Heating, Electricity Rates Rising As Prices For Natural Gas Surge

[RandomGuy]

Consumers struggling with $4 gasoline face ballooning costs for another energy source: natural gas.

Natural gas futures have vaulted 154% since its Aug. 27 low to $13.203 per million British thermal units on Monday. :wow

The run-up has outpaced the rise in crude oil, which has doubled.

Consumers may not feel the full impact immediately, but continued high prices will push up monthly utility bills, if they haven't already done so. Americans often use natural gas for heating stove tops and water, but they see a bigger hit when they fire up gas furnaces in the cold winter months. Also, rising prices show up in electricity costs, with natural gas providing the fuel for more power plants across the country.

"The consumer really hasn't seen the impact of higher prices," said Chris Jarvis, president of Caprock Risk Management. "There aren't that many people griping about it yet."

High heating and electricity costs, along with record gasoline and food prices, could chill already lukewarm consumer spending.

Experts point 15 low supplies, strong demand and record crude costs for natural gas' run-up.

"The increase in prices has been pretty dramatic," said Patrick Armstrong, assistant economist with Moody's Economy.com. "You don't hear about it quite as much as you do with gas prices because people don't see the prices like they do when they go to a gas station."

Utilities have begun to pass on some of those costs to customers. But rate increases vary widely, depending on location and other factors, says Jim Owen, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for investor-owned utilities.

As a heavily regulated industry, utilities don't pass on higher energy costs as quickly as oil companies do at the pump. They also have long-term contracts, insulating them somewhat from soaring market natural gas prices.

Xcel-erating Energy Rates

Xcel Energy (NYSE:XEL - News), which serves residents of Colorado and seven other states, has raised the price of electricity for customers by 15% in the first half of 2008 in Colorado, spokesman Tom Henley says. Xcel is proposing an additional 10% hike for the third quarter. Henley says natural gas prices are a key reason.

Nearly half of Xcel's power capacity comes from natural gas. The other big power source is coal, which also is soaring in price.

As for the natural gas that customers buy directly to heat their homes or water, Xcel wants rates in July that will be 38% above the year-ago period.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (NYSE:PCG - News), which serves Northern California, said it needs to raise electricity rates later this year and again in January for a total rise of more than 6%, says company spokesman David Eisenhauer. He cited rising natural gas prices, along with less hydroelectric power.

Eisenhauer notes 44% of the utility's electricity comes from natural gas-fired power plants.

Utilities rely on long-term contracts and other instruments, says Owen, shielding themselves from volatile spot and futures prices.

That helps explain why electric utility stocks have done reasonably well in recent months.

Also, utilities tend to use gas-fired plants for "peak" demand -- when there's more strain on the utility for power. Utilities often tap coal or other lower-cost energy sources first when there's less demand.

Natural gas provides about 20% of the nation's power, analysts say.

About half the country has used natural gas to heat homes since 2005, the latest year for which data are available, according to Kobi Platt, an economist with the Energy Information Association.

Nevertheless, Owen points out that as prices stay high, utilities will find it harder to avoid pricier natural gas -- and that will push more of them to raise prices.

Natural gas also is becoming a much larger part of U.S. electricity generation, rising 34% from 2002 and 2007, according to Platt.

When a region needs more power, the local utility often opts for gas-fired plants, which many see as cleaner than coal.

"Most of the incremental generation that has been built has been natural gas," said James Diemer, executive vice president with utility-consulting firm Pace Global Energy Services.

Gas-fired plants are quick to set up, so capital costs can be recovered quickly. Until recently, natural gas was relatively cheap.

But natural gas' futures are near their highest levels since the records after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, when they topped $15 per million Btu.

A key reason: Supplies are tight. Natural gas in storage is 1% below its five-year average, the EIA reported last week. That might not sound like much, but this is the time of year when supplies should be ballooning, not scraping by. Natural gas is in high demand during the winter when furnaces are turned on.

"We are short," said Robert Ineson, senior director with Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "We are significantly short."

Supplies were in great shape in December. But a chilly winter -- and several other factors -- drained supplies as customers turned up their thermostats.

Also, the rising use of natural gas to power electricity softened supplies. As part of that trend, many industrial companies -- which have their own generators -- turned to natural gas from oil for their electricity needs as oil prices soared, Jarvis says.

Global demand also crimped supplies and pushed up prices.

The U.S. produces most of its own natural gas, but still buys 3% to 4% outside of North America in liquid form. Prices for liquid natural gas have been higher in other parts of the world, including Japan and Spain, so shipments to U.S. ports have softened.

Oil prices -- though a much more globally traded commodity -- tends to push up natural gas prices as an energy cousin to oil, analysts say. Crude is up about 40% this year.

"When crude oil goes (higher) ... everything just gets lifted," Jarvis said.

Experts caution prices from here could remain volatile. Consumers should hope for no big hurricanes or a sweltering summer that requires more natural-gas fired electricity, they say.

Ineson expects natural gas to cool, given the slowing U.S. economy and other factors.

"We see the market tightness gradually easing," he said.

[RandomGuy]

It is not just oil, but energy itself that is getting more expensive.

(shrugs)

Renewables are probably the best way to go, followed by nuclear, if one can overcome the political resistance. Either is better than the status quo.

[xrayzebra]

Hey RG, is there any good news today?

[RandomGuy]

Hey RG, is there any good news today?

In economic/business news, not really. Higher prices for just about everything are coming down the pike.

We are skirting a recession if not already in one. I would say that given the run up in prices we are actually seeing living standards drop, although that doesn't quite show up in most commonly tracked economic data.

In science news, there are some interesting developments in astronomy, and another gene that contributes to some alzheimers has been identified.

Companies that build and make solar panels, and wind generators are seeing a pretty bright future, as I say here often.

Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be limping along a bit better than in the past. That is fairly good news.

Living standards globally are still better off than they were 20 years ago, but with the run up in food prices, those gains will probably evaporate as energy gets more expensive.
Energy=food
If you make energy more expensive and you make food more expensive.

All of this makes finding and developing renewable energy sources is probably the most important issue facing the world today. Drilling more oil, digging up more coal will only slightly push this down the road.

Sorry I can't be more rosy. Life for humans in general, from everything I see, is about to get a lot harder.

[boutons_]

"followed by nuclear, if one can overcome the political resistance"

No, capitalist resistance.

Wall St won't finance nuclear plants, a tiny problem with McFlop's go-nuclear pipe-dream, because the payback is too long.

[RandomGuy]

I *do* think that the human potential for innovation will keep the world from the doomsday scenarios a lot of people run around waving their arms about.

We are doing some very cool stuff in terms of finding new ways to be energy efficient, and that will go a long way towards easing the pain/effect of higher energy prices.

I think one outgrowth of all of this, is that the less-energy intensive technologies we are developing for manufacturing, and the green, renewable forms of power, will be well suited to countries in the "developing world".

After we get over our initial shocks and develop those technologies, by the end of my lifetime I see things getting MUCH better for the vast majority of humanity living on the edge of subsistance.

[T Park]

Nuculear plants are being held back by the stupid ass Chernobyl worry warts and envirowhackos. Not capitalists.

[RandomGuy]

"followed by nuclear, if one can overcome the political resistance"

No, capitalist resistance.

Wall St won't finance nuclear plants, a tiny problem with McFlop's go-nuclear pipe-dream, because the payback is too long.

BUT

As energy prices go up, then the payback period shortens dramatically.

Nuclear will be there somewhere, but for a variety of reasons it will not be *the* solution that some seem to think it will be.

There are a lot of modern reactor designs that are waaaay safer and require less fuel/waste than there were 20-30 years ago.

I personally don't like the idea of creating all sorts of new high-value terrorist targets in the form of fuel/waste shipments though.

Better to build wind-farms and solar panels. They can't be used as components in dirty bombs like nuclear fuel/waste can.

[RandomGuy]

Nuculear plants are being held back by the stupid ass Chernobyl worry warts and envirowhackos. Not capitalists.

NIMBY. (Not In My Back Yard)

"I want to locate a nuclear waste facility upstream from your house, and the shipments will pass within 5 miles of your work location. Is that ok?"

Your average joe becomes an instant "envirowhacko" when you talk about putting a plant in his/her area.

If nuclear is all that whippy, it would not have to have heavy government subsidies.

I would prefer to subsidize things that aren't prime terrorist targets, as I have already stated.

[johnsmith]

The nukes are coming. They are being bid by contractors all over the US of A as we speak.

[1369]

The nukes are coming. They are being bid by contractors all over the US of A as we speak.

Before I left Florida in 2006 I heard that they had 4 permitted and isn't Bay City going to add another reactor as well as one outside Victoria?

Also, Cheniere (sp?) and some outfit called TexSun I think will be building two LNG depots outside Corpus in the near future.

Make a difference in energy prices? I can't say, but the construction hands will be making decent bank for a few years.

[johnsmith]

Before I left Florida in 2006 I heard that they had 4 permitted and isn't Bay City going to add another reactor as well as one outside Victoria?

Also, Cheniere (sp?) and some outfit called TexSun I think will be building two LNG depots outside Corpus in the near future.

Make a difference in energy prices? I can't say, but the construction hands will be making decent bank for a few years.

I've heard 3 permitted and the Bay City one is a go.

Cheniere is actually going to build the LNG in Portland right next to the Sherwin plant down there. It's the same one that was started in 06 and stopped shortly thereafter. The dirt is all moved for them though to begin again. Not sure who is building it this time around though. I've heard a couple of different rumors about it.

[1369]

I've heard 3 permitted and the Bay City one is a go.

Cheniere is actually going to build the LNG in Portland right next to the Sherwin plant down there. It's the same one that was started in 06 and stopped shortly thereafter. The dirt is all moved for them though to begin again. Not sure who is building it this time around though. I've heard a couple of different rumors about it.

Zachary isn't back on the Cheniere project? (I worked at Sherwin for many years and did work on the old Reynolds mud lakes to prep for the tanks. Sherwin supposedly has a sweetheart deal for cheap gas for their facility in exchange for all the engineering they paid for.). TexSun (Again, not sure of the name) is slated to be built in the cotton field between Sherwin and DuPont.

I also heard today that Florida Power and Light is looking to build a new facility across the highway from Sherwin.

[johnsmith]

Zachary isn't back on the Cheniere project? (I worked at Sherwin for amny years and did work on the old Reynolds mud lakes to prep for the tanks). TexSun (Again, not sure of the name) is slated to be built in the cotton field between Sherwin and DuPont.

I also heard today that Florida Power and Light is looking to build a new facility across the highway from Sherwin.

I heard that Bechtel's relationship with Cheniere is once again solid (which the falling out of the two is what led to Zachry getting the job the first time around), but then last week a buddy from Zachry mentioned he saw the job on their "list". So who knows.

[RandomGuy]

The nukes are coming. They are being bid by contractors all over the US of A as we speak.

Bidding and permitting is all well and good, but I will believe it when they clear the inevitable lawsuits.

I don't doubt that nukes will be built, but anybody who says that they will be "cheap" or profitable is deluding themselves.

Nuclear plants have always had massive cost overruns.

Just for kicks I googled the phrase: "nuclear plan cost overruns" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nuclear+plant+cost+overruns&btnG=Google+Search) and got this gem from 1984:


The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said the final costs for 77 percent of the plants now operating were at least double the pre-construction estimates.

"Sure," you say, "but that is from 1984, surely things have changed since then."

Not really. Go through the google search's articles, and you find things ranging from the mid- to early nineties, and stuff from last year, all saying the same things.

[RandomGuy]

Now we have a presidential candidate who advocates that we "be like France" and get 80% of our power from nuclear.

One of the bits that I found kinda saved me the trouble of crunching the numbers. I will quote it here:


------------------------------------------
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week:


... the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There's no reason why America shouldn't.

The Wonk Room, which has the audio, writes of the interview, " McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed. That is lame all by itself. But the statement quoted above is even more radical. McCain is repeating his little-noticed uber-Francophile statement from his big April 2007 speech on energy policy, "If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is -- Why would we? Let's do the math.

The U.S. has some one hundred nuclear reactors providing about nearly 100 Gigawatts of capacity (see here) and nearly 800,000 Gigawatt-hours of electricity, roughly 20% of total U.S. power. For the record, France has only 59 reactors, capacity of about 63 GW, generating 550,000 GW-hr (some of which is exported), covering nearly 80% of their usage (see here). [Note to Sen. McCain: France is a much smaller country than ours.]

What would it take for us to be 80% Nuclear?


We would have to quadruple the number of reactors to 400, which would take decades even if we could somehow return to -- and sustain -- the fastest decadal rate of U.S. nuclear plant construction. But that wouldn't mean just building 300 new nuclear plants, for several reasons.

First, by 2050, almost all of the existing plants would need to be replaced, so that is another hundred to build if we want to hit the 80% goal.

And then, since McCain is not a big booster of energy efficiency (his McCain-Lieberman climate bill has no substantive energy efficiency provisions in it at all), we have to deal with some 1.1% annual electricity growth, which means we'll need more than 600 nukes in 2050.

Third, McCain wants to switch much of our oil consumption to electricity (a strategy I endorse). As he said in last year's energy policy speech:

I'll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids.... Fifty percent of cars on the road are driven 25 miles a day or less. Affordable battery-powered vehicles that can meet average commuter needs could help us cut oil imports in half.

We import more than 12 million barrels of oil a day. To cut that in half to 6 when EIA projects we will import over 16 in 2030 (see here), means replacing far more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline a year with electricity. If 80% of that electricity comes from nuclear power, then that is -- very conservatively -- another 100 nukes.


Bottom Line:

To satisfy McCain's odd desire to be like the French and get 80% of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (GW-sized) nuclear power plants by midcentury -- more than one a month.

Although we have been unable as a country to agree on even one storage site for our existing nukes' radioactive waste (Yucca Mountain), the McCain plan would require seven such sites -- for a longer discussion of just what 700 GW would entail, see the Keystone Center's 2007 nuclear study discussed at "Nuclear Power No Climate Cure-All."

And remember that the Bush administration just signed a deal permitting all reactor fuel to come from Russia post-2020 (see here). McCain trusts the Russians so much, he wants to exclude them from the G-8 meetings. So where would we get all our uranium from?

Finally, in October, Moody's Investors Service said "new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build" -- I'll be posting a longer review of nuclear costs soon, and suffice it to say, Moody's estimate is not the high end these days. Since $6,000 per kw is $6 billion per GW, 700 GW would require a cost of some $4 trillion, assuming there was no significant cost escalation from production delays and from the serious bottlenecks in the nuclear supply chain (see "Look up nuclear bottleneck in the dictionary....") -- and not even counting the cost of the uranium.

Dontcha think the country could find a better use for that kind of money in the effort to avoid catastrophic global warming and the harsh consequences of peak oil -- something better than committing this country to an ultimately unsustainable high-cost energy source for the entire 21st Century?

Apparently the GOP nominee thinks the answer is "no." Caveat Emptor!

For my fellow energy realists, I would add that it would take an astonishing effort just to have nuclear power in 2050 provide the same 20% of U.S. power it does today -- an outcome I am not inherently opposed to, but I certainly wouldn't devote yet more tens of billions of federal subsidies to, as McCain would, especially given the myriad flaws nuclear power has.

That's why I have little doubt that if we can move beyond the uninformed platitudes of people like McCain and ever really get serious about global warming and peak oil, then the realistic, affordable solution is at hand -- namely energy efficiency to avoid significant load growth, concentrated solar power to replace most coal, and wind power for plug-in charging. And yes, we'll still have some hydro and nukes and combined cycle natural gas turbines and/or cogen in 2050, and possibly even some coal with carbon capture and storage, assuming that industry ever gets serious about that possible solution.
--------------------------------
Link to source (http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/05/05/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plantscost-4-trillion/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjoseph-romm%2Fmccain-calls-for-700-new_b_100053.html&frame=true)

You might not like the partisan slant of the article, but when he uses non-partisan sources like Moody's who are paid to be as right as possible, one has to really consider the the possibility that nuclear is not the solution that some seem to think it is being more probable than not.

Massive cost-overruns are a hallmark of nuclear plants. If you see the company that wants to build it estimate $100 million for the plant, you can safely bet that it will end up costing $200 million or more.

Solar and wind power, for all their drawbacks don't tend to have 200%+ cost overruns, and can, through simple tax incentives, be done in a free-market way that provides steady jobs for a good number of people over the entire country, in every community.

[RandomGuy]

Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.

In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.

If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.

If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.

[johnsmith]

Bidding and permitting is all well and good, but I will believe it when they clear the inevitable lawsuits.

I don't doubt that nukes will be built, but anybody who says that they will be "cheap" or profitable is deluding themselves.

Nuclear plants have always had massive cost overruns.

Just for kicks I googled the phrase: "nuclear plan cost overruns" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nuclear+plant+cost+overruns&btnG=Google+Search) and got this gem from 1984:



"Sure," you say, "but that is from 1984, surely things have changed since then."

Not really. Go through the google search's articles, and you find things ranging from the mid- to early nineties, and stuff from last year, all saying the same things.

Dude, go and google this "Every fucking Industrial project built over the last 25 years"..........they'll all look the same as your cute little search above.

Sucks doesn't it, but that's how contractors make money. They're called change orders and they're our friends.

[johnsmith]

Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.

In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.

If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.

If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.

Have you ever been to a nuclear plant? I've been to one in Florida and one in Arizona. I can fucking promise you that a truck full of explosives isn't going to make it anywhere near where it has to get to in order to cause some damage. I can also promise that an airplane won't make it near there either.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, go and google this "Every fucking Industrial project built over the last 25 years"..........they'll all look the same as your cute little search above.

Sucks doesn't it, but that's how contractors make money. They're called change orders and they're our friends.

Turns out I was wrong about only being two times more expensive...


A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.

source link (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)


Ooopsies.

Sorry, but wind power and so forth don't suffer the same cost overruns.

I understand that cost overruns are common in construction. Nuclear seems to be much worse than other projects, though.

[johnsmith]

I don't know if nuclear is the way to go or not, but I do know the shit you spew on here as fact is absolute garbage when it's outside of your "economics degree".

[johnsmith]

Turns out I was wrong about only being two times more expensive...



source link (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)


Ooopsies.

Sorry, but wind power and so forth don't suffer the same cost overruns.

I understand that cost overruns are common in construction. Nuclear seems to be much worse than other projects, though.

There is a small little cement plant being built between SA and New Braunfels. Cost has gone up 75% since the project started. It doesn't fucking matter what kind of job it is, it always happens.

And it's not the gov't fault, it's not the contractors fault, it's not the engineers fault..........it's no ones fault. It's just the way it works and has always worked.

[RandomGuy]

Have you ever been to a nuclear plant? I've been to one in Florida and one in Arizona. I can fucking promise you that a truck full of explosives isn't going to make it anywhere near where it has to get to in order to cause some damage. I can also promise that an airplane won't make it near there either.

Funny, but you didn't answer my question:

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

[johnsmith]

Turns out I was wrong about only being two times more expensive...



source link (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/)


Ooopsies.

Sorry, but wind power and so forth don't suffer the same cost overruns.

I understand that cost overruns are common in construction. Nuclear seems to be much worse than other projects, though.

Wind power eh? Funny, the cost of steel and concrete has gone up enough over the last year that guess what.............................................R eady............................................th ey're already overrun.

[johnsmith]

Funny, but you didn't answer my question:

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

And you didn't answer my question, have you ever been to one? If you had, you'd know the answer.

Black Hawks stationed at the plant. Air Force on constant alert near the plant. 100's of guards armed with M-16's and very shitty sense of humors.

8' thick reinforced concrete around everything that could actually cause damage.

etc, etc, etc.




The plant manager at one told me that a 747 could fly into the reactor and if you were standing inside of it, you wouldn't even know it happened.


Now, answer my question, have you ever been or are you just assuming it's an easy target?

[RandomGuy]

I don't know if nuclear is the way to go or not, but I do know the shit you spew on here as fact is absolute garbage when it's outside of your "economics degree".

I don't have a degree in economics. I have the better part of a master's in accounting.

That means I understand cost overruns better than you might think. ;)

I pointed out stuff from the Wall Street Journal, and what seems to be a fair estimate of the true cost of "going nuclear", and didn't rely on telling anybody how smart or educated I was.

If all you got is ad hominem, you got jack. :jack

I want facts, figures and some logical responses.

[RandomGuy]

8' thick reinforced concrete around everything that could actually cause damage.

From what I have read, that doesn't include the waste storage facilities, although that has hopefully been changed.

Next question:

Do you propose doing all this for all 500-700 new plants too?

If so, how does that affect the cost per unit of electricity generated from nuclear, smart-boy?

It doesn't take a fancy degree to answer that one...

[RandomGuy]

And you didn't answer my question, have you ever been to one? If you had, you'd know the answer.

Black Hawks stationed at the plant. Air Force on constant alert near the plant. 100's of guards armed with M-16's and very shitty sense of humors.


Hundreds of guards for every nuclear plant?

Source?

(bet it rhymes with your-pass)

Let's run with this. 200 guards for one plant. Average salary and benefits cost per armed gaurd (remember armed guards are better trained and cost more than you might think), $40,000 each.

40k*200= $8,000,000 PER YEAR in added cost to generate power from ONE plant.

Multiply that times 200, and you get an added cost JUST FROM THE GUARDS, at $1.6 BILLION. PER YEAR.

Care to re-think that?

[johnsmith]

I don't have a degree in economics. I have the better part of a master's in accounting.

That means I understand cost overruns better than you might think.

Ok


I pointed out stuff from the Wall Street Journal, and what seems to be a fair estimate of the true cost of "going nuclear", and didn't rely on telling anybody how smart or educated I was.

If all you got is ad hominem, you got jack.

I want facts, figures and some logical responses.

Dude, you're going to be a college professor one day. No real world experience, just spout off what you know to be "fact" because you read it online.


You still haven't answered either of my questions but rather just changed the subject. Have you been to one? Are you just assuming they are easy targets?

You also never replied to your new education on cost overruns regarding wind power.


All you do is dance around the subject, post shitty links, and sit on a high horse that when knocked off, you don't even notice it because you are too busy being impressed with yourself.

[ElNono]

I think we kind of derailed this thread into a Nuclear discussion. Honestly, I see this increase in gas basically the same way I see it in oil. Highly political, with a lame duck president on his way out and little incentive to do anything about it.
So companies are testing the waters to see what people are willing and able to pay, as opposed to what the market prices are. Once they find that limit, they'll try to stay there and maximize profits for as long as they can. In the meantime, we're just going to keep paying them what they want.

[Extra Stout]

My money is in solar.

[xrayzebra]

Funny, but you didn't answer my question:

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

Well first off, they have to know what specific truck is carrying the material. There are many trucks right now, on the highway, as we speak carrying atomic weapons, waste material and other radioactive material. They don't advertise it and trucks appear as any normal truck would.

RG, you know as well as I do, that there is so much hazardous material being moved on our highways that if someone wanted to cause havoc they wouldn't have to pick one carrying radioactive waste.

You speak of wind/solar power, neither of these are completely reliable. Wind doesn't always blow and when the sun goes down so does the means to create power using solar panels. Unless you convert everything to DC or they come up with some way to store the power for use on slack wind days and nighttime.

[johnsmith]

From what I have read, that doesn't include the waste storage facilities, although that has hopefully been changed.

Next question:

Do you propose doing all this for all 500-700 new plants too?

If so, how does that affect the cost per unit of electricity generated from nuclear, smart-boy?

It doesn't take a fancy degree to answer that one...

Construction costs have been included in electricity costs forever, nothing will change.


Again, I don't know if this is the right solution, but I do know that you talk out of your ass regularly.

[johnsmith]

Hundreds of guards for every nuclear plant?

Source?

(bet it rhymes with your-pass)

Let's run with this. 200 guards for one plant. Average salary and benefits cost per armed gaurd (remember armed guards are better trained and cost more than you might think), $40,000 each.

40k*200= $8,000,000 PER YEAR in added cost to generate power from ONE plant.

Multiply that times 200, and you get an added cost JUST FROM THE GUARDS, at $1.6 BILLION. PER YEAR.

Care to re-think that?

Who said hundreds of guards per plant?

Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.

Now, answer my fucking question you spineless bitch. Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?

[RandomGuy]

Black Hawks stationed at the plant.

Purchase cost of one Black hawk: $5,600,000

Per plant at 200 plants: $1,120,000,000

Given that one plant itself costs upwards of $10 billion, that isn't much extra cost.

BUT

again, you have to add that purchase, and all subsequent maintenance in as a difference between that unit of energy generated from nuclear and any other source. Figure 4-6 pilots, constantly running the engine to keep the engine warm for instant takeoff, possibly a second bird for redundancy in case the first one goes down, maintenance costs, bla bla bla.

Like I said, the extra costs just make it that much less competitive versus other alternatives.

I'm sorry if this is some pet project of yours, but don't force your boondoggle on the rest of us.

I have other things to do with my money that waste it on shitty ideas.

[RandomGuy]

Who said hundreds of guards per plant?

Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.

Now, answer my fucking question you spineless bitch. Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?



Black Hawks stationed at the plant. Air Force on constant alert near the plant. 100's of guards armed with M-16's and very shitty sense of humors.

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.

[RandomGuy]

Construction costs have been included in electricity costs forever, nothing will change.


Again, I don't know if this is the right solution, but I do know that you talk out of your ass regularly.

I know construction costs are included in electricity costs.

My point is that the cost overruns in nukes tend to make the ending cost per unit of electricity a lot higher than proponents predict.

My second point is simply a logical conclusion from this:

Nuclear isn't really cost competitive compared to other forms of electricity generation.

I can't make it simpler than that.

Nukes WILL be built and they WILL be part of our future electrical generating mix.

BUT

It isn't *the* solution, I would say based on what I read, that it is a boondoggle of massive proportions. Certainly not worth investing trillions in.

There are better options to get more bang for the buck.

[RandomGuy]

Now, answer my question, have you ever been or are you just assuming it's an easy target?


No. I have never been to a nuclear power plant.

I have toured a coal plant, and will get around to touring a newer gas plant with my son on one of my days off during the summer.

No, as I stated previously, I do not assume that they are easy targets. I do assume that it is expensive to gaurd them, and KNOW that the costs of gaurding the plant is not present in wind farms.

[RandomGuy]

Well first off, they have to know what specific truck is carrying the material. There are many trucks right now, on the highway, as we speak carrying atomic weapons, waste material and other radioactive material. They don't advertise it and trucks appear as any normal truck would.

RG, you know as well as I do, that there is so much hazardous material being moved on our highways that if someone wanted to cause havoc they wouldn't have to pick one carrying radioactive waste.

You speak of wind/solar power, neither of these are completely reliable. Wind doesn't always blow and when the sun goes down so does the means to create power using solar panels. Unless you convert everything to DC or they come up with some way to store the power for use on slack wind days and nighttime.

Given a few years to plan and survey, a properly motivated team of 4-5 people could easily figure out schedules of fuel/waste shipments.

One doesn't even have to get it out on the road. Simply wait for a suitable truck to show up at the gate of the facility and go for it...

I don't assume that wind/solar will be *the* solution either, for exactly the reason you described: reliability. They will be a large part of the solution, though, and certainly larger than they are today.

Storing the power will be where fuel cells will come into their own, especially for larger buildings. Charge more for peak power, as WILL happen, and these fuel cells will be economical, assuming energy gets more expensive.

[johnsmith]

Purchase cost of one Black hawk: $5,600,000

Per plant at 200 plants: $1,120,000,000

Given that one plant itself costs upwards of $10 billion, that isn't much extra cost.

BUT

again, you have to add that purchase, and all subsequent maintenance in as a difference between that unit of energy generated from nuclear and any other source. Figure 4-6 pilots, constantly running the engine to keep the engine warm for instant takeoff, possibly a second bird for redundancy in case the first one goes down, maintenance costs, bla bla bla.

Like I said, the extra costs just make it that much less competitive versus other alternatives.

I'm sorry if this is some pet project of yours, but don't force your boondoggle on the rest of us.

I have other things to do with my money that waste it on shitty ideas.


The Air Force uses the black hawk and has people stationed there. They don't bill the plant for the cost.

Also, it's no "pet project", in fact, I don't have anything to do with nuclear plants other then help with materials. I just don't like you talking out of your ass.

[johnsmith]

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.

Again, when did I say 100's of gaurds PER plant?


See, I can use big fonts to point out that you're an a-hole too.

[johnsmith]

I know construction costs are included in electricity costs.

My point is that the cost overruns in nukes tend to make the ending cost per unit of electricity a lot higher than proponents predict.

My second point is simply a logical conclusion from this:

Nuclear isn't really cost competitive compared to other forms of electricity generation.

I can't make it simpler than that.

Nukes WILL be built and they WILL be part of our future electrical generating mix.

BUT

It isn't *the* solution, I would say based on what I read, that it is a boondoggle of massive proportions. Certainly not worth investing trillions in.

There are better options to get more bang for the buck.


See, that's an opinion that you didn't pass off as "fact", making you sound like less of an a-hole.

[johnsmith]

No. I have never been to a nuclear power plant.

I have toured a coal plant, and will get around to touring a newer gas plant with my son on one of my days off during the summer.

No, as I stated previously, I do not assume that they are easy targets. I do assume that it is expensive to gaurd them, and KNOW that the costs of gaurding the plant is not present in wind farms.

I've helped build a coal plant, neat aren't they?

Gas plants aren't all that exciting, but good money makers.

I'm sure it is expensive to guard them.

[johnsmith]

Given a few years to plan and survey, a properly motivated team of 4-5 people could easily figure out schedules of fuel/waste shipments.

One doesn't even have to get it out on the road. Simply wait for a suitable truck to show up at the gate of the facility and go for it...

I don't assume that wind/solar will be *the* solution either, for exactly the reason you described: reliability. They will be a large part of the solution, though, and certainly larger than they are today.

Storing the power will be where fuel cells will come into their own, especially for larger buildings. Charge more for peak power, as WILL happen, and these fuel cells will be economical, assuming energy gets more expensive.


You know that Texas is building wind farms all over the place right? I hope it works out too.

But I couldn't help but notice that they are also planning and building a whole bunch of other energy producing plants as well, so I guess we'll just have to live with all of them.

[johnsmith]

I must go now and contribute to the massive over pollution of America. If I don't stop posting I'm going to drive up material costs all over the place from lack of production. SO take care.

[RandomGuy]

Again, when did I say 100's of gaurds PER plant?


See, I can use big fonts to point out that you're an a-hole too.

(shrugs)

You implied it. Don't blame me for your inability to communicate coherently.

What exactly were you talking about when you said "100's of gaurds"? The air force base?

I don't think that each plant has hundreds of gaurds, but went with it.

I would guess that a standard guard contingent for a nuclear facility is probably more on the order of a few dozen, say around 40-50.

Either way, this is still a rolling cost that a wind farm or a solar collector, or even the solar panels on your roof don't have.

[RandomGuy]

The Air Force uses the black hawk and has people stationed there. They don't bill the plant for the cost.



A government subsidy of the plant. That just makes the ultimate cost of the electricity produced at the plant hidden, and more expensive than the operators would admit.

[RandomGuy]

You know that Texas is building wind farms all over the place right? I hope it works out too.

But I couldn't help but notice that they are also planning and building a whole bunch of other energy producing plants as well, so I guess we'll just have to live with all of them.

Yes, we will.

Of course the "envirowackos" downwind from the coal plants they are planning on building aren't too happy about that...

The biggest environmental problems with wind is that they kill birds, and are something of an eyesore, both of which are fine with me personally.

Solar power is also something of an eyesore, but, apart from the pollution in building the thing in the first place, has almost no environmental costs.

We will get our power from somewhere, but there are a lot of things that are making wind and solar more attractive options.

[RandomGuy]

I've helped build a coal plant, neat aren't they?

Gas plants aren't all that exciting, but good money makers.

I'm sure it is expensive to guard them.

I'm sure it is. The gas plant that I'm taking my son to has a couple of visible guards out front.

I am also just as sure it is cheaper to guard the coal and gas plants per MW produced than it is per nuke.

You can't make a highly radioactive bomb with coal or natural gas.

[johnsmith]

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.

Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.



Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.

In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.

If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.

If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.


That was the question you posed remember?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.



Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.

You sure about that?

[RandomGuy]

Again, when did I say 100's of gaurds PER plant?


See, I can use big fonts to point out that you're an a-hole too.

...sooo when you said "100's of guards" you meant what, 200 total guards for 200 plants?

What exactly did you mean?

[spurster]

Nuclear is far from perfect, but seems to be the only non-CO2 option at this point that can provide steady and on-demand energy. I don't see the logic of stating one risk (more nuclear waste on the road) and then claiming that it's no good. Everything has risks and benefits. It's a matter of trying to rationally pick the best rather than going hysterical when you hear the N word.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." - Voltaire

[RandomGuy]

Nuclear is far from perfect, but seems to be the only non-CO2 option at this point that can provide steady and on-demand energy. I don't see the logic of stating one risk (more nuclear waste on the road) and then claiming that it's no good. Everything has risks and benefits. It's a matter of trying to rationally pick the best rather than going hysterical when you hear the N word.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." - Voltaire

That's pretty much what I said, or at least what I tried to say before getting roundhoused...

Security risk is ONE reason why I don't like nuclear.

Other reasons:

From what I understand they use a LOT of water. This will make them much less efficient and attractive as water gets scarcer, as water is doing already.

Massive cost overruns. As I have already alluded to. These cost overruns are far and away over other construction projects.

Cost of security. As I have already stated.

NIMBY. Adds to costs and makes it all the less feasible.


None of this is really enough to totally rule nuclear out, as it still has some strong benefits.

BUT

When one weighs this against other forms/methods of power production, nuclear becomes much less competitive economically, and politically, versus the alternatives.

Do not confuse me with someone who is "hysterical" about nuclear power. It simply doesn't stack up well.

[1369]

From what I understand they use a LOT of water. This will make them much less efficient and attractive as water gets scarcer, as water is doing already.

Depends on what system they use for cooling water. A "closed circuit" system only needs to replace what is lost through evaporation after the initial charge of the cooling water lake. On the other hand a "once through" system, if located near the coast, can use the heated water in a desal system.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on what system they use for cooling water. A "closed circuit" system only needs to replace what is lost through evaporation after the initial charge of the cooling water lake. On the other hand a "once through" system, if located near the coast, can use the heated water in a desal system.

(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.

One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of forms of electrical generation use heat to turn water into steam in order to turn a turbine that generates the electricity.

If you use the water just once, and let the steam escape, your cost of generating is linked to the cost of the water.

If you can re-use the water somehow by naturally cooling the steam and getting it back into liquid water, then you have reduced your exposure to the cost of water.

[johnsmith]

(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.

:lol:lol:lol

Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

Oh yeah, talking out of your ass and claiming "expert" on every subject............my bad.

[RandomGuy]

:lol:lol:lol

Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

Oh yeah, talking out of your ass and claiming "expert" on every subject............my bad.

Speaking of talking out your ass:



I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.



Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.

You sure about that?

[RandomGuy]

Who said hundreds of guards per plant?

Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.

Now, answer my fucking question you spineless bitch. Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?



Black Hawks stationed at the plant. Air Force on constant alert near the plant. 100's of guards armed with M-16's and very shitty sense of humors.

So what did you mean by "100's of guards"?

100's of guards at the airforce base?
100's of gaurds total spread out among all nuclear plants?

When you say "at the plant" twice that pretty much implies that the third thing on your list of security measures was also "at the plant" doesn't it?

[RandomGuy]

[Randomguy] , you never said anything about expense until that particular post [i.e. before post #36 of this thread].



Post #17 of this thread:


Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.

In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.

If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.

If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.

I noticed I never got an answer to my question, either.

Who is talking out their ass again?

[johnsmith]

Ok, you're right, you mentioned expenses before that, and I missed it.

As for the 100's of guards, I probably meant throughout the US.

Now, none of that was talking out of my ass like you do EVERY DAY ON THIS FORUM.

Even Boutons, Dan, Yoni and everyone else that posts links at least acknowledge that they are expressing opinion.

You do nothing but spout off misinformation, call it "fact", and then get mad and go in circles when called out on it.

Now, since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine:


(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.


Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

[RandomGuy]

Ok, you're right, you mentioned expenses before that, and I missed it.

As for the 100's of guards, I probably meant throughout the US.

Now, none of that was talking out of my ass like you do EVERY DAY ON THIS FORUM.

Even Boutons, Dan, Yoni and everyone else that posts links at least acknowledge that they are expressing opinion.

You do nothing but spout off misinformation, call it "fact", and then get mad and go in circles when called out on it.

Now, since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine:
(why did you bring it up as an issue)


Because it is still an issue that must be addressed.

You will notice that I put "to my understanding", indicating that to the best of my knowledge, water was and is an issue, but holding out the possibility that I could be less than 100% informed on it.

Despite what you seem to think, I always try to state my level of certainty as to any given information.

I do make mistakes from time to time, but 100% pony up when I do.

I have a high level of comprehension and a pretty good memory for what I read, but I do occasionally mis-remember things. If I can't find a good source or link, I try to never present any "fact" as a fact.

Please show where I spout off misinformation as "fact". One example. Put up or shut the fuck up.

[johnsmith]

Because it is still an issue that must be addressed.

You will notice that I put "to my understanding", indicating that to the best of my knowledge, water was and is an issue, but holding out the possibility that I could be less than 100% informed on it.

Despite what you seem to think, I always try to state my level of certainty as to any given information.

Please show where I spout off misinformaiton as "fact".

No, I'm done with this conversation just as I am done with you. I can only point out your horseshit for so long before I grow tired of the arrogance and the political forum in general.

Take care.

[RandomGuy]

No, I'm done with this conversation just as I am done with you. I can only point out your horseshit for so long before I grow tired of the arrogance and the political forum in general.

Take care.

Translation:

"I can't put up so I am shutting the fuck up."

(shrugs)

If all I do is "spout misinformation" then it should be easy to do. If it is easy, and you dont do it, then you are simply lazy.

If what I say is generally correct then you can't do it, and you are wrong.

So... by not providing an example when asked, you are either lazy or wrong.

[johnsmith]

Translation:

"I can't put up so I am shutting the fuck up."

(shrugs)

If all I do is "spout misinformation" then it should be easy to do. If it is easy, and you dont do it, then you are simply lazy.

If what I say is generally correct then you can't do it, are you are wrong.

So... by not providing an example when asked, you are either lazy or wrong.



I guess I'm just lazy then.

You see, you and Boutons have a lot in common. You're both reasonably intelligent people that are just an annoyance because "you're always right", just ask, you'll tell us.

(shrug)

You're a douche bag, and like I said before (nod), I'm tired of you and this discussion.

[RandomGuy]

I guess I'm just lazy then.

You see, you and Boutons have a lot in common. You're both reasonably intelligent people that are just an annoyance because "you're always right", just ask, you'll tell us.

(shrug)

You're a douche bag, and like I said before (nod), I'm tired of you and this discussion.

Spoken like a true douchebag.

"You're wrong"

"How am I wrong?"

"You just are, 'cause I don't like you."

Sorry I don't let you bully me around. You're not in 7th grade anymore, stop acting like it.

[Winehole23]

Storing the power will be where fuel cells will come into their own, especially for larger buildings. Charge more for peak power, as WILL happen, and these fuel cells will be economical, assuming energy gets more expensive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2013/11/the-100-000-battery-that-could-help-hotels-save-bundles-of-money/281194/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/are-we-talking-about-energy-or-power-in-california

[boutons_deux]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2013/11/the-100-000-battery-that-could-help-hotels-save-bundles-of-money/281194/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/are-we-talking-about-energy-or-power-in-california

Germany is moving hard to distributed electrical storage. It's coming, but the centralized electricity companies will fight it hard, even try to penalize it, like AZ trying to penalize its residential solar customers for using the grid to feed in electricity.

SA's muncipally owned CPS Energy isn't being aggressive at all, but of course the city PROFITS from revenue from CPS, so I don't expect the mayor/manager/council to lean hard on CPS to promote distributed electricity generation.

Cut $200B from the corrupt, wasteful DoD corporate-welfare to finance a Manhattan project for energy storage and increasing solar panel efficiency.

[boutons_deux]

Germany Finances Major Push Into Home Battery Storage For Solar

At its disposal is the giant state-owned but independently run development bank KfW. It performs in the clean energy space a similar function to Australia’s recently created and imminently doomed Clean Energy Finance Corp, but at such a scale that is not contemplated in most countries, possibly with the exception of China.

It has assets of more than €500 billion, and lent €73 billion last year – with one-third of that targeted at renewables and climate investments. Over the past three years it provided €24 billion in loans for energy efficiency investment in homes, leveraging a total investment of €58 billion, helping insulate and seal more than 2 million homes, employing 200,000 people a year and saving more than 150 million tonnes of carbon.

Six months ago, it began a new program to finance the introduction of battery storage into homes and small business, which it says is absolutely essential if the “energiewende”, the German expression for its energy transition – is to successfully move to the next phase and beyond 40 per cent renewable penetration.
The energy storage financing program has generated a higher than expected response. Already 1,900 homes and small businesses have put their hands up for loans and grants (provided by the Environment Ministry) to install new solar systems and a battery storage system in their home. Around €32 million in loans has already been allocated and €5 million in grants, about 10 per cent of the sums allocated in the initial phase of the program.

Unlike the subsidised uptake of solar PV enabled by the deployment of generous feed-in tariffs, the support mechanism for energy storage is more cautious. Indeed, KfW is looking for investors who are willing to take a loss on their investment.

“The market for energy storage systems is very young … batteries are still very expensive … and the economics don’t yet work,” program manager Dr Holger Papenfuss, told RenewEconomy in an interview in KfW’s sprawling headquarters in Germany’s financial centre of Frankfurt this week.

In fact, even with the assistance of the loans and grants, it is still not economically viable. Which is why KfW has stepped in to ensure that the commercial banks provide the funds for development.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/germany-finances-major-push-home-battery-storage-solar/