stepping onto.
To illustrate WHY it is a BAD idea lets take three countries and assume all trading is simply between these three.
Country A, modeled after the US/Canada, derives a significant amount of its GDP from basic mining, metal production and heavy manufacturing, it also makes a lot of its GDP from high tech products. It has a low population density with population centers spread out thus making its transportation costs fairly high. Because its population is increasing at a good rate along with the previous issues it can not make its Kyoto target without both buying CO2 credits from country B and also imposing significant CO2 taxes to reduce fuel consumption.
Country B, modeled after Scandinavia, derives almost none of its GDP from mining, metal production or heavy manuf. Its GDP comes mainly from forestry and high tech production. Its chief competitor is Country A. Its population is mainly urban and has little to no population growth. It is ideally suited for large off shore wind power plants and has an abundance of hydro power. This along with a few nuclear plants and low fuel needs for its industry guarantee it will not only make its targets, but be able to sell credits as well to Country A, thus lowering taxes which are passed on to industry to allow them to further lower prices.
Country C, modeled after China/India, derives a significant amount of its GDP from basic mining, metal production and light manufacturing. It has a stable population but a vastly increasing rate of CO2 production based on its heavy reliance on Coal as its primary fuel source. Its CO2 production per unit of metal output is much higher than Country A due to less efficient methods and its pollution levels are higher still because of the reliance on coal. It has no Kyoto targets.
OK, A & C are both competitors for B's basic materials business. Not only does A already have much higher manpower costs, now the price of its finished product gets hit with a CO2 tax. Country B in fierce competition with Country A for high tech products gets its basic manufactured materials (steel, nuts, bolts etc) from Country C where they are now cheaper than from A. This allows it to undercut the prices charged for essentially the same goods. Country B's high tech products begin to dominate.
Country A now is losing its basic manufacturing goods which is moving to Country C. Country A also is losing out in its high tech goods because it can't compete in price with Country B.
Country A will eventually meet its Kyoto targets as its manufacturing base dwindles, but the economic impact is severe.
Country B, while doing nothing it wasn't already doing before Kyoto, is in pig heaven, its basic materials cost is lower, it gets to sell something that it didn't spend any money to produce and it can sell the same product at the same price and make a bigger margin or it can undercut them and win the entire market.
Country C, while producing ever more CO2, more so then was reduced by Country A in fact, is booming.
Sure, this is simplistic, but it is also a fair representation of the overall economic forces at play.
The worst part, from a Kyoto goal perspective, is while both A & B meet their targets, the overall production of CO2 is actually HIGHER because it has simply moved to an unregulated country which by definition is less efficient.
We are already losing manufacturing capacity to China. They don't need Kyoto's help as well. Which, in the overall analysis is ALL Kyoto would in fact accomplish, by their OWN admission, even if the targets are met it will have little impact on GW.
The fact of the matter is actually worse, since targets don't apply to many of the LARGEST producers of CO2 and pollution, the end result is likely to be MORE CO2 if Kyoto passes, not less.
Arthur
adoucette
30th October 2005 - 03:54 AM
Re Hurricanes and Global Warming:
"NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, Hurricane Research Division and National Hurricane Center identified the high likelihood of an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season as early as May," said John Jones, deputy director of the NOAA National Weather Service. "We expected an above normal season based in part on the wind, air pressure and ocean temperature patterns that recur annually for decades at a time and favor active hurricane seasons. These patterns make up the active phase of the Atlantic's multi-decadal signal."
The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory expects "enhanced intense Atlantic basin hurricane activity" for the next couple of decades. The prediction is based upon a combination of geographic and historical evidence suggesting that there are cycles in heat circulation in the Atlantic of 25-50 years.
Here's an article from 1998 (before a lot of the GW hype)
The USA's East Coast could be heading back into the same weather pattern that produced the wild hurricanes from 1941-1965. During those years 17 major hurricanes with winds of more than 111 mph hit the East. Remember Hazel, Carol, Donna and Betsy?
Major East Coast hurricanes seem to run in 20- to 30-year cycles and evidence is growing of a shift back to a stormy era, says William Gray, who's known around the world for his studies of hurricanes.
If this is happening, "we're going to see damage like we've never seen before," Gray says from his Colorado State University office. "More people live on the coasts and everyone owns a lot more now than in the 1950s."
In his Aug. 6, 1998 outlook for the rest of the 1998 hurricane season, Gray notes that although El Niño suppressed hurricane activity in 1997, statistics show that the period between 1995-1997 still was the busiest three-year period for hurricane activity on record, with 39 named storms, 23 hurricanes (12 of which were intense) and 107 hurricane days.
Gray theorizes that the Atlantic Basin is entering an era that will see many decades of increased hurricane activity and which will include particularly intense or major hurricanes. His landfall probability model takes into account the "Atlantic conveyor belt" that circulates water from the tropics to the northeast Atlantic and back south along the North American continent and a statistical average of six measures of hurricane activity for a given year called "net tropical cyclone" activity.
Together, these indicators suggest more active seasons, such as those that occurred from the late 1920s through the late 1960s, producing more intense hurricane activity. Gray believes that since 1994, the Atlantic conveyor belt has been strengthening, making conditions more favorable to hurricane formation.
Another story from 2001
Hurricane disasters like those that hit the East Coast and the Caribbean Sea from the 1940s into the 1960s could be on their way back, a study in the July 20, 2001 issue of Science magazine says.
In fact, the authors say, a new era of more "major" hurricanes probably began in 1995. Major hurricanes have winds faster than 110 mph and account for 80% of the USA's hurricane damage, although they account for only 20% of the storms. These storms are categories 3, 4 or 5 on the 1-through-5 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Potential Damage Scale.
Bill Gray, a hurricane researcher at Colorado State University and one of the authors of the Science study, notes that since 1966 only one major hurricane, Andrew, has hit Florida, compared with the 11 major storms from 1931 through 1965.
"Florida doesn't know how lucky it is," Gray says.
One reason many of the nearly 41 million people living along the USA's hurricane-prone coasts don't know how lucky they are is because they moved to the coasts during a lull in major hurricanes from the late 1960s through 1994.
The East Coast's luck has continued since 1995, even though scientists believe the lull has ended. Only three of the 26 major hurricanes that formed since 1995 have hit the USA with winds of 110 mph or more. Some major storms, such as Floyd in 1999, weakened before hitting the USA.
Gray and other hurricane scientists have been talking about the cycle in major hurricanes for at least a decade, and they have some theories about the causes.
In the Science article, the four researchers for the first time link the ups and downs of major hurricanes over decades to Atlantic Ocean temperatures and to changes in wind patterns that the temperature changes cause.
"To my mind," says Hugh Willoughby, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, "the real advance is going from 'Gosh, hurricane activity seems sort of cyclic' to 'These two- to three-decade alternating episodes of high and low activity are real, and they happen in step with readily observable changes in the ocean.' "
In addition to Gray, the other researchers who wrote the Science article are Stanley Goldenberg and Christopher Landsea of the Hurricane Research Division in Miami and Alberto Mestas-Nuñez of the University of Miami.
They found that the decades-long cycles of major hurricanes march in step with slight warming and cooling — maybe 3 degrees or so — of large areas of the Atlantic Ocean, not only in the tropics where hurricanes form and grow but also farther north. The Atlantic is now in the warm part of the cycle
Even though hurricanes need warm water for fuel, the warmth isn't the direct cause of the changes in hurricanes, the researches say. Instead, the warmer ocean causes changes in the atmosphere, which in turn affect winds from right above the ocean to high in the atmosphere in the area across the tropical Atlantic into the Caribbean where most major hurricanes grow into monsters.
Now this last section is the key to why it isn't caused by global warming. The Sea Surface Temps go through a 30 year cycle, and the change in temperature is over 3 times the amount the AIR temperature changed over the last Century.
Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE for GW to be the cause of the changes in Sea Surface Temperatures.
Arthur
lengould
30th October 2005 - 04:59 AM
Arthur:
i) On one hand you argue that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions aren't a problem, then argue that Kyoto is bad because it won't reduce CO2 emissions. Which is it?
ii) Would US's international image be more damaged by failing to pay UN for Kyoto levies than it currently is being damaged by failing to ratify? BTW, I've read everything I could find on the treaty and found no provision for such payments. Are you thinking of purchases of CO2 credits which appears to be entirely voluntary? Simply ignoring such payments could surely fall under the same precedent by which US now refuses to pay most of it's regular dues to UN couldn't it?
iii) I think you are being over-selective in your examples of consequences of Kyoto. If significant, shouldn't the US $ be getting stronger v.s. ratifying country currencies e.g. $Cdn because of damage Canada will suffer due to ratification?
iv) I agree that by giving eg. China / India a pass in first round, Kyoto is less than perfect BUT also argue that until the necessary substitute energy source technologies are developed, there;s not much sense in including them. It's the responsibility of the developed nations with their R&D capacities to develop to economic viability the alternative energy systems during the first round, then in future rounds, when those are proven, require countries which lack the R&D capacities to employ the new technologies. (Wind, solar thermal CHP, solar PV, biomass, ocean current, fission / fusion etc. etc.)
v) For example of a benefit of Kyoto to the area where I live, a private elect. generation company has just contracted to bring two more nuclear reactors out of mothballs which had been shut down indefinitely in mid-90's. Without the govt's commitment to eliminate coal-fired elect. generation by 2008 I'm convinced the religious enviros would have fought that move tooth and nail. As it is, even though it's a sympathetic liberal government, there was hardly a word from them because govt. communicated to people the consequences of alternatives and created consensus. I doubt they could have w/out Kyoto. Several others, eg. significantly improved DG interconnect rules targeted to make connection and marketing of renewable generation very easy, advanced TOU electric metering infrastructure being installed province-wide, etc.
adoucette
30th October 2005 - 08:11 AM
Arthur:
i) On one hand you argue that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions aren't a problem, then argue that Kyoto is bad because it won't reduce CO2 emissions. Which is it?
==> Both, meaning CO2 is not as bad a problem as it is made out to be, Kyoto is bad because it screws with economics in an inherently anti-US (and Canada) way while not actually accomplishing its goal of reducing CO2.
ii) Would US's international image be more damaged by failing to pay UN for Kyoto levies than it currently is being damaged by failing to ratify? BTW, I've read everything I could find on the treaty and found no provision for such payments. Are you thinking of purchases of CO2 credits which appears to be entirely voluntary? Simply ignoring such payments could surely fall under the same precedent by which US now refuses to pay most of it's regular dues to UN couldn't it?
==> Who cares?
iii) I think you are being over-selective in your examples of consequences of Kyoto. If significant, shouldn't the US $ be getting stronger v.s. ratifying country currencies e.g. $Cdn because of damage Canada will suffer due to ratification?
==> Oh, if Canada actually imposes CO2 taxes to force compliance, then yes the US will easily outperform Canada economically. We'll end up with a northern border illegal immigration problem. Over selective in what way? The basics of each country are accurate. Let me ask you, what caused the run-away inflation in the 80s? Why did it end? What was the net result? Here's a hint, two years ago I paid less for gasoline (in inflation adjusted dollars) than anytime in the last 40 years.
iv) I agree that by giving eg. China / India a pass in first round, Kyoto is less than perfect BUT also argue that until the necessary substitute energy source technologies are developed, there;s not much sense in including them. It's the responsibility of the developed nations with their R&D capacities to develop to economic viability the alternative energy systems during the first round, then in future rounds, when those are proven, require countries which lack the R&D capacities to employ the new technologies. (Wind, solar thermal CHP, solar PV, biomass, ocean current, fission / fusion etc. etc.)
==> Didn't China just put two astronauts in orbit? Aren't they installing several of your Candu reactors? Didn't they just build one of the largest Hydroelectric dams in the world? Don't they have a fairly formidable military with some fairly formidable weapon systems? To label them as a "developing" nation is dishonest. To not impose the same CO2 restrictions on the largest nation in the world and the 4th largest producer of CO2, the WORLDS largest emitter of the OTHER GW gasses and the WORLDS largest POLLUTER, simply shows that Kyoto's actual goal AIN'T reducing GW gasses or air pollution. The other fact is that these economic dislocations, like I mentioned, aren't reversible. If manufacturing moves to China, it isn't coming back. I've shown at length in other posts the inherent unfairness of the Kyoto rates. The impact to a country adhering to unfair rates is economic disadvantage. While the effects of sustained economic disadvantage will take time to become clear, once they are, it is to late to reverse them and no mechanism to undo the damage caused. Oh, I guess the UN could issue an "I'm Sorry" letter.
v) For example of a benefit of Kyoto to the area where I live, a private elect. generation company has just contracted to bring two more nuclear reactors out of mothballs which had been shut down indefinitely in mid-90's. Without the govt's commitment to eliminate coal-fired elect. generation by 2008 I'm convinced the religious enviros would have fought that move tooth and nail. As it is, even though it's a sympathetic liberal government, there was hardly a word from them because govt. communicated to people the consequences of alternatives and created consensus. I doubt they could have w/out Kyoto. Several others, eg. significantly improved DG interconnect rules targeted to make connection and marketing of renewable generation very easy, advanced TOU electric metering infrastructure being installed province-wide, etc.
==> Why were they mothballed? Simple, it wasn't economical to operate them. The NET effect of putting them back in production is an increase in electric costs to Canadians. This will be your first CO2 tax. What will the Canadians replace the Coal fired elect generation with? The other things you mention are nits.
So what percent of Canadian primary energy comes from renewables (not including hydro)? What was it 5 years ago? Why?
Arthur
lengould
5th November 2005 - 04:29 AM
QUOTE
==> Why were they mothballed? Simple, it wasn't economical to operate them. The NET effect of putting them back in production is an increase in electric costs to Canadians. This will be your first CO2 tax. What will the Canadians replace the Coal fired elect generation with? The other things you mention are nits.
So what percent of Canadian primary energy comes from renewables (not including hydro)? What was it 5 years ago? Why?
Why mothballed? Because some (incompetent) US consulting company came up and convinced a short-lived socialist government party that they weren't safe enough. (completely idiotic, political) Result was Ontario became elect. importer for first time ever, serious contribution to Aug. 2003 blackout, increased use of coal. Dumb, Dumb.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
==> Why were they mothballed? Simple, it wasn't economical to operate them. The NET effect of putting them back in production is an increase in electric costs to Canadians. This will be your first CO2 tax. What will the Canadians replace the Coal fired elect generation with? The other things you mention are nits.
So what percent of Canadian primary energy comes from renewables (not including hydro)? What was it 5 years ago? Why? |
Why mothballed? Because some (incompetent) US consulting company came up and convinced a short-lived socialist government party that they weren't safe enough. (completely idiotic, political) Result was Ontario became elect. importer for first time ever, serious contribution to Aug. 2003 blackout, increased use of coal. Dumb, Dumb.
The NET effect of putting them back in production is an increase in electric costs to Canadians.
What world are you living on? CANDU produces electricity at-or-below $0.031/kwhr even in a new-built install, these refits will be much cheaper. (compare coal $0.039, gas $0.096 to $0.123, Wind $0.043 but not always avail.)
Coal gen is being replaced with i) new hydro installation at Niagra. ii) re-fit of the mothballed nucs, iii) new 3,000 MW of mixed wind, bio-renewables and (ugh) a small amount of gas peakers ( can't legally bar the dummies from building them, but hey, it's their money)
Most of rest of your points similar. BTW, being on front edge of new generation technologies is smarter than hanging back as US is doing. I can't think of a single item of useful new generation technology which is US developed, except maybe that GE (re-sells Danish and German wind equipment) is a US name.
adoucette
5th November 2005 - 06:06 AM
The regulated price received by OPG for production from the nuclear facilities is $49.50/MWh (4.95¢/kWh). These regulated prices were established by the Province, based on forecast production volumes and total operating costs, including the cost of capital and [B]assuming an average five per cent
return on equity. [/B]
==> Now its pretty obvious that the quoted cost of generation, 0.031 is not all inclusive, as the cost is regulated at 4.95c to allow for a 5% ROE.
The following from OPG's latest quarterly gives an idea of why those actual costs might be a bit higher than your optimistic quote:
The favourable impact of these changes in earnings during the second quarter of 2005 was partly offset by an impairment loss of $63 million related to Units 2 and 3 of the Pickering A nuclear generating station. In August 2005, following consideration of the costs and risks associated with returning these units to service, and taking into account the Company’s current focus on improving the performance of its operating nuclear units, OPG’s Board of Directors decided that while technically feasible, the return to service of these units was not justified on a commercial basis. Accordingly, an impairment loss representing the carrying value of these units was recorded.
==> So here we have two mothballed reactors that aren't even worth putting into service.
Total production during the three months ended June 30, 2005 from OPG’s
generating stations was 25.5 TWh compared to 24.7 TWh during the same period in
2004. The increase in generation was primarily a result of higher fossil-fuelled
generation attributable to improved reliability from these stations and higher electricity demand especially during a period of record high temperatures in June 2005. This increase was partly offset by the impact of a shutdown at Unit 4 of the Pickering A nuclear generating station for inspection and replacement of feeder pipes during the second quarter of 2005. The shutdown commenced on April 2, 2005 and Unit 4 remained out of service for the duration of the quarter.
==> So their PROFITS are attributed to higher FOSSIL FUELLED generation, and if it hadn't been for the shutdown of the Nuke, they would have been even higher.
Construction for the return to service of Unit 1 at the Pickering A nuclear
generating station commenced in July 2004. As of June 30, 2005, the fieldwork
execution was approximately 95 per cent complete. Total cumulative expenditures to the end of June 30, 2005 were $948 million. The major construction phase of the project was completed in July 2005 with the removal of Unit 1 from the guaranteed shutdown state. OPG is now conducting the commissioning phase, which is expected to be completed over a three month period before the unit is declared in commercial service in the fall of 2005. The projected costs to complete the project are approximately $1.0 billion, excluding the impact on costs of the feeder inspection and replacement, and the diversion of resources to Unit 4.
==> 1 BILLION, yikes, just to put an already commissioned plant back in service.
GOTTA sell a LOT of kwhs to get on the + side of this ledger. Rough guess is it will take about 50 BILLION kwhs before this plant sees a positive ROI.
So while you claim that Nukes are cheaper, the Power companies don't quite share your view. WHICH IS WHY NONE HAVE BEEN STARTED IN THE US SINCE THE 70s, and in fact, except for 3rd world countries, many of which have other motives besides generating electricity, very few Nukes are commissioned compared to run of the mill fossil fuel plants. The ones that are, are typically subsidized by the govt, again for other reasons besides the cost of a kwh of electricity.
Arthur
adoucette
5th November 2005 - 06:09 AM
QUOTE (Lengould+)
Because some (incompetent) US consulting company came up and convinced a short-lived socialist government party that they weren't safe enough
Now which is really incompetent, the consulting company or the people who believe them?
Besides, they might have been right.
Arthur
adoucette
5th November 2005 - 05:38 PM
A little internet checking reveals:
India, whose Nuclear power is based on use of CANDU reactors:
Capacity Today
Station
Original Capacity
Presently Rated Capacity
Production in MWH
Capacity Factor
TAPS-1
210
160
25,081,623
48 %
TAPS-2
210
160
25,230,742
48 %
RAPP-1
220
100
8,715,057
19 %
RAPP-2
220
200
14,701,982
47 %
MAPS-1
235
220
13,562,867
50 %
MAPS-2
235
220
11,339,775
46 %
NAPS-1
235
220
5,670,398
41 %
NAPS-2
235
220
5,543,184
54 %
KAPP-1
235
220
3,877,034
30 %
KAPP-2
235
220
3,327,929
65 %
Total
2270 rated
1940 actual
Coupled to this failure to perform is the fact that reactors have usually taken about three times their originally estimated costs to get completed and have generally worked to about half or less of their original capacity.
It is not only the long-term forecasts which are off-scale. Even fairly short-term predictions can be way out. In April 1993, after the devastating fire at Narora, Dr Chidambaram predicted that the reactor would restart operations in two months. It took 21 months for the reactor to actually commence operations.
Our programme is primarily based on the CANDU type of reactors. These reactors are of Canadian design and use natural uranium and heavy water. While our reactors have always been in the doldrums and had the lowest capacity factors of any in the world, the Canadians in the early days did demonstrate very high capacity factors. The recent improvement in capacity factors due to upgrades in design of some newer reactors has been touted greatly by Indian nucleocrats. Suffice it is to say that the Canadians had done similar upgrades to their design 25 years ago
In fact there was a time when the performance of the Canadian Candus was the best in the world. However, in the last few years as the reactors have aged newer problems have cropped up and the performance of Canadian Candus has declined precipitously. So much so that a few months ago, their utility Ontario Hydro announced that it was mothballing 7 reactors in one shot. What this probably indicates is a plethora of serious design problems which effect performance with ageing
Arthur
adoucette
5th November 2005 - 06:16 PM
Nor does the Canadian Energy Research Institute agree with you.
Their CANDU 6 cost is 0.08c per kwh, WAY higher than your quote.
But then CERI took into account ALL the costs.
They claim that the new ACR-700 WILL BE cheaper than Gas, but then it is a brand new design, so this REMAINS to be seen.
Personally, I doubt it, new reactors always seem to have very expensive bugs to be worked out. ACR-700 MAY reach these numbers, but not for some time.
Table 3.1: Levelised unit electricity cost (2003 $/MW.h)
Merchant financed
.................................. Coal ......Gas ....ACR-700 ....CANDU 6
Capital Expenditures $26.41 ..$10.21 ..$45.31 ......$57.17
Total O&M .................$9.30 ....$5.02 ....$12.68 ......$15.08
Fuel ...........................$18.04 ..$58.03 ..$5.45 ........$3.75
Decommissioning .......$0.00 ....$0.00 ....$0.76 .......$1.17
Income Tax ...............$5.58 ....$2.10 ....$9.13 .......$11.47
LUEC ........................$59.33 ..$75.35 ...$73.33 .....$88.64
I chose the Merchant financed example because it is not subsidized like the Public financed example is. If Nukes are CHEAPER, then they should be cheaper for PRIVATE companies to build and install.
The figures quoted ASSUMES the construction comes in ON TIME and ON BUDGET,
Something Nukes RARELY Do, even in Canada.
The Ontario Darlington station was constructed for a cost of $14.5 billion dollars. .
CERI assumes that a reactor can be built for 2,000 CAD/kWe.
The Darlington at 3,500 MW should have cost more like 7 billion CAD.
I'm sure there are "reasons" for the over run. Of course, experience shows that with Nukes, there are apparently ALWAYS reasons for over runs in construction.
Thus the figures above are more 'best case', particularly for Nuclear, since these type of construction delays are uncommon for conventional plants.
So:
Coal IS CHEAPER, well it is cheaper UNLESS you add a CO2 TAX.
Gas, even at higher fuel prices is LESS RISKY (note the very low Capital Exp) thus it is a GOOD fit for PEAKING demands.
For the full report:
http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/LUECReport.pdfArthur
lengould
6th November 2005 - 04:21 AM
Talk about selective data, Arthur. Most of your (inaccurate) info is based on something called the "Canadian Energy Research Institute". In reviewing it's membership I see, of eight board of directors, at least four (and likely more) of eight are currently employed by some of the largest fossil fuel companies in Canada.
Shell Canada Limited
Imperial Oil Limited
TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd
BP Energy Canada Company
Of the twenty-plus biographies of the executive I scanned, all were former oil / gas industry executives or geologists, some from OPEC, only one had ever spent even a short stint in the nuclear industry.
Man, Arthur. Don't you ever get it? These are the guys financing the anti-nuclear lobby.
At least it is valid to review on equal footing this document from Canadian Nuclear Association.
http://www.cna.ca/english/files/Climate%20...candusystem.pdfBased on CCGT OPERATING COSTS IN 1998, eg. when Natural gas was at $2.50 / MMBTU (Now at $12.50).
"Overall, the levelized unit energy cost associated with nuclear plants is very competitive at lower discount rates and/or higher natural gas prices. Also, nuclear power is relatively unaffected by fueling cost fluctuations, since fueling costs are only ~5% of the LUEC. By contrast, fluctuations in natural gas prices over the life of the plant will have a large effect on the cost of power, since more than 50% of the LUEC is attributable to the cost of fuel. For these reasons, nuclear power is very attractive to national utilities who wish to establish steady, competitive electricity prices over several decades of operation. However, in open, deregulated markets, capital cost and shorter-term rates of return are likely to be more important than long-term levelized energy costs."
The included graph indicates CANDU6 can produce electricity cheaper than Natural Gas if interest rates are less than 6% AND Natural Gas price is LESS THAN $2.50 / MMBTU. You'll NEVER AGAIN see that low a gas price. NOTE ALSO HOW IN DEREGULATED MARKETS, THE PRIVATE SECTOR HATES NUKES BECAUSE THEY TYPICALLY CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD THEM.
You're getting suckered.
lengould
6th November 2005 - 04:41 AM
You will also find that the Cdn province of New Brunswick has just decided to re-furbish it's Point Lepreau CANDU6 at a cost of $1.6 billion, after a prolonged investigation determined that to be the cheapest means of generating electricity for the next thirty years. And they do have i) pleanty of seaport space for importing LNG if they'd choosen. ii) excellent wind resources if they'd wanted. iii) a vocal anti-nuke lobby. iv) a neighboring province (Quebec) with about 20 GW of excess hydro and wind generation which they could have supplied.
They've chosen instead to re-build the reactor from scratch, winding up with an essentially new CANDU 6 (new reactor tubing, steam generators, etc.) And no guarantees of local workforce employment etc., purely commercial decision, I think unlikely if your post were accurate.
And BTW, all figures I quoted previously were in $US (eg. industry std. worldwide), whereas you're quoting eg. OPG's rates in $Cdn from back when their last rate was established, eg. when $Cdn was $US0.65 or less. ($US since dropped like a stone)
lengould
6th November 2005 - 05:48 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 30 2005, 08:11 AM)
Arthur:
.....
ii) Would US's international image be more damaged by failing to pay UN for Kyoto levies than it currently is being damaged by failing to ratify? BTW, I've read everything I could find on the treaty and found no provision for such payments. Are you thinking of purchases of CO2 credits which appears to be entirely voluntary? Simply ignoring such payments could surely fall under the same precedent by which US now refuses to pay most of it's regular dues to UN couldn't it?
==> Who cares?
......
Arthur
Just a bit further in re: your "who cares" response to US - UN relationships. Though I realize the flipancy is simply designed to shock, still it does. Such arrogant attitudes (eg. typical of amuricuns to consider the rest of the world as third-class citizens) historically have invariably preceded the fall of empires, and i'd guess yours is headed for the shortest life of any empire in history. Might not even make it into the history books alongside the Russian. Being based solely on economic hegemony with no redeeming features, eg. art, culture, it seems likely. US GDP WAS 50% of world GNP immediately post WW2 (largely because claimed "neutrality" until all "alies" were broke, and we haven't forgotten believe me) However, that percentage has lately fallen at an accelerating pace, now down into the low 20's% and dropping like a stone.
I'd recommend getting some manners, esp. your state dept.
adoucette
6th November 2005 - 06:12 AM
Interesting approach.
Attack the people doing the report, not the report.
Which is interesting, that the two reports say basically the same thing.
Gas is fine for PEAKING loads, Nuclear and Coal are good for BASE loads.
Nuclear is not very sensitive to fuel costs, but is very sensitive to Capital Costs.
Now if you want to argue about the DATA in the CERI report fine. But to claim it is wrong simply because of who supports it is jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
In looking over the report, it seems VERY FAIR to all forms of energy and even uses what I would think are somewhat optimistic estimates for Nuclear Power.
WHAT IS TRUE, is the power industry appears to agree with its conclusions based on what they actually build.
Bottom line, if the Govt doesn't subsidize the construction or financing of nuclear power plants or impose CO2 taxes then very few new ones will be built. As it is, they heavily tax oil and gas but do not tax Uranium fuel. In fact U fuel prices are low and will remain low for some time simply due to the large amount of nuclear weapons being decommissioned.
Which gets to my point, without a CO2 tax, nuclear plants will not be built in any great numbers in the West.
Which brings us back to Kyoto.
Since its inherent structure and limitations obviously will do very little to reduce CO2, what is its REAL purpose?
Arthur
lengould
6th November 2005 - 05:14 PM
Interesting approach.
Attack the people doing the report, not the report.
==> Interesting defense.
Which is interesting, that the two reports say basically the same thing.
==> They DO NOT. The CERI report you cited IGNORES fossil fuel price volatility present and future, simply stating an (incorrect) conclusion based on a then-current N Gas price. The CNI report which I prefer is more valid because it acknowledges that relative N Gas prices (and investment interest rates) are the two most critical issue for selecting generation means.
Gas is fine for PEAKING loads, Nuclear and Coal are good for BASE loads.
Nuclear is not very sensitive to fuel costs, but is very sensitive to Capital Costs.
==> I saw none of that in the CERI report. Will re-view.
Now if you want to argue about the DATA in the CERI report fine. But to claim it is wrong simply because of who supports it is jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
==> Understand my position or not as you wish, but I am argueing data.
In looking over the report, it seems VERY FAIR to all forms of energy and even uses what I would think are somewhat optimistic estimates for Nuclear Power.
==> The ONLY reason Nuclear power costs more capital/kwhr than coal is the incredibly ridiculous regulatory hurdles and religious anti-nuke minority, both fostered by the fossil fuel industry.
WHAT IS TRUE, is the power industry appears to agree with its conclusions based on what they actually build.
==> Power industry is owned by the fossil fuel industry.
Bottom line, if the Govt doesn't subsidize the construction or financing of nuclear power plants or impose CO2 taxes then very few new ones will be built. As it is, they heavily tax oil and gas but do not tax Uranium fuel. In fact U fuel prices are low and will remain low for some time simply due to the large amount of nuclear weapons being decommissioned.
==> Govt., by imposing ridiculous design and operation constraints, is single greatest IMPEDIMENT to the nuclear power industry. When done properly (eg. see France) nuclear is by far the lowest cost esp. for areas where fossil fuels are becoming depleted as eg. USA.
Which gets to my point, without a CO2 tax, nuclear plants will not be built in any great numbers in the West.
Which brings us back to Kyoto.
Since its inherent structure and limitations obviously will do very little to reduce CO2, what is its REAL purpose?
==> Kyoto is designed as a first-step, and IF IT IS ADHERED TO it really will have a small net positive effect. For example, would Quebec be installing 3,000 MW (7.5% of their total capacity) of wind generation without it? Would Ontario now have 12,000+ MW of Nuclear and 3,000+ MW new renewables online or coming online without it? Would Alberta and British Columbia be installing as much wind gen. without it? Many others. I think much of the credit for these actions is unarguably traceable to Kyoto. For that matter, would the US even have renewed it's wind generation credits without the pressure?
Arthur
==> I realize it has faults, but many of those you've cited have alternative views as well. It is NOT the Chinese or Indian population whose energy use and fossil CO2 emissions per capita is 2000+% above the world average. You have a responsibility to take the first steps.
==> Len
lengould
6th November 2005 - 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Arthur:+)
I chose the Merchant financed example because it is not subsidized like the Public financed example is.
As anyone knowledgeable of the energy industry knows, the difference between Merchant Financed and Public Financed (CERI wording, slanted, should read "Regulated Rate Base Financed") is the interest rate, not any theoretical subsidy. CERI, by selectively choosing to compare Merchant Financing (eg. junk bond rates >10%-15% interest) instead of traditional prime rate available under Regulated Rate Base Financing (eg. 5 - 6%) have deliberately presented "view with a viewpoint", eg. the disgusting and now discredited "deregulated free-market basis" system of financing generation. (BTW, those brilliant "Merchant Financiers" are the same ones now giving away for nothing all that N Gas CT generation that was built in the US in the 1990's and is now worthless at current N Gas prices.)
I'm not sure what sort of access you have to the costly CERI reports. Here is a quote from the first page of the only sample report I could access.
"Many international oil companies have continued to fail to replace their production with new discoveries despite reporting record profits in recent years. Since oil demand is widely expected to grow at a fairly rapid pace in the future, Michael Klare argues that we are facing a substantial and inescapable threat of global energy scarcity, which is bound to have dire consequences for the global economy.
http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/documents/GoE_Mar05.pdf
adoucette
6th November 2005 - 09:07 PM
They did not use Junk Bond Interest rates:
They used REAL WORLD costs for PRIVATE construction.
Levelised unit cost comparisons are usually made under one of two sets of financing assumptions – either ‘merchant’ or ‘public’ financing. Merchant plants are those built and operated by private investors. These investors pay for their capital through debt and by raising equity, and thus pay return on equity and interest on debt throughout their lifetime. These projects must also pay income taxes, both provincial and federal.
We have assumed that merchant financing requires a 12 percent real rate of return on equity and an 8 percent real rate of return on debt. The debt to equity ratio is set at 50 percent, and the debt life is 20 years. Straight-line depreciation that lasts over the lifetime of the project is assumed. The inflation rate, used to convert real dollar cash flows into nominal dollar figures for tax calculations, is set to 2 percent for all generating types. The income tax rate is 30 percent (fed and regional)The CERI report also included more favorable Public Financing, but that is not an option in the US so I tend to ignore it.
They however covered it:
In general, the LUEC is lower under public financing for each technology because there are no income taxes payable and the cost of financing is lower. The impact on the LUEC of different technologies is not uniform since it varies with the proportion of capital (and hence debt) that is required. In the case of gas-fired generation, the least capital intensive option, the LUEC changed relatively little, from $75.35 under merchant financing to $72.05/MW.h under public financing.
For both nuclear options the change is considerably larger, with both having a significantly lower LUEC than gas. The coal generation option remains the lowest in terms of levelised cost, but the cost difference between coal and the nuclear options is reduced.From their report:
Gas-fired generation, on the other hand, is very sensitive to gas prices (also seen in Section 4.3). We have assumed that the gas price rises at an annual real rate of 1.8 percent until 2025 and thereafter remains constant. For the merchant case, as gas generation is assumed to remain in operation longer, it does so at a high fuel cost, resulting in an actual increase in the LUEC as plant life increases. With increasing gas prices, cash flows start to fall below zero. In the public
financing case, the LUEC goes down as the operational lifetime is longer, but not significantly.
The slight fall is attributable to there being more years to recover the required return on equity, but this effect is almost completely outweighed by the rising gas costs. The high proportion of fuel and operating costs also means there is only a small difference between the merchant LUEC and public LUEC for each lifetime.They are realistic about life of units:
The base case assumes each generating option would operate for a period of 30 years. A realistic operational life for gas-fired units may be considerably less than this (15 to 20 years), whereas coal and nuclear options could be in operation for 40 years. However, LUEC comparisons need to be made over a consistent time period, i.e. each option starts and stops generating power at the same time. Consequently, the base case assumes each generating option would operate for a
period of 30 years, and sensitivities consider operating lifetimes of 20 and 40 years.They cover capacity in a fair way:
For each technology we also assume a capacity factor of 90 percent, or in other words the generating plant is assumed to produce 90 percent of the energy it would produce if it were to be run continuously at full power.5 Capacity factors of 90 percent or higher are not uncommon in the operation of nuclear plants and capacity factors in excess of this have been experienced even in aging nuclear reactors in the U.S.6 The twin ACR-700 reactor is designed to have a capacity
factor in excess of this level.
In practice, capacity factors for gas plants may be considerably lower than 90 percent. However, lower capacity factors for gas-fired plants designed even for baseload provision are partly a consequence of higher fuel costs, meaning that once in operation these plants are less likely to run continuously. 7 As a result, historical capacity factors may not be a good indicator of the appropriate capacity factors for use in LUEC estimation. In this report we make the simple assumption that the capacity factor in the base case is 90 percent, supplemented with sensitivities at 85 and 95 percent.So read the report:
http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/LUECReport.pdfAnd tell me where there data is WRONG.
As to your rants about:
The ONLY reason Nuclear power costs more capital/kwhr than coal is the incredibly ridiculous regulatory hurdles And
Govt., by imposing ridiculous design and operation constraints, is single greatest IMPEDIMENT to the nuclear power industry. When done properly (eg. see France) nuclear is by far the lowest cost esp. for areas where fossil fuels are becoming depleted as eg. USA.As I recall, most of these came AFTER a nuclear plant had turned itself into a smoking pile of rubble. Since the tougher regs no other one has. So to you they may be ridiculous, but being that I am not qualified to tell, I'll leave it to the NRC to make the regs and not you.
Well it MAY be the way to properly do it for you, but we have a private enterprise based system, so NO, the French model won't work here.
And while I agree, that in some instances, state run enterprises might "be better" in theory, in the long run that is rarely the case.
As far as the Wind and Renewables, care to show COSTS vs OUTPUT?
As I said, all they amount to is a CO2 tax, unless you can show they are cheaper than current methods.
Can you?
Arthur
lengould
7th November 2005 - 09:16 AM
QUOTE (Arthur+)
The CERI report also included more favorable Public Financing, but that is not an option in the US so I tend to ignore it.
If you understood my post OR the industry, you'd know that Regulated Rate Based Financing is NOT public financing, it is private investment where the market for the output of the plant, and thus the expected ROI, is guaranteed under a regulated rate system. This is the system currently being attacked by the large fianacial institutions (calling it "de-regultation") in expectation of increasing the interest rates from eg. 5% to 12-15%. So far they've done it in eg. Texas and a few other states, and in three provinces in Canada. The outcome is, generation systems which are more capital intensive (nuclear, wind, low-pollution coal) have a more difficult time competing with those which are fuel-cost intensive, eg. Nat. Gas. Secondary result is large increases in Nat. Gas prices, see present market. Terteriary result is huge uncertainty factor, mitigates against rational long-term investment planning as required to keep a complex grid system operating smoothly. And if you ask anyone in eg. Southeast US or NorthWest US, it certainly still IS an option and is likely to remain so given now discredited "deregulation". Ask and state senator from eg. Carolinas, Georgia, etc.
And BTW, seen Texas electricity prices lately? Result primarily of "most successful deregulation implementation in US" is eg. $0.18/kwhr electricity, at LEAST double that in any other jurisdiction.
QUOTE
So read the report:
http://www.ceri.ca/Publications/LUECReport.pdfAnd tell me where there data is WRONG.
$6.47/Mcf (in 2005). + 1.8% real / yr pp 47 There's the figure which indicates this is a report which needs to be read with extreme caution. Actual Sept 2005 Henry Hub wholesale N Gas prices stood at US$12.00/Mcf (Cdn$14.20/Mcf), at which price this entire report is about as useful as toilet paper. See Beck
http://rwbeck.com/assets/market/Q4%202005%...0Summary%20.pdf "Gas Industry Optimists" hope with small backup that the price may by 2010 drop back to the figures used here, but IMHO that's unlikely given US is moving to an LNG import model where base price will depend on OPEC, gas value will become tied to oil. At US$12.00/Mcf gas is D.E.A.D. for new elect. generation. I've mentioned that before, if you recall.
QUOTE (->
$6.47/Mcf (in 2005). + 1.8% real / yr pp 47 There's the figure which indicates this is a report which needs to be read with extreme caution. Actual Sept 2005 Henry Hub wholesale N Gas prices stood at US$12.00/Mcf (Cdn$14.20/Mcf), at which price this entire report is about as useful as toilet paper. See Beck
http://rwbeck.com/assets/market/Q4%202005%...0Summary%20.pdf "Gas Industry Optimists" hope with small backup that the price may by 2010 drop back to the figures used here, but IMHO that's unlikely given US is moving to an LNG import model where base price will depend on OPEC, gas value will become tied to oil. At US$12.00/Mcf gas is D.E.A.D. for new elect. generation. I've mentioned that before, if you recall.
As I said, all they amount to is a CO2 tax, unless you can show they are cheaper than current methods.
Cheaper, Cheaper, Cheaper. Bloody typical yank birdcall. Of course the environmentally responsibe approach NOT cheaper. What I'm saying is it is REASONABLY AFFORDABLE, eg. won't wreck your economy. US, by insisting on using generation means which are ABSOLUTELY CHEAPEST (typical of all american products and it shows) is simply using final means available to try to compete internationally. Super american ingenuity, guys. Get a leadership.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.