Another glaring omission is his utter silence on battery technology. Gore claims Solar and Wind fit together like ‘’a hand and glove’’. This is incorrect. What does fit together, is batteries and Solar & Wind, both of which require backup power. You would think Gore would call for a Marshall Plan to rapidly expand battery production, and kick Chevron’s Butt, ordering them to release the NiMH battery patent. Solar and Wind have been severely debilitated over the past 10 years because of Chevron’s blockade of the large format NiMH batteries. They could be mass produced right now, with the same scale as Solar PV modules are. Seems like Gore either lacks knowledge of Solar, Wind and Transportation technology or he is not interested in realistic solutions, just fantasy solutions, like his & Pickens Mega-Solar, Mega-Wind idea. Fantasy solutions just ensure that the status quo will remain.

We are already seeing battery shortages, and consequent price rises just due to the rising demand for Storage Batteries, E-Bikes, HEV’s, and the few BEV’s being developed. In 1998 the chairman of ECD claimed in 1998 that they expected to be able to produce NiMH in automotive volumes for $130 per kwh, we need that now, real bad. An area where subsidies and political arm twisting could have a huge and immediately beneficial effect on reducing GHG emissions and foreign Oil Imports.

As for the huge Solar and Wind subsidies we are seeing instead, they make no sense and are counter productive. These huge subsidies are simply forcing prices up and screwing the homeowner who wants to put Solar PV on their home. Do these politicians have any knowledge of economics whatsoever, Gore – ever here of the Law of Supply and Demand? The optimal subsidy level is just sufficient to ensure demand is increasing only marginally faster than supply. We have the absolute absurdity of Germany stealing half the World’s PV production because of its enormous 78 cents per kwh subsidy for Solar. A complete waste. Germany is a bad choice for Solar PV, with only 1000 to 1300 kwh per pk kw per year, vs some poor country like Bangladesh with 1900-2200 kwh per pk kw, which desperately could use the solar panels, as they can’t afford Diesel Power ( 35 cents per kwh) and aren’t high tech enough for Nuclear, and lack a power grid. Double the solar insolation, one half the GHG emissions, for the same cost. High Tech Germany should stick to Nuclear and let homeowners, who want to be energy independent and low-tech developing nations have most of the Solar PV. I like how the latest Scientific American claims Solar PV is at $1.90 to $2.10 per pk watt. Yeah where? I want to buy some at that price, where can I buy them Mr. Steve Ashley? Commercial PV wholesalers are getting so cocky because of the huge subsidies, they are DEMANDING that retailers sell them at a minimum of $10 per pk watt. If the government has subsidy money to waste, it would be much smarter to spend it on R&D for ways to improve Solar PV efficiency, and for technologies that could produce high volumes at much lower costs. See:

UC Berkeley Prof calls Solar a Loser Economically, and recommends Money Spent on R&D for better Technology Instead

We are even seeing the politicians make the Solar PV subsidies, so that only large Commercial Installers (with Lobbyist’s buying political favor) get the them, while homeowners who have the best locations for the Solar PV, are getting Zip. Home Solar, as well as providing emergency power and peace-of-mind for citizens, are closest to the actual consumers of the electricity, thus no expensive five fold oversized transmission lines and associated losses, possibilities of home battery banks or home EV batteries, efficient and cheap Solar PV direct to BEV for green transportation, no high installation costs as many homeowners will install the panels themselves, especially the simple-to-install EV charging Panels. That’s where the subsidies should be, not big commercial installations.

Posted by: Warren Heath

Berkeley professor Severin Borenstein makes a good point that more investment is needed to improve solar technology. More investment in the technology to improve plug in electric cars is also needed.
Posted by: Paula Shepard

Total Energy consumption in the USA, 2006 = 99.5 quads

Population of the USA, 2006 = 303 million

Total Energy consumed per family of four, in USA, 2006 = 392 Mwh

Average Power consumption per family of four, in USA, 2006 = 44.8 Kw

Note, this includes all the energy inputs we take for granted, like those that go into the food we eat, the roads we drive on, the buildings we live in and the energy to produce our cars and wind turbines.

So at 20 cents per kwh, the average cost of energy per family of four in the USA, would be $79,000 per year.

In Canada it would be higher, @ 60 kw per family of four, that would be $106,000 per year.

That is not sustainable. We can’t afford that. Our civilizations have been built upon cheap concentrated energy, stored over eons in Oil, Coal and Natural Gas. Cost of these energy sources have been in the range of 1 to 3 cents per kwh.

I think it is reasonable to say that if we don’t find energy sources that cost a maximum 5 cents per kwh, or $20,000 per year for a family of four, our civilization will collapse. The much touted alternatives, including the Gore and Pickens Solar & Wind specials, are not even close to 5 cents a kwh. They are a complete waste of money. So far only two possibilities exist, that can provide civilizations energy needs for the next 100 years, at feasible cost, that is Nuclear and Coal. And that’s not Clean Coal – no way you’re going to do that for 5 cents a kwh – that’s plain, old dirty Coal, maybe burned in higher efficiency power plants, like 40% rather than 32% efficiency. What is left is Nuclear, both fusion and fission, and that’s not an easy-as-falling-off-a-log solution. It’s going to take hard work, a lot of hard work.

Good Citizens WAKEUP! I’m talking WAR here, this is WORLD WAR THREE, and its happening right now, the WORLD GLOBAL ENERGY WAR. You’ve heard of Mega-Death, well in this case, if we loose this War, its going to be GIGA-DEATH. Whether the children born today will live or die, will depend upon the actions taken by industry and politicians here and now, and so far they are doing nothing but taking a bad situation and making it worse.

I can’t see Wind – installed – with power distribution – and sufficient backup power – ever getting even close to that 5 cent a kwh limit. Cut all subsidies, cut all funding on that, we can’t afford to throw precious, life-giving resources on a NON-SOLUTION.

Solar, the only possibility I see there, is advanced nanotechnology or biotechnology being able to develop means of producing Solar Modules with levelized power production cost, including any backup power and capital cost, installation, distribution & maintenance, within that 5 cent a kwh cost. So cut all funding, cut all subsidies for present Solar Installations, instead invest heavily in R&D to developing the most promising technologies.

Really, Nuclear is the only significant hope. We need cheap nuclear, and whatever we have to do to achieve it, WE HAVE TO DO THAT. If it means cutting through Red Tape with a machete, then WE GOT TO DO THAT. If it means accepting small risks, of minor leaks of contaminated, radioactive water, then WE GOT TO DO THAT. Bill Hannahan describes an excellent way to weed out the best methods of funding nuclear power development:

‘‘…We should increase R&D to $90 billion per year (only 2.25 cents/kWh) and push every technology as hard as possible. That would include building at least one full scale commercial size plant of every promising technology. Actual performance data would give companies and individuals confidence to make large scale investments rapidly in new and proven technology. …’’

Right now, Nuclear is still the cheapest of new Power systems, at 7.4 to 8.8 cents per kwh, levelized cost. With Nuclear Power Plants having a lifespan of 60-80 years, and Capital Cost paid in 15-20 years, the further 40-60 years of their lifespan will be well under the 5 cent a kwh limit, probably less than 2 cents a kwh. Also, especially with the smaller modular reactors, like the Hyperion, NuScale, Fuji Molten Salt reactor and the GenIV gas-cooled high temperature reactors, they can directly supply high grade heat, for industrial process, or building heat, or CHP as it’s called, which would lower actual energy cost to < 5 cents for kwh, even for new plants. These Nuclear Power plants need to be built as-fast-as possible, and the newer designs need to be built and tested with a mindset of DIRE URGENCY. The defunct supply chain for nuclear components needs to be rebuilt, with considerable redundancy, again with the highest priority. None of this is being done right now, and that means a Big Friggin Storm is coming and I hope all of you out there are prepared, to face the consequences. See:

Present Costs of Nuclear, Coal and NG power plants compared

A good example of what can be done, but is not being done, is the Bussard Inertial Electrostatic Fusion Reactor. This is a device of extraordinary potential. This is the Epitome of what we need in an energy supply, if it works, at a levelized cost within that 5 cents per kwh barrier. So meanwhile Congress has not funded the research, it has proceeded at a snails pace with bargain basement hardware, working with a shoestring Navy budget. Even proponents talk about wrangling $20 million funding to build a prototype, 100 MW net energy output reactor. NO! This is how you do it, during a time of War. Ten teams working in parallel, unlimited budget, each pursuing a different angle, 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, a $100 million prize to the first team to achieve 100 MW net output.

A good example of what is being done, but shouldn’t be done is the Corn Ethanol boondoggle. The actual subsidy for energy negative, mega-CO2 releasing Corn Ethanol is a staggering $5.2 billion per year (Patzek) According to a leaked, secret World Bank report, Biofuels have pushed World Food Prices up 75%, causing food riots and mass starvation. Add to this, is the fact that ‘‘…Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded…’’ (Pimentel). Clearly, A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. See:

Alice Friedemann: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a Threat to America's National Security - Part I

Posted by: Warren Heath

Well Gore’s plan only addresses #1, badly at that, and worsens both #2 and #3. To accomplish all three goals, by far and away, the simplest and fastest way is improvements in the Transportation sector. Including better public transit, reduced speed limits, enforced telecommuting, demanding automakers install and retrofit vehicles with high efficiency engines, greatly increased CAFÉ fuel economy standards, and most of all electrification of transport. That is going to require a lot of material – a lot of batteries, factory production and construction, power semiconductors, copper, steel, aluminum – and also skilled labor – all of which will be almost totally absorbed by Gore’s Mega Wind / Mega Solar project, which will use so much Oil, Coal and NG based materials that it won’t help #1 for 20 years at least, but it sure as hell will screw all of us EV advocates. There won’t be enough resources left for any large scale EV effort.

Congress could also give incentives to convert existing vehicles to Electric Drive, but that will use a lot of batteries and motors and power electronics, all of which will be sucked dry by Gore’s Wacky scheme.

I’m utterly astounded by the incredible stupidity of the Gore Plan. It actually sounds like a deliberate bait and switch program to force us to continue to be dependant on rapidly declining Oil and NG, especially from the Volatile Middle East. U.S. Power Generation is almost entirely domestic Coal, Nuclear and NG. Changing to Wind and Solar will greatly increase Foreign Exchange losses – not reduce them, it will greatly increase foreign Oil and NG imports, not reduce them. Where do you think all of the Solar Panels are made?

As for the cost of Nuclear, there is no significant insurance cost. I already proved to you in my previous posting that Nuclear is SEVERAL TIMES cheaper than Wind, and that will improve with time. Talk about your potential '’ insurance’’ cost of a one-in-100-billion chance Nuclear meltdown, how about the free ride you guys give Coal for the Millions of Tons of radioactive waste it releases into the atmosphere and into giant landfills every year, how about the cities flooded by rising oceans – is Coal & Oil going to pay for that? Who’s paying for the 30,000+ Americans, including thousands of children who are killed each year by Coal emissions? How about the $1.6 trillion Iraq Oil War – are heavily subsidized Oil Companies going to pay for that? Or the massive imports of Middle East LNG, to fuel backup NG power plants, for Gore’s Wind Turbines. Who’s going to pay for the Billions of Dollars in Damages and Millions of Lost Lives when LNG storage tanks, ships and pipelines explode like Nuclear Bombs (which a Nuclear Power Plant is absolutely incapable of doing)?

John, you need to think things out a bit, the path you are advocating, is one of death and destruction. You are committing children to a future of misery and suffering.

Posted by: Warren Heath

Add to these problems, you have the financing of Middle East Terrorism and Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program with our Oil Purchases. You have high energy costs causing great hardship, i.e. food price increases, job losses. Futile efforts at replacement Agrofuels, have pushed Food Prices up 75% and made the growing Water Shortage & Topsoil Losses problems much worse. You have coming (if not already here) Peak Oil & Peak NG. Coal energy could alleviate #1 & #2, but that would be temporary, and more expensive then switching to an Electrified Transportation System anyways, which we will have to do sooner or later. Why wait, and waste a bunch of money on smog aggravating Coal-to-liquids? Just look at the Olympics and see what a Killer Smog Infested Nightmare China has turned into, due to its reliance on Coal. And Nuclear Power Plants are already cheaper than Dirty Coal power plants, and that cost advantage will improve with time, see:

Comparative cost of Modern Power Plants, Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas, in the United States

In addition, there is the billions of tons of toxic waste released by Coal power plants. As Brian Wang documents:

‘‘…Coal kills an estimated 30,000 people per year in the U.S. due to the extreme pollutants released, and costs $160 billion in health care. …’’

‘‘…A 500 megawatt coal plant burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone, each year …’’

‘‘…A 500 MW coal plant each year puts out : …’’

‘‘…10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings. …’’

‘‘…10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain. …’’

‘‘…500 tons of small particles which are a health hazard, causing lung damage. …’’

‘‘…125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. …’’

‘‘…225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals …’’

‘‘…2 tons of Uranium and 6 tons of Thorium …’’

Comparative cost of Modern Power Plants, Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas, in the United States

Deadly, Killer Coal, There is no way to make this Crap a Viable Energy Source

We simply can’t wait, we’ve run out of time, Global Warming or not, we need to start converting all of our energy sources over to Nuclear ( fission at first, then fusion), and what Hydro we have. It’s the only way our civilization will survive, because only Nuclear is a sustainable, clean energy source with an Energy cost less than the critical 5 cents per kwh threshold.

Posted by: Warren Heath

‘‘…Installed Nuclear costs MORE than installed wind per MW produced. That is a fact…’’

In the case of wind, Pickens huge order of 667 G.E. 1.5 MW wind turbines was $3 million each, or $2,000 per pk kw. Average Capacity factor for Wind Turbines in the U.S. is 27%, and that will fall as the best sites are used up and the Power Grid is unable to absorb Wind Peak Power, so that works out to $7410 per kWe, reduced by 8% to compare to Nuclear, with a 92% capacity factor, that’s $6817 pe kWe. That does not include transport, installation, road construction, quadruple oversized, long range power transmission, land acquisition, right-of-ways for transmission lines, and environmental studies. Transmission lines, themselves run about $1 million per km. Those added costs easily push Wind Turbines Capital Cost into the $11,000 to $15,000 per kWe range. Add to this you need backup power of at least 90% of peak capacity, and that adds another $1,200 per kWe, using NG powered (the cheapest). As for operating & Maintenance costs, you have to do routine maintenance, there is always breakdowns of gearboxes, generators, switchgear, electronics & instrumentation etc. Add to that almost equal capacity NG plant which must be kept ‘’Spinning’’, and you must add NG fuel costs that are wasted by running the NG plants at their lowest efficiency. In addition to the full maintenance costs of the NG plant, the Wind Turbines, unlike normal power plants, you have to do field service, at great difficulty, including bringing in a large crane for large component replacements. Add to that you have to pay for land royalties, road maintenance, a huge transmission line maintenance area, storm damages, power line right-of-way royalties. It is certain that total operating & maintenance costs will be much higher than Nuclear, probably at least double. Add to that, the projected life of the Wind turbines is only 30 years vs 60 to 80 yrs for the Nuclear Plants.

Industrial Wind Power Installations, including their quadruple oversized power transmission infrastructure, use 15 to 40 times the material, steel, concrete, aluminum & copper per delivered kWe, of the Nuclear Power facility. And you can double that again, with a CHP Nuclear Power plant. Here’s the REAL KILLER for WIND POWER (and present day Solar for that matter). The Wind Turbines rely upon cheap fossil fuels, to fuel the industry that supplies the materials to make the Wind Turbines and their infrastructure. They don’t use Wind Power to build Wind Turbines, they use Oil, Coal and NG. When the cost of those fossil fuels doubles & triples and more in price, and when Climate change forces us away from fossil fuels, Wind Turbine prices will SKYROCKET. Try triple or quadruple the cost. And if you can’t produce Wind Energy for 5 cents a kwh, it’s no use wasting one penny on it, it’s a dead end, and there isn’t a chance in hell that wind will be able to produce power for 5 cents a kwh, when the fossil fuel crunch hits us. There are no other options – it’s dirty Coal or Nuclear – Pick One.

‘‘…Wind farms are not terrorist targets. Need I say more? How much is that worth?…’’

‘‘…Nuclear fuel is limited, expensive (and increasing rapidly), and expensive to transport and store when used up …’’

Bill Hannahan explains that one away better than I can:

‘‘…If all our electricity was made with coal, a years supply of coal (14,200 lb) cost $218 in 2005 and is much higher now and climbing. A year's supply of natural gas (115,000 cubic feet) cost $850 in 2005. …’’

‘‘…To make all U.S. electricity with current reactor designs, we only need 0.72 pounds / year / person. …’’

‘‘…For uranium to match the price of coal or natural gas, using current reactor technology, the uranium price would be $303 or $1,180 dollars per pound respectively. …’’

‘‘…Using breeder reactors we need 0.35 pounds / 80 year lifetime. …’’

‘‘…For uranium to match the price of coal or natural gas using breeder reactors, the uranium price would be $51,500 or $194,000 dollars per pound respectively. …’’

‘‘…The average American paid $1,100 for electricity in 2005. Uranium cost is a small fraction of what we pay for nuclear electricity, about 0.2 cents per kWh. Uranium price spikes have little effect on our bill. …’’

‘‘…These numbers come from this paper …’’

‘‘…http://www.nuclearcoal.com/ENERGY%20REV%20X1.pdf …’’

‘‘…based on calculations and references from this spreadsheet. …’’

‘‘…http://www.nuclearcoal.com/ENERGY%20CALCS%20REV%207.xls …’’

‘‘…My thanks to Jim Holm for hosting my paper on his site. …’’

‘‘…http://www.nuclearcoal.com/ …’’

‘‘…Reports in the 1970's estimated the cost of extracting uranium from sea water at $1,500 to $2,000 per pound. R&D has reduced that to about $200 per pound, of uranium. …’’

‘‘…http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html …’’

‘‘…http://www.taka.jaea.go.jp/eimr_div/j637/theme3%20sea_e.h ... …’’

‘‘…http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006 ... …’’

‘‘…The oceans contain 4.6 billion tons of uranium, half of which is sufficient to support 10 billion people at the U.S. level for 400 years using first generation reactors and over 30,000 years with breeders. In reality the oceans are continuously supplied with uranium by the erosion of land, so the uranium supply is effectively unlimited. …’’

‘‘…We do not need breeders for a long time but we should move forward with breeder R&D to reduce mining and waste volumes.

‘‘…Why are there no sea water uranium extraction plants? …’’

‘‘…Historically price has been under $60 / pound with a few big spikes. …’’

‘‘…http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html …’’

‘‘…http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_2yr-price.html …’’

‘‘…U3O8 is 85% uranium by weight. …’’

‘‘…Would you bet your life savings on uranium staying above $200 / lb? I don't think so, and neither do professional investors, however if sea water technology keeps improving the cost may drop enough to make it happen sooner than most people think. …’’

‘‘…Sea water uranium is very important because it puts a cap of $200/pound on the maximum sustainable cost of uranium for thousands of years. …’’

‘‘…Sea water uranium does not have to supply all of our uranium in order to cap the uranium price at $200/pound. It only has to replace the percentage of land based uranium sources that cost more than $200/pound, and that percentage is zero for the foreseeable future. …’’

Posted by: Warren Heath

Schroeder Renounces German Green Nuclear Power, substitute = Fossil Fuels

Gerhard Schroeder rewards Gazprom while in office

Gazprom rewards Gerhard Schroeder after out of office

Bait and Switch: German Nuclear Phase Out, Renewables, Coal and Carbon Dioxide.

Germany to Build 26 Huge, Dirty Brown Coal Burning Power Plants instead of expanding Nuclear Power, after the Failure of their Wind & Solar Energy Effort

A Directory of Posts that Link Anti-Nuclear Interests with Fossil Fuel Interests

Posted by: Warren Heath