Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 20 Oct 2017, 00:08:31

The Next Solyndra: DOE Proposing Massive Energy Subsidies

Rick Perry retains his weakness for crony capitalism.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry has come up with a proposal for nuclear energy and coal that would make the Obamacrats “who cooked up the famously botched bailout of defunct solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra blush.”

That’s according to Mark Perry, the American Enterprise Institute scholar and University of Michigan economics professor, writing in U.S. News last week:

Washington, D.C. has a funny, if not sad, way of changing the way folks think and act. Many officials ride into town with clear eyes and deeply rooted market-based principles only to have their outlooks fundamentally — and often rapidly — changed.
....

Remainder is at: https://spectator.org/the-next-solyndra-doe-proposing-massive-energy-subsidies/

I'm actually kinda keeping score. Let me point out that:

1) The $88B in subsidies is about 8X the $11B that Obama spent on renewable energy stimulus over 8 years.

2) The two energy sources coal and nuclear are the cheapest we have according to the IER:

Coal : $0.032/kWh and 10,000 deaths/Trillion kWh (US figure, global average is 10X)

Gas: $0.045/kWh and 4,000 deaths/Trillion kWh

Solar PV: $0.160/kWh and 440 deaths/Trillion kWh
(rooftop)
Wind: $0.100/kWh and 150 deaths/Trillion kWh

Nuclear: $0.022/kWh and 0.1 deaths/Trillion kWh

(Yes, I have used the same figures in two other threads, but with different topics.)

3) Coal is the most dangerous, and nuclear energy the safest, so this is not about health effects or fatalities in the power industry.

4) I HATE this idea, because I hate the toxics released with coal energy.

5) Obviously, the idea is to make power cheaper.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 20 Oct 2017, 01:00:19

The article seems to imply the govt is contributing monies or providing tax breaks. But the article itself states that's not the case: "Perry's proposal would be to require utilities (and by extension, consumers) to buy electricity from coal- and nuclear-powered generators, covering all of their marginal and fixed costs, plus a guaranteed profit, no matter how uncompetitive the producers are."

But if you accept KJ's numbers the costs will be lower. Which ignores whether you like coal or nukes. And again if KJ's cost numbers are valid the govt isn't picking winners and losers: it's going with proven winners.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11233
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 20 Oct 2017, 01:59:14

Here is where those energy figures came from:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/electricity-generation-cost/

The IER is generally considered a "shill for the power industry" according to the AGW fanboys here at PeakOil.com. As I remember, that label was applied in one of the threads on carbon taxes/carbon cap & trade. The figures were plucked from a 2016 graph and represent a single point in time, I realize the relative cost of power generation by type varies over time. They also are raw generating cost, without any grid or power company markups. The current average after markups is just short of $0.13/kWh nationwide.

I'm not at all sure if the DOE actions can actually change the retail pricing, as each utility is basicly a monopoly.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 16:52:42

OCT 23, 2017

GENERATION ATOMIC'S COMMENT ON THE RECENT NOPR

Generation Atomic submitted an official comment on the US Department Of Energy's recent Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. You can read the full transcript of the comment here.



To​ ​the​ ​FERC:

On​ ​October​ ​12,​ ​2017,​ ​Secretary​ ​of​ ​Energy​ ​Rick​ ​Perry​ ​appeared​ ​before​ ​the​ ​US​ ​House​ ​Energy and​ ​Commerce​ ​subcommittee,​ ​emphasizing​ ​that​ ​his​ ​recent​ ​Notice​ ​of​ ​Proposed​ ​Rulemaking (NOPR)​ ​was​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​spark​ ​a​ ​national​ ​discourse​ ​on​ ​energy​ ​resilience.​ ​The​ ​position​ ​of Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​is​ ​that​ ​this​ ​dialogue​ ​is​ ​long​ ​overdue​ ​and​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​public​ ​is​ ​ready​ ​for it.

Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​is​ ​a​ ​501(c)3​ ​nonprofit,​ ​incorporated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​state​ ​of​ ​Minnesota​ ​on​ ​December 23,​ ​2016.​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​was​ ​founded​ ​to​ ​energize​ ​and​ ​empower​ ​citizens​ ​of​ ​all​ ​generations to​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​our​ ​national​ ​discourse​ ​on​ ​the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​clean,​ ​reliable​ ​energy​ ​-​ ​specifically,​ ​our nation’s​ ​largest​ ​and​ ​most​ ​reliable​ ​source​ ​of​ ​carbon-free​ ​electricity:​ ​nuclear.​ ​Through​ ​its​ ​501(c)4 affiliate,​ ​the​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​Movement​ ​Mobilizing​ ​Alliance​ ​(GAMMA),​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​has begun​ ​the​ ​work​ ​of​ ​engaging​ ​thousands​ ​of​ ​citizens​ ​in​ ​that​ ​discourse.

In​ ​Ohio​ ​alone,​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​has​ ​knocked​ ​on​ ​46,741​ ​doors,​ ​held​ ​9,047​ ​conversations,​ ​and committed​ ​5,348​ ​supporters​ ​of​ ​nuclear​ ​energy.​ ​Door​ ​to​ ​door​ ​campaigning​ ​and​ ​other​ ​grassroots organizing​ ​efforts​ ​have​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​9,015​ ​direct​ ​actions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​state​ ​legislature.​ ​The​ ​high​ ​level​ ​of conversion​ ​indicates​ ​to​ ​us​ ​that​ ​the​ ​public​ ​in​ ​Ohio​ ​is​ ​inclined​ ​to​ ​support​ ​nuclear​ ​power​ ​for​ ​a variety​ ​of​ ​reasons​ ​that​ ​cut​ ​across​ ​the​ ​political​ ​spectrum​ ​including​ ​economic​ ​factors​ ​(50%​ ​of supporters),​ ​community​ ​and​ ​tax​ ​implications​ ​(32%),​ ​and​ ​support​ ​for​ ​nuclear​ ​as​ ​a​ ​carbon-free energy​ ​source​ ​(18%).

Through​ ​our​ ​work,​ ​we​ ​have​ ​found​ ​that​ ​thousands​ ​of​ ​thoughtful​ ​citizens​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​have​ ​a desire​ ​to​ ​participate​ ​in​ ​a​ ​discussion​ ​about​ ​how​ ​we​ ​power​ ​our​ ​economy​ ​and​ ​our​ ​lives.​ ​Based upon​ ​those​ ​conversations,​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic​ ​would​ ​like​ ​to​ ​observe​ ​the​ ​following​ ​to​ ​the Commission:

Our​ ​work​ ​indicates​ ​that​ ​the​ ​public​ ​values​ ​nuclear​ ​as​ ​an​ ​energy​ ​source.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of Energy’s​ ​own​ ​Staff​ ​Report​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Secretary​ ​on​ ​Electricity​ ​Markets​ ​and​ ​Reliability​ ​(“Grid​ ​Study”) suggests:​ ​“Most​ ​…​ ​benefits​ ​[specific​ ​power​ ​plants​ ​offer]​ ​are​ ​not​ ​recognized​ ​or​ ​compensated​ ​by wholesale​ ​electricity​ ​markets,​ ​and​ ​this​ ​has​ ​given​ ​rise​ ​to​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​state​ ​and​ ​private​ ​efforts​ ​that include​ ​keeping​ ​open​ ​or​ ​shutting​ ​down​ ​established​ ​baseload​ ​generators​ ​and​ ​incentivizing [variable​ ​renewable​ ​energy]​ ​generation.”​ ​Indeed,​ ​the​ ​public’s​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​energy​ ​resilience appears​ ​to​ ​end​ ​at​ ​the​ ​outlet,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​disconnected​ ​from​ ​state​ ​and​ ​local​ ​initiatives​ ​that​ ​are increasingly​ ​altering​ ​the​ ​energy​ ​policy​ ​landscape.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Grid​ ​Study​ ​notes,​ ​policy​ ​instruments like​ ​Renewable​ ​Portfolio​ ​Standards​ ​(RPS)​ ​currently​ ​enacted​ ​in​ ​29​ ​states​ ​and​ ​the​ ​District​ ​of Columbia​ ​that​ ​represent​ ​55%​ ​of​ ​electricity​ ​sales​ ​are​ ​driving​ ​deeper​ ​penetration​ ​of​ ​variable renewable​ ​energy​ ​(VRE)​ ​technologies.​ ​These​ ​policies​ ​have​ ​created​ ​market​ ​pressures​ ​that​ ​favor generation​ ​sources​ ​-​ ​such​ ​as​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​-​ ​that​ ​can​ ​more​ ​quickly​ ​ramp​ ​up​ ​and​ ​down​ ​to​ ​track VRE​ ​output.​ ​The​ ​contours​ ​of​ ​this​ ​emerging​ ​policy​ ​landscape​ ​uniquely​ ​disadvantage​ ​nuclear,​ ​as evidenced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Grid​ ​Study’s​ ​citing​ ​of​ ​“market​ ​conditions”​ ​as​ ​a​ ​contributing​ ​or​ ​decisive​ ​factor​ ​in the​ ​closure,​ ​announced​ ​closure,​ ​or​ ​averted​ ​closure​ ​of​ ​12​ ​of​ ​16​ ​nuclear​ ​facilities.

Policymakers​ ​and​ ​the​ ​public​ ​must​ ​be​ ​better​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​a​ ​holistic​ ​discussion​ ​around​ ​energy policy​ ​to​ ​align​ ​its​ ​stated​ ​values​ ​with​ ​the​ ​instruments​ ​that​ ​drive​ ​electricity​ ​markets.​ ​Our​ ​data supports​ ​the​ ​assertion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Grid​ ​Study​ ​that​ ​foremost​ ​among​ ​these​ ​values​ ​is​ ​economic​ ​growth; yet,​ ​despite​ ​the​ ​Nuclear​ ​Energy​ ​Institute’s​ ​finding​ ​that​ ​nuclear​ ​energy​ ​creates​ ​ten​ ​times​ ​the​ ​jobs of​ ​either​ ​wind​ ​or​ ​natural​ ​gas​ ​per​ ​megawatt​ ​of​ ​generating​ ​capacity,​ ​market​ ​conditions​ ​are​ ​driving up​ ​the​ ​share​ ​of​ ​electricity​ ​generated​ ​from​ ​VRE​ ​and​ ​gas​ ​sources​ ​at​ ​the​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​nuclear generation.​ ​Nuclear’s​ ​waning​ ​contribution​ ​to​ ​the​ ​nation’s​ ​electricity​ ​generation​ ​mix​ ​also​ ​directly undermines​ ​the​ ​goals​ ​of​ ​energy​ ​security​ ​and​ ​resiliency;​ ​nuclear’s​ ​performance​ ​during​ ​extreme weather​ ​events​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​2014​ ​Polar​ ​Vortex​ ​and​ ​Hurricane​ ​Harvey​ ​underscore​ ​the importance​ ​of​ ​nuclear​ ​energy​ ​to​ ​grid​ ​resiliency.​ ​Ironically,​ ​the​ ​public’s​ ​environmental​ ​goals​ ​have been​ ​undercut​ ​by​ ​the​ ​very​ ​state​ ​and​ ​local​ ​initiatives,​ ​designed​ ​ostensibly​ ​to​ ​lower​ ​emissions, that​ ​have​ ​contributed​ ​most​ ​significantly​ ​to​ ​these​ ​new​ ​market​ ​conditions;​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​US Energy​ ​Information​ ​Administration,​ ​the​ ​lost​ ​low-carbon​ ​electricity​ ​generation​ ​from​ ​the​ ​five nuclear​ ​generating​ ​stations​ ​closed​ ​between​ ​2013​ ​and​ ​2017​ ​are​ ​nearly​ ​equal​ ​to​ ​that​ ​of​ ​all​ ​US solar​ ​generation​ ​in​ ​2015.

The​ ​facts​ ​are​ ​on​ ​the​ ​side​ ​of​ ​nuclear,​ ​and​ ​exposure​ ​to​ ​these​ ​facts​ ​through​ ​candid,​ ​thoughtful conversation​ ​leads​ ​to​ ​a​ ​high​ ​percentage​ ​of​ ​support​ ​from​ ​all​ ​types​ ​of​ ​citizens.​ ​Nearly​ ​three decades​ ​of​ ​state-​ ​and​ ​locally-led​ ​policymaking​ ​around​ ​VRE​ ​technologies​ ​have​ ​provided​ ​a​ ​clear path​ ​for​ ​achieving​ ​a​ ​robust​ ​policy​ ​framework​ ​that​ ​is​ ​federally-backed.​ ​Secretary​ ​Perry’s leadership​ ​in​ ​calling​ ​for​ ​a​ ​national​ ​dialogue​ ​by​ ​issuing​ ​this​ ​NOPR​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​appreciated​ ​by Generation​ ​Atomic.​ ​Our​ ​work​ ​demonstrates​ ​that​ ​citizens​ ​do​ ​have​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​grasp​ ​of​ ​their​ ​values and​ ​goals​ ​with​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​powering​ ​their​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​our​ ​nation​ ​-​ ​even​ ​if​ ​current​ ​state​ ​and local​ ​policies​ ​neither​ ​reflect​ ​these​ ​values​ ​nor​ ​achieve​ ​these​ ​goals.​ ​Individual​ ​states​ ​must, therefore,​ ​be​ ​active​ ​participants​ ​in​ ​engaging​ ​the​ ​public​ ​in​ ​a​ ​discussion​ ​about​ ​resilience, carbon-intensity,​ ​and​ ​security​ ​of​ ​our​ ​energy.​ ​Much​ ​as​ ​state​ ​and​ ​local​ ​leaders​ ​have​ ​crafted​ ​policy instruments​ ​that​ ​have​ ​led​ ​to​ ​market​ ​conditions​ ​requiring​ ​this​ ​discussion,​ ​Generation​ ​Atomic submits​ ​that​ ​the​ ​next​ ​three​ ​decades​ ​of​ ​energy​ ​policy​ ​should​ ​follow​ ​a​ ​state-led,​ ​federally-backed pathway,​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​clearly​ ​enunciated​ ​values​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​preferred​ ​technologies.​ ​FERC​ ​can play​ ​a​ ​valuable​ ​role​ ​by​ ​directing​ ​states​ ​and​ ​regional​ ​transmission​ ​organizations​ ​to​ ​properly​ ​value the​ ​important​ ​attributes​ ​that​ ​nuclear​ ​power​ ​provides.

-The Generation Atomic Team


https://www.facebook.com/generationatomic/
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: US DOE to subsidize Coal & Nuclear Power $88 Billion !!

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 25 Oct 2017, 09:28:36

pstarr wrote:Pls summarize sub. Tnx in advance :)


Here n Ohio the voters prefer nclear power keep running instead of shutting plants down that could run safely for another 10-25 years like they are doing in California and New England.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio


Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests