Comments on Next Big Future: Lester Brown Plan B is mathematically and logistic...

what I indicated was misleading was the Plan B cha...

2008-07-14T15:29:00.000-07:00

what I indicated was misleading was the Plan B chart and text which sometimes indicates replacing all fossil fuels. It is more clear with the backup material but the roughly 12 page summary was not clear.

In reality, supply chain issues do matter. Even if a damn the costs and resources kind of approach were to be adopted then relative cost and resource use should still be a factor. In which case it does not make sense to focus on only wind and solar and geothermal. Nuclear energy already provides 20% of electricity. China is scaling up to 100 AP1000 reactors built or being built by 2020. (1.25-1.7GW sizes). Plus they are making mass producable meltdown proof high temperature reactors.

how many people died from the French leak ? Zero.

There is background level radiation in the ocean and water and environment.

I do not think that you are calculating the subsidies for wind power correctly.

Feed in tariffs are multiple billions of dollars per year for wind and solar

This site has looked a energy costs with externalities included and the data does not support your claims

Price Anderson has cost nothing to the tax payer because no payouts have ever been triggered. Based on the calculations of when Price Anderson would be triggered the possible costs are not that high. There are no containment domeless reactors for the high cost Chernobyl case.

You complain about any non-private funding or guarantees for nuclear and then support a plan B effort with massive public spending ala a world war 2 mobilization. So is non-private funding bad. If so then there should be no non-private funding for Plan B. If a larger public spending effort is in order then the optimum spending plan and plan with the fastest results should be considered and one that involves the least barriers to adoption from the countries that would matter (china, India, US, Europe, Canada, japan, Brazil).

So which was is it ? Big public spend for a new energy plan or private only funding ? If it is a big public spend then everything should be considered. If it is a new call for private only that is a change because all energy sources get public money in every country.

Looking at materials used for construction as well Offshore manufacturing of wind involves a lot more effort and materials than onshore which uses a lot more material to generate the same power as nuclear.

The global wind energy report

The average feed-in tariff over 20 years for turbines
installed in 2007 ranged from 8.19 euro cent/kWh ('initial
tariff') to 5.17 euro cent/kWh (‘basic tariff’). The initial
tariff is reduced by 2% every year, so it will be 8.03 to
5.07 euro cent/kWh for turbines installed in 2008.

20TWh at an average 2008 feedin tariff rate of 6.5 euro cents is $1.3 billion euro.

By 2020, the overall German onshore capacity could be at
45,000 MW, assuming an optimal use of sites and no general
height restrictions for turbines, with an additional 10,000
MW offshore. This would account for about 25% of German
electricity consumption, or about 150 TWh/year.

30% reduction in feed in tariff.
5 euro cents per kwh.

7.5 billion euro/year for the 150TWh capacity.

150TWh is less than the 806 TWh produced by thirty year old nuclear technology in the USA from 99GW of nuclear. 55GW of nuclear would produce 440 Twh. About three times more than the projected 2020 Germany wind situation from a global wind group.

the current situation is that air pollution and other pollutants from coal and oil and natural gas are killing millions of people every year. (World Health Organization). Global warming is a potential issue. But addressing air pollution is a pressing concern for today. If the fear of global warming can be used to help address this real issue then all the better. But those informed about the energy and pollution issues should recognize that nuclear is far better and available to help reduce those deaths sooner just as they already have by displacing coal and oil for 20% electricity generation.

85% of energy from all uses is now from fossil fuels. 8% is from nuclear power. If nuclear power was not used up to this point then that would have been more coal and natural gas.

I could not disagree more with the title and conte...

2008-07-14T14:22:00.000-07:00

I could not disagree more with the title and content of this posting. A quick visit to earthpolicy.org allows you to download a blueprint of Plan B with references as well as access all data behind the calculations. For starters, the goal of Plan B is not to replace all fossil fuel use economy-wide, as this posting insinuates. The goal is to reduce net carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. In achieving this goal, the power generation sector replaces all coal, oil and 70 percent of natural gas with renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Fossil fuel use in the industrial sector is maintained to build the renewable infrastructure.

Second, capacity factors are not ignored. The capacity factors applied are from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Power Technologies Energy Data Book. The capacity factor used for wind is 36%. Thus, 3,000 GW of wind capacity will generate 9,461 TWh (34,059 PJ). A capacity factor of 36% in the year 2020 is well within reason since the next decade will see an explosion of offshore wind capacity, which is more reliable than onshore. Also, wind turbines being installed today have higher capacity factors than many wind turbines presently operating, due to better designs that enable the turbines to spin at slower wind speeds.

Thirdly, the mentality that supply chains and prices will thwart Plan B is definitely thinking inside the box. As explicitly explained, the entire economy will require retooling, much like the retooling of the economy for arms production during World War II. Realizing the Plan B economy will revitalize economies, creating jobs and lifting people out of poverty. While trillions of dollars over the next dozen years sounds like a lot, it is comparable to expected spending for fossil fuel development and military operations to protect oil supplies. With the introduction of the proposed Plan B carbon tax, the economy will efficiently shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. It is not a money issue. The money is already there. It is just being invested in the wrong areas.

Fourthly, the goal of Plan B to hold nuclear power generation at its current level is a sound strategy. Any cost accounting quickly exposes the exorbitant cost of nuclear power. The total amount of incentives handed out to the wind industry in its 25 year history in the United States is equal to a single year of incentives handed out to the nuclear industry during the first 40 years of nuclear development. Nuclear is also high risk and, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers must shoulder the burden in the event of a nuclear accident. And accidents still happen. Case in point is the nuclear leak that occurred in France last week. Besides, one of the only reasons that nuclear is competitive today in the United States is that many nuclear plants were sold to utilities at below cost. And if you think the private sector can develop nuclear power, think again. The only 100% privately-financed nuclear plant is being constructed in Finland and it is years behind schedule and billions over budget.

Lester Brown never said that achieving Plan B would be easy. When one takes the time to get the facts straight, it becomes clear that Plan B offers a solid strategy to stabilize climate and to move us towards a sustainable world economy.

The Wind Power numbers from that study are a fanta...

2008-07-03T12:55:00.000-07:00

The Wind Power numbers from that study are a fantasy.

The variability in wind power means its true utilization rates are <20% while most other power sources are > 90%. Add in the maintenance needs and other overhead and its just not competitive economically or by any other measure with primary load sources like coal and nukes.

Brian Thank you for this excellent post. Right no...

2008-07-03T05:56:00.000-07:00

Brian Thank you for this excellent post. Right now there is a whole lot of very bad thinking about energy. You have cut through some of the crap.