White House Memo - TaskForce, comprehensive strategy on CCS

[abqmufc]

White House memo sent to Sec. of State, Attorney General and 12 heads of government agencies.


"SUBJECT: A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon
Capture and Storage

For decades, the coal industry has supported quality high-paying jobs for American workers, and coal has provided an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and coal accounts for 40 percent of global emissions. Charting a path toward clean coal is essential to achieving my Administration's goals of providing clean energy, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race....

To further this work and develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, I hereby establish an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (Task Force). You shall each designate a senior official from your respective agency to serve on the Task Force, which shall be Co Chaired by the designees from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Task Force shall develop within 180 days of the date of this memorandum a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The plan should explore incentives for commercial CCS adoption and address any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, social, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force should consider how best to coordinate existing administrative authorities and programs, including those that build international collaboration on CCS, as well as identify areas where additional administrative authority may be necessary. The Co Chairs shall report progress periodically to the President through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-a-comprehensive-federal-strategy-carbon-capture-and-storage

From my experience when the U.S. Government uses words like "demonstration project" or "pilot projects" you can be assured laws and regulations such as the Clean Air Act, operating permits, public hearings, public comment periods are NOT required nor need be followed. You could wake up one day soon and see a pipeline running across your land or near by. You could have a carbon capture sequestration site (and other non-filtered out pollutants like lead and mercury) under you soon. New "clean coal" power plants won't need to follow the Clean Air Act as they could be deemed part of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program of the New Source Review program of the Clean Air Act. It is this part of the Act where the EPA will regulate GHGs. And in doing so they will be allowed to bring online CCS and clean coal, and nuclear with no discourse.

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/psd.html

The EPA has been given its charge already on the subject matter by the 'expert.'

http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/climate/2010_02_InterimPhaseIReport.pdf

[kristopher]

1. More payola for the bluedog healthcare votes... nt.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. No, I don't think that's the explanation

DoE (ahem) "restructured" FutureGen, in January 2008:
http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2008/08003-DOE_Announces_Restructured_FutureG.html

Issued on: January 30, 2008

DOE Announces Restructured FutureGen Approach to Demonstrate Carbon Capture and Storage Technology at Multiple Clean Coal Plants

Affirms Commitment to Clean Coal Technology Investments; Requests $648 Million for Coal Research, Development and Deployment for FY09 Budget - Largest Coal Budget in More Than 25 Years

Washington, DC - U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced a restructured approach to its FutureGen project that aims to demonstrate cutting-edge carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at multiple commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) clean coal power plants. Under this strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will join industry in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be operational by 2015. This approach builds on technological research and development advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over the past five years and is expected to at least double the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered compared to the concept announced in 2003. Clean coal technology is a vital component of the Bush Administration's vision for a cleaner, more secure energy future and this more cost-effective approach will demonstrate IGCC-CCS clean coal technology to enable wider use and commercialization more rapidly.

...

Senator Obama reacted immediately:
http://www.grist.org/article/obama-joins-illinois-legislators-pushing-to-revive-futuregen/

Nine members of Illinois' congressional delegation are urging President Bush to keep the FutureGen clean-coal power plant on track.

In a letter sent to the president today, the bipartisan group said it has lost faith in Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman after meeting with him Tuesday. Bodman, in that meeting, told the lawmakers that his agency wants out of the public-private partnership planning to build the plant in Mattoon.

The Energy Department, which was supposed to provide about three-quarters of the funding, has complained about the $1.8 billion price tag.

The letter was signed by Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and Representatives Tim Johnson, Ray LaHood, Rahm Emanuel, Peter Roskam, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis.

Even before President-Elect Obama had taken office, the course was clear:
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/news/releases/pr_01-08-09.stm

January 8, 2009

Durbin and Delegation Members Discuss FutureGen with DOE Secretary Nominee

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation today discussed the importance of moving FutureGen forward as soon as possible with President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The meeting included Representatives Tim Johnson (R-IL), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Bill Foster (D-IL), Jerry Costello (D-IL) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) along with staff from the office of Representative John Shimkus (R-IL).

"The Obama Administration's approach toward the environment and securing our nation's energy future is encouraging," said Durbin. "It is clear after today's meeting, Dr. Chu understands the importance of FutureGen to Illinois and is fully aware of the delegation's commitment to moving the project forward. Having fought to keep FutureGen alive for nearly a year, I am looking forward to working with the Illinois Delegation, Dr. Chu and the Obama Administration to make this project a reality."

"I am highly encouraged by Secretary Chu's open-mindedness on this issue and as I told him in our meeting, he is 180 degrees apart from the last Secretary of Energy who attempted to abandon this project against all reason. Secretary Chu agreed that coal is an important element of our energy future, and based on his comments, I remain optimistic that as the new Administration gains momentum, FutureGen will indeed be part of our future," said Johnson.

...

Soon, FutureGen was back in business:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031102306.html

Bush May Have Set Back 'Clean Coal' Efforts by 10 Years, Report Says

By Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Bush administration's decision to halt production of an experimental power plant that would capture and store carbon dioxide emissions underground may have set back "clean coal" technology in the United States by as much as a decade, according to a congressional report released at a hearing yesterday.

Also, cost estimates used as justification for killing the commercial-scale project known as FutureGen were grossly exaggerated because Energy Department officials did not account for inflation, according to a Government Accountability Office report, also released yesterday.

The two reports, commissioned by the House Committee on Science and Technology, represent the latest efforts by the Illinois congressional delegation to revive the plant, which would be built in the small Illinois town of Mattoon. President Obama took part in the delegation's efforts when he was in the Senate.

The Bush administration killed plans to build the plant in December 2007, just hours after Mattoon was chosen over two sites in Texas, triggering allegations that the move was political.

...

http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7419.htm

May 23, 2009

U.S. and Italy Sign Agreement to Collaborate on Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies

ROME, ITALY – U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today joined with Italian Minister of Economic Development Claudio Scajola to sign a bilateral agreement to advance carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in each country. Working together, the U.S. and Italy will further the development of technologies needed to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired powered plants and move toward a sustainable low carbon economy that addresses the challenge of global warming.

“To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we must accelerate our efforts to capture and store carbon in a safe and cost-effective way. This agreement between the Department of Energy and Italy’s Ministry of Economic Development will play an important role in advancing the development and commercial deployment of CCS technologies in the years ahead,” said Secretary Chu.

...

http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7454.htm

June 12, 2009

Secretary Chu Announces Agreement on FutureGen Project in Mattoon, IL

Paves Way for First US Commercial Scale Carbon Capture and Storage Project

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance that advances the construction of the first commercial scale, fully integrated, carbon capture and sequestration project in the country in Mattoon, Illinois.

...

It's amusing to me that you would prefer to think that the Obama administration is unprincipled rather than accept that they are sincere about pursuing goals you disagree with.

[abqmufc]

3. Yep - "clean coal technology" means IL coal mines can open...

as dirty coal can be burned as clean. No shock the UofIL now has the largest research grants on the subject.

Having been born and raised in IL and work for the State government, just another classic example of patronage.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Is James Hansen just some political hack from Illinois?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

...

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO₂.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits.

Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

...

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

...

[kristopher]

5. Hansen isn't a specialist in energy systems.

[joshcryer]

20. No, he's an environmentalist who understands that CO2 is a problem.

[kristopher]

28. And I'm an energy analyst that is dedicated to solving the CO2 problem

While you are a shill for the nuclear industry.

[joshcryer]

42. No, you are a wind industry shill who is threatned by nuclear, the largest form of CO2 free energy..

...after hydro.

[kristopher]

45. "Wind industry shill"

:rofl:


It is hilarious that you claim that there are "wind industry" shills. First, as the nuclear proponents on this board love to point out, wind is a nascent industry with virtually no money to spend on either lobbying or propagandizing the public. In comparison, the nuclear industry is a huge contributor to our political machine - $86 million in direct lobbying of Congress in the first 9 months of 09 alone. It is also has a well organized coordinated lobbying/public relations machine that has a 50 year track record of misinforming and lying to the public. Unfortunately we have no idea how much they spend on direct public outreach via commercial public relations entities such as you work for.

Next is the nature of the word "shill".

A shill is someone that pretends to be something they aren't in order to gain the confidence of the intended victims of a con artist. Upon gaining that confidence, the shill uses it to vouch for the credibility of the risk the victim is being asked to take.

That fits you to a tee.

You came on this board pretending to be a highly informed crusader for climate change. Instead, you've demonstrated a total commitment from the start to defending the nuclear industry climate change being nothing more than a convenient justification...

From day one, I've never made any representations about what I support as a solution to climate change. In my training as an energy analyst specializing in carbon management technologies, among other things I accomplished the same basic research that is contained in
Jacobson's paper on solutions to climate change and energy security, and independently I arrived at the same conclusions that he has written up.

In other words, unlike you I am honest, independent and well informed.

[kristopher]

6. ""It is clear after today's meeting, Dr. Chu understands the importance of FutureGen to Illinois"

The physics and logistics behind CCS condemn the approach as an energy solution. Therefore the pursuit of the technology has other motivations.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. If we were building an infrastructure from scratch, that would be one thing

However, we are dealing with a preexisting infrastructure, which is heavily dependent on coal.

We cannot replace that entire infrastructure overnight. CCS is a way to retrofit our current infrastructure to minimize its harmful effects, while we overhaul it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html

...

The UCS report, "Coal Power in a Warming World," proposes that the federal government fund five to 10 full-scale demonstration projects to test carbon-capture-and-storage technology's ability to cut coal power plant emissions. The report also calls for a halt in construction of new coal plants that do not capture and store carbon emissions, even though U.S. utilities are currently planning to build more than 100 plants without the technology. The country can meet its near-term energy needs and curb emissions, the report contends, using readily available renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies.

...

Despite these challenges, the report concluded that carbon-capture-and-storage technology has enough potential to help curb global warming to warrant large-scale demonstration projects. These projects would help determine how the technology compares with other low-carbon energy technologies and whether it merits broader deployment. However, the report cautions that coal's other environmental and societal impacts must be factored into any assessment of the viability of carbon capture.

"Even if coal capture and storage works on a commercial scale, coal will still be dirty," said Steve Clemmer, UCS Clean Energy Program research director and co-author of the report. "The technology doesn't address the environmental threat posed by mining, transporting and disposing of coal." To make coal cleaner, he said, the government should ban mountaintop removal mining, strengthen oversight of mine waste slurry impoundments, and tighten and enforce mine safety laws.

Given that coal has significantly worse health and environmental consequences than other energy options that may prove less expensive, less risky and less harmful to public health and the environment, the report calls on the federal government to dramatically increase the deployment of energy-efficiency, renewable-energy and energy-storage technologies while it invests in carbon-capture-and-storage-technology demonstration projects. Doing so would help ensure that federal research and development funding does not unduly favor coal. It also would expand the nation's options for responding to climate change.

...

(The UCS report echo's the Hansens' letter to the Obamas.)

[kristopher]

8. We ARE dealing with building an infrastructure from scratch

Just as extraction requires a dedicated infrastructure, so too does sequestration with any known technology. The retrofit idea must accompany an examination of potential reservoirs and a plan for getting it to those reservoirs. How many pounds of CO2 does one pound of coal produce?

A plant BUILT AT THE SITE of a potential reservoir avoids that problem, but then you are back to building plants that, in the end, are much less cost effective at avoiding future CO2 emissions than the same amount of money spent on renewable energy sources.

This shit is business as usual in Washington and it is not defensible.

ere: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. You do love that report.

I don't.

For example, on page 156, he calculates the time to build a nuclear plant, including:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/PDF%20files/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

...

The time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant includes the time to obtain a site and construction permit, the time between construction permit approval and issue, and the construction time of the plant. In March, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first request for a site permit in 30 yr. This process took 3.5 yr. The time to review and approve a construction permit is another 2 yr and the time between the construction permit approval and issue is about 0.5 yr. Thus, the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 yr.

...

3.5 years
2.0 years
+.5 years
6.0 years (minimum)

Well, I'm certainly no nuke booster, but that's what I call a dubious conclusion. Based on a sample size of 1, he's determined that the minimum time for the NRC to approve a site permit is 3.5 years. The minimum time to review and approve a construction permit is 2 years, and the minimum time from permit approval and issue is half a year.

Would you agree those also represent the maximum times? (The conclusion is equally valid if you ask me.)

This sort of stuff makes me question the whole report.

[kristopher]

11. Your likes really have nothing to do with the validity of the analysis

You are criticizing Jacobson for using the most accelerated timeline that is suggested by the nuclear industry as the minimum value in his analysis?

The process for that regulatory structure is currently underway so he used the actual elapsed time together with the time remaining as projected by those promoting this structure as being the new standard.

His sample data includes not only the current goal of the nuclear industry but the historic data regarding what has been accomplished in the past.

I can' think of a more concrete set of data that a researcher could collect. To consider that the goal now established is a maximum in the face of the actual performance data of the industry past and present is a very bizarre perception.

But at least you are honest to a point - you don't "like" the study and you want to find some way to discredit it. I suspect the motivation involved is your clear wish for hydrogen fuel cells to be a better option than batteries.

The ethanol and nuclear people don't like the study very much either, if that makes you feel any better...

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. So, you really think that's a valid conclusion?

i.e. "the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 yr."

[kristopher]

13. How would you do it differently?

Would you use the regulatory hypothetical that failed to be achieved?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I would state that it is a recent example

Then, I would look at how much variability we might reasonably expect.

To make a comparison, do you feel it would be valid to use the approval process for "Cape Wind" to determine the minimum time for the approval of an off-shore wind farm in the US?

http://www.capewind.org/news3.htm

New analysis of Cape Wind project shows $25 Million in energy savings annually

Monday, March 25, 2002

YARMOUTH, MA — A new review of the proposed Cape Wind project estimates $125 million in savings for the region’s consumers over its first five years of operation. The analysis of the project’s impact o­n New England electricity market prices was conducted by La Capra Associates, a leading energy consulting firm based in Boston, MA.

...

[kristopher]

15. That is reasoning so poor you'd have to call it "self serving"

There is a long history of nuclear plant construction both here and around the world which goes into the time to completion values that Jacobson used. The fact that he used the MOST OPTIMISTIC TIMELINE FROM THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY as a minimum in that range is an absolutely bizarre thing to object to.

To use Cape Wind as an illustrative example of something comparable to what he did we'd need to fit it into the matrix of thousands of competed wind projects. You could narrow that down to only those in the US, or alternatively you could look at only offshore projects to see if there is a significant difference emerging between terrestrial and offshore wind. Either way Cape Wind needs to fit into the overall picture. And, what would become evident quickly is that Cape Wind is obviously outside the norm. There are good reasons for that - the developer attempted to build a project where there was no regulatory structure in place to govern the process being first among
them - and for those reasons it would be a poor choice as a representative model of the time needed to build an offshore wind farm.

Since you specified offshore wind: More accurate data would be obtained by using 1) the historic record of projects that have been completed. Those are all European projects, so you'd need to use those projects (and any problems they've experienced) to inform 2) the Dept. of Interior MMS planning forecasts that have emerged from the nearly decade long process of policy formation for governing alternative energy development in public waters.

Now that a set of rules are in place there is a defined uniform process that can guide the development.

Knowing that we return to your original self serving bit claim - that using an outlier like Cape Wind (that initiated the mover to develop regulations for developing offshore wind in the US) is analogous to using the Dept of Energy's new regulatory regime that has been developed after 50+ years of experience with nuclear power.


No, they are not analogous.

It isn't the same.

You just don't like the Jacobson paper because it demonstrates that hydrogen technology isn't as effective as battery technology and you are willing to sacrifice your intellectual integrity on the alter of your personal preferences.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. A classic ad hominem

I point out that the author has overstated his case.

You feel the need to attribute that to some nefarious motive on my part.

[kristopher]

19. Bullshit.

Your critique was so blatantly baseless it begs the question of what your reason for making it was. I very clear answered your criticism TWICE and you have totally ignored the substance of my response. The MINIMUM VALUE USED BY JACOBSON IS THE BEST CASE THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IS HOPING TO ACHIEVE.

You made an attempt to parse the use of minimum in a false and prejudicial manner, and now that the meaning was made clear you are trying to divert attention by whining that I'm picking on you.

[Statistical]

26. Not it isn't.

Best case scenario would be 4 years planning + 4 years construction.

MEAG submitted COL application in 2008 for Vogtle 3 & 4. They believe first reactor (Vogtle 3) will be online in 2016 and the second (Vogtle 4) in 2017. That is 2 reactors online in 8 years including planning. Maybe they miss the deadline but that is the goal.
To state the author used what the nuclear industry is attempting to achieve is completely false. The minimum value was one chosen by him to intentonally increase time before reactors will come online (putting nuclear in bad light and these magical 2 year wind farms in good light).

10 to 19 years is a anti-nuker fantasy concocted by the author of the study.
Please prove your false claim. Show an industry source anywhere that says MINIMUM time the industry is trying to achieve is 10 to 19 years for a reactor.

[joshcryer]

31. His planning time really fucks the nuclear score on his study.

If new nuclear can be built quicker then the score is improved dramatically because he includes opportunity cost of emissions due to delays (where wind gets zero).

[kristopher]

33. It is only one of many factors...

And to date the preponderance of the evidence STRONGLY supports his analysis.

[joshcryer]

36. One of many factors? Planning time is one of the most "expensive" of *all* the variables.

If more realistic times were given then nuclear could beat out hydro.

[Statistical]

39. Well kristopher is correct the author uses bogus numbers in numerous factors.

He assumes 80% capacity factor (vs 92% in reality). Lower capacity factor means for the purpose of study more reactors are required.

He assumes average reactor peak output will be 850 MW. Nobody even sells 850MW anymore. Ever reactor under construction or planned around the world is 1000MW+ with most being 1150MW, 1350MW, or 1600MW. Lower output means more reactors are needed to achieve goals of study.

He assumes average reactor lifespan of 40 years despite Gen II reactors being extended to 60 years and GenIII+ being rated at 60+60 (60 year lifespan plus extension of up to 60 more).

So while you are correct construction time is the most important factor he basically undercounts nuclear energy on every single possible factor.

[kristopher]

40. He used the same numbers the MIT study used...

[joshcryer]

41. If true that doesn't make the numbers right.

I haven't looked at the MIT study in some time.

[joshcryer]

23. Fucking nukenut.

:puke:

(Joking.)

[kristopher]

29. Still waiting for you to respond to the content...

[joshcryer]

32. What content?

[Statistical]

16. Even worse he is completely wrong.

There is no separate site permit and construction permit.

There is simply a "combined construction and operating license" (COL).
COL is the only thing a utility needs to construct & operate an approved reactor in the United States.
That is the whole point of regulatory change in late 1990s. The standardization was designed to combat the laundry list of diverse/overlapping permits & licenses that existed before.


Now a utility has the CHOICE (but not requirement) of obtaining an "early site permit" (ESP) however this is optional. Some utilities have chosen to get one and others have not. There are 26 COL currently in approval process but only 6 ESP have been requested. Adding the completion time for ESP to total approval time is once again a way to "pad the time".

So if an ESP is optional why would utilities apply for it?
a) it allows non radiological construction to begin on site before COL is issued (laying foundation, building access roads, erecting security fences, setting up transmission lines, etc)
b) Environmental impact statement (EIS) is the same between an ESP and COL so it can speed up COL process.
c) ESP allows utility to "lock in" a site for nuclear reactors for up to 20 years without requiring a financial commitment. Many sites simply do not have the demand for additional generation at this time however having an ESP gives utility flexibility.

Still even if one "pretends" an ESP is required there is substantial overlap between the time-lines of two permits. One doesn't need an ESP to submit request for COL. So adding the times together linearly is stupid. There is also overlap between construction time-line and COL process.

Vogtle Reactor 3 & 4
ESP submitted: 08/2006
ESP issued: 08/2009
COL submitted: 03/2008
Construction Started: 04/2009
COL issued: ??? early 2012

Advanced site prep work has been going on at Vogtle for over a year now (back filling foundation) so one should subtract that time from the post COL construction time but author doesn't do that either. In essence he makes ESP mandatory, "charges" all the time/cost of ESP but doesn't reflect any of the benefit (non-radiological construction started before license issued).

Approval time-line for COL is 4 years. NRC provides time-lines updated monthly on their website which bear this out. This is just one of hundreds of "small mistakes" that he makes and they all happen to be biased against nuclear.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna/review-schedule.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project/review-schedule.html

Public hearings aren't listed because NRC doesn't schedule them until all other steps are completed. Time frame for public hearings is 6 months.

Of course the author also concludes construction time is a decade also despite numerous reactors built in the last decade averaging 4 to 6 years from concrete pour to criticality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. I cannot say I'm surprised

(Sigh...)

[joshcryer]

22. Yeah, I saw this, too, but given that we haven't built any, he can be given the benefit of the doubt

OK, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear reactor. Let's build one and see, shall we?

We know damn sure that some wind farms are going in to their second decade of planning...

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. That's impossible

According to the report, "Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr."

[joshcryer]

30. Another thing is that his cite for wind farm planning to construction times is a website...

...that no longer exists. It's just pulled out of his ass.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

35. Prove me wrong, show me the wind cite.

[joshcryer]

37. Here's what Jacobson says about wind delays:

The time between planning and operation of a wind farm includes a development and construction period. The development period, which includes the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease the land, monitor winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and obtain permits, can take from 0.5–5 yr, with more typical times from 1–3 yr. The construction period for a small to medium wind farm (15 MW or less) is 1 year and for a large farm is 1–2 yr. 66 Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.

66 T. Van de Wekken, Doing it right: The four seasons of wind farm
development, 2008, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reworld/story?id=52021

I don't see any cite there anywhere.

[joshcryer]

38. A google search for the article has "some guy" making claims with no peer citations.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34745234_ITM

It's nonsense. T. Van de Wekken is a wind energy engineer, not a scientist. It's not a peer reviewed claim by any means.

I did my own search for the largest wind farms and up to 1/3rd of them take more than 5 years to complete due to conflicts with locals. It was not robust however, so I didn't make a post about it. If I make a more robust search I may do so.

[kristopher]

43. Yes do that.

Do a study of the time to complete for wind. If it's good, it would be welcomed and probably have a good chance of getting published in a decent journal. Hell, I'd even consider collaborating on it if you were serious about doing a good job.

But be sure its good; I imagine you are still tasting those black feathers from when you set out to prove a point about electric rates.

I find it interesting you try and belittle this guy on wind, yet you routine accept unsubstantiated and outrageous claims by nuclear proponents here as if they were the gospel truth....

Ton is one of KEMA’s wind turbine experts with broad international experience of wind turbine/farm design and operation. Ton’s experiences in renewable energy, and in particular wind energy, start in 1990 and from that date without intermission he has worked in the field of renewables. At the Netherlands Energy Research Foudation (ECN) until mid 1990s Ton was responsible for assessing, certifying and testing new wind turbine designs. Part of the certification work was assessing the wind turbine safety systems, structural integrity and electrical safety with respect to the applicable standards. As a result of the certification activities Ton participates in several international working groups on certification. Also at ECN Ton performed measurements, i.e. wind speed, power, noise level, loads and vibrations, on prototype wind turbines located at site.

Throughout the mid/late 1990s Ton worked at a wind turbine manufacturing company as senior R&D engineer and project manager responsible for the development, testing and type-certification of new wind turbines (750 kW), and maintenance engineering (both preventative and corrective) of operational wind turbines. Key achievements during this period were the lowering of noise levels on 80 and 250 kW designs, a retrofit programme for 200 towers sensitive to fatigue failures and a repair programme for weak carbon rotor blades. In cooperation with a local wind turbine maintenance company the repair and testing of the carbon rotor blades was performed at site in India, state of Tamil Nadu.

From end of 2001 Ton is employed at KEMA as wind turbine expert. For several clients, mainly project developers, manufacturers and maintenance companies, projects have been performed varying from feasibility phase up to tendering procedures, wind farm commissioning and operation and maintenance matters.

The background of Mr. Ton van der Wekken is MSc (Delft University) in aerospace engineering.

http://www.leonardo-energy.org/node/1477


But he is "not a scientist" according to you...

Also, it is funny how the people you disagree with are so often stripped of the credit for their life's work by you. I suspect you've never accomplished much yourself in the way of personal development.

[joshcryer]

44. He's not, he's an engineer. And the denialosphere is full of engineers.

And just so we're clear here, my point was proved with electric rates and my very robust analysis that followed daily demand.

Poor people are shafted under new metering methods.

[kristopher]

25. Another bunch of bull from another losing technology..

You've omitted a couple of things - by accident, I'm sure.

An early site permit is what had been applied for at the time the paper was written. There have now been 4 issued (including Vogtle) and Vogtle is the exception, not the rule (see below).

Now, what is an Early Site Permit? It allows a company to apply for a permit without committing to building a reactor. It is the core of the Nuclear Industry plan that removes oversite of the process from influence in the public realm. No particular plant design need be submitted. No challenges can be posed to the plant for the 20 year duration of the permit. There is no recourse to problems with public safety issues except through the NRC and its incestuous relationship with the industry. I invite readers to imagine where the line between prudent business decisions and public safety would be drawn by this bureaucracy under the leadership of another administration in the Bush/Cheney mold...

So, while the ESP deprives the public of any control of the process once the permit is issued, does it actually speed up the process?

You tout the fact that they've started construction at Vogtle, but what about at the sites that received the other 3 permits? How are they doing?

At the time the article was written, the Clinton project is the one that Jacobson must have been looking at, not the Vogtle project.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/clinton.html
Rcvd permit application: 9/25/03
Permit issued 3/15/07

Since we have Grand Gulf:
Rcvd permit application: 10/21/03
Permit issued: 3/27/07


North Anna site:
Rcvd permit application: 9/25/03
Permit issues: 11/20/07

Vogle:
Rcvd permit application: 8/15/06
Permit issued: 8/26/09

Clinton is in a state that won't allow new nuclear, so it the permit applied for in 03 has not resulted in anything to date - 7 years and counting.
Grand Gulf (in user friendly Mississippi) submitted an application for a Combined Operating License on February 27, 2008. but by the end of the year they had withdrawn their application.
The North Anna reactor was was also applied for in 03, and it too has yet to break ground due to having to clear state hurdles at the state level in NC and VA. 6.5 yrs and counting.

In addition to the ESP, plants also must obtain a design certification permit for the reactor and a COL. Neither of which is actually factored into your claims related to time to completion.

So, your critique of Jacobson rings pretty hollow when the projects and the totality of circumstances are reviewed.


Jacobson's actual text:

The time between planning and operation of a technology includes the time to site, finance, permit, insure, construct, license, and connect the technology to the utility grid.

The time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant includes the time to obtain a site and construction permit, the time between construction permit approval and issue, and the construction time of the plant.

In March, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first request for a site permit in 30 years.

This process took 3.5 years.

The time to review and approve a construction permit is another 2 years and

the time between the construction permit approval and issue is about 0.5 years.

Thus, the minimum time for preconstruction approvals (and financing) is 6 years.

We estimate the maximum time as 10 years.

The time to construct a nuclear reactor depends significantly on regulatory requirements and costs.

Because of inflation in the 1970s and more stringent safety regulation on nuclear power plants placed shortly before and after the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979, U.S. nuclear plant construction times increased from around 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980(63).

The median construction time for reactors in the U.S. built since 1970 is 9 years(64).

U.S. regulations have been streamlined somewhat, and nuclear power plant developers suggest that construction costs are now lower and construction times shorter than they have been historically.

However, projected costs for new nuclear reactors have historically been underestimated (64) and construction costs of all new energy facilities have recently risen.

Nevertheless, based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4-5 years(65) and those times based on historic data(64), we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4-9 years.

Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10-19 years.

Now lets look at your timeline:ESP submitted: 08/2006
ESP issued: 08/2009
COL submitted: 03/2008
Construction Started: 04/2009
COL issued: ??? early 2012

WIKI:

On August 15, 2006, Southern Nuclear formally applied for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for two additional units. The ESP will determine whether the site is appropriate for additional reactors, and this process is separate from the Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) Application process.<10> On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear announced that it had submitted an application for a COL, a process which will take at least 3 to 4 years.<11> On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors designed by Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba) and the Shaw Group (Baton Rouge, LA).<12> The contract represents the first agreement for new nuclear development since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and received approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) on March 17, 2009.<13> As stated by a Georgia Power spokesperson Carol Boatright: "If the PSC approves, we are going forward with the new units."<12>

On August 26, 2009 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. Construction activities have begun.

[joshcryer]

27. If it was losing you wouldn't have to spend hours on this site saying it was losing.

It would be self-evident. Instead you insist on poor logic and disinformation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. You're also arguing against a straw man by the way

You assume that the only way to sequester carbon is by pumping it underground.

Calera's solution fixes the carbon chemically.
http://www.calera.com/index.php/technology/

Now, they suggest selling the product off for building material (as a financial incentive.) However, you could, just as well, landfill it.

[joshcryer]

21. We are *not* building infrastructure from scratch *fast enough*.