Lester Brown is pushing an Earth Policy Institute plan for replacing all coal, oil and most natural gas by 2020 Their calculations for energy are flawed. It appears that they ignore capacity factor. They also do not look at pricing or consider the build up of factories and supply chain. Although I guess some of that comes from an assumption of taking over (mobilizing) existing automotive factories and converting them to building wind turbines.
Plan B includes a cost of $4.5 trillion for the wind turbines alone. This does not count the production of new factories and does not count the build out of grid. It also does not address intermittent nature of wind abd solar power. The supply chain build up is the bigger cost and strain. Also, taking the necessary steel and concrete allocation. Also, the biomass increase will still contribute to air pollution. 
3000GW of wind in Plan B but wind has only 20-40% capacity factor. The european avg is 25% load factor over the course of a year (European average). US average is 30%. The US wind capacity produced 31 billion kWh per year from 16.8GW)2007. American wind farms will generate an estimated 48TWh from 24GW. So 3000GW would produce 5500 TWh.
UPDATE:
Spreadsheets for Plan B indicate that there is a proper units view:
It also indicates that while capacity factor is considered for overall power. The intermittent nature of solar and wind power is not. Plan B also focuses on electricity generation and while the initial charts they use look at the total energy picture they will still have a lot of oil usage for transportation and coal and oil usage for industrial purposes. So the graph which shows no oil and coal usage is only addressing electricity and not transportation and industrial energy usage.
=========
Nuclear already generates 2600 TWh. The base reference case for the EIA International energy outloook 2008 is for an increase in nuclear power to 3290 TWh in 2020 (no mobilization just existing trends). 690 more TWh with no mobilization. The Lester Brown turn there nose up at what people are already going to build with a dismissive nuclear costs too much according to Amory Lovins, when the plan is for upwards of $10 trillion in extra spending.
Spend a few billion on assisting and accelerating the development and $500 billion for deployment of the MIT annular fuel system for 50% power uprates to existing reactors. This would allow for 1600 more TWh to the reactors that exist now and are planned to be built anyway. So less than 10% of the spending to get 41% of what the wind energy turbine build is targeting.
$2 trillion per year in energy infrastructure spending is already the default projection for 2015.
In the IEO2008 reference case, the world’s installed nuclear capacity grows from 374 gigawatts in 2005 to 498 gigawatts in 2030. The IEO2008 projection for nuclear electricity generation in 2025 is 31 percent higher than the projection published in IEO2003 only 5 years ago.
They rely heavily on efficiency gains from replacing cars to plug in hybrids and new public transportation and changing out all appliances and increasing industrial efficiency by upgrading to the most efficient equipment.
This still leaves 300+ exajoules of coal, oil and natural gas. The 6000GW of renewables that they propose does not even replace the electricity generation because of the reduced capacity factors.
They need to re-examine the calculations, the supply chain, the costs, training of people to build and install, and existing trends that would help with their goal of greenhouse gas reduction. They need to consider how the biomass is increased to minimize environmental impact. They do not just purposefully ignore political reality but they ignore economics, business and engineering reality as well. There charts hop from the overall energy picture to the electricity only generation picture without clarifying what is being done at the overall level.
A far better plan is the one presented by McKinsey consulting for offsetting climate change
This site also offers a better energy plan
July 02, 2008
Lester Brown Plan B is mathematically and logistically flawed
May 20, 2008
Some of T Boone Pickens oil predictions are wrong
T Boone Pickens has made various predictions about oil on MCNBC
"Eighty-five million barrels of oil a day is all the world can produce, and the demand is 87 million," he said. "It's just that simple. It doesn't have anything to do with the value of the dollar."
target=blank>Pickens founded BP Capital and has a 46% interest in the company which runs two hedge funds, Capital Commodity and Capital Equity, both of which invest primarily in oil and natural gas.
Pickens is also investing in wind energy
Pickens says that world oil production will not exceed 85 million bpd. The EIA says that Feb 2008, the world production is at 85.921 million bpd. March and April had 300,000 bpd increase from Saudi Arabia and 42,000 bpd increases in Brazil.
The IEA statistics for total world oil production rose to 87.47 million b/d in February, up from 87.29 million b/d in January, the IEA said, thanks to higher volumes from the Americas and the former Soviet Union.
It would appear by end of 2008, Thunder Horse (Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil rig) will come online in 2008 and produce 250,000 bpd sometime in 2009. More additions in Saudi Arabia in July. More increases in Brazil up to 500,000-600,000 bpd more by end of 2008.
I predict that Pickens is wrong on the production peak.
I predict that the May, 2008 EIA numbers will be 86+ million bpd. (Not April because of the UK strike and other issues in April)
I predict that the Sept, 2008 EIA numbers will be 87+ million bpd.
On the Oilsands
Pickens claimed that the oilsand development would be hindered by a shortage of welders and personnel.
When asked about Canadian Oil sands, he said he had $500 million invested in this segment. He has been there ten years. I pointed out that he has probably made five times on his investment and he agreed. He owns Canadian Oil Sands (CNQ) and Suncor (SU). I then asked him if he was worried about the fact that the Canadian government is going to raise taxes. He said that governments always tax profitable businesses. Chesapeake Energy (CHK) and SandRidge (SD) were two explorers that he mentioned.
Encana is projecting growth in their holdings in the Alberta oilsands from 35,000 barrels a day net to EnCana today to 100,000 next year (2009), to 200,000 by 2012 and to 400,000 barrels a day by 2016.
A third-quarter [2008] startup of the massive Horizon oilsands project will deliver 110,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the first phase. Construction to increase capacity to 250,000 bpd is already underway.
Pickens forecasts $150 a barrel price for oil in 2008
"The only way I see that oil doesn't continue to rise [is] if we had a global recession." he said. "That will happen at some point, but I don't see the Chinese stumbling until after the Olympics."
Pickens says natural gas is the only American resource that can reduce oil imports. He claims the effective use of natural gas could reduce oil imports by 40 percent. [Wind and solar can free up natural gas to replace 40% of oil use in the US within 10 years.] He dismissed ethanol as an alternative.
Prices could rise that high because of a weak dollar, supply/demand imbalance, and any hickup in production (like the Nigerian unrest that is blocking 500,000 to 1 million bpd).
Using nuclear power, wind and solar to free up natural gas would be part of a reasonable energy plan.
April 15, 2008
$153 million city dome protection from nuclear weapon and money generating applications
Click for larger image
I had previously looked at making two large concrete or nanomaterial monolithic or geodesic domes over cities which could protect a city from nuclear bombs.
Now Alexander Bolonkin has come up with a cheaper, technological easy and more practical approach with thin film inflatable domes. It not only would provide protection from nuclear devices it could be used to place high communication devices, windmill power and a lot of other money generating uses. The film mass covered of 1 km**2 of ground area is M1 = 2×10**6 mc = 600 tons/km**2 and film cost is $60,000/km**2.
The area of big city diameter 20 km is 314 km**2. Area of semi-spherical dome is 628 km2. The cost of Dome cover is 62.8 millions $US. We can take less the overpressure (p = 0.001atm) and decrease the cover cost in 5 – 7 times. The total cost of installation is about 30-90 million $US. Not only is it only about $153 million to protect a city it is cheaper and more maintainable than a geosynchronous satellite for high speed communications. Alexander Bolonkin's website The fact that this thing could generate so much revenue and be the platform for so many services and benefits makes the Domes look like certain fixtures for our future. It solves or improves the broadband problem, energy generation and a host of other issues.
The author suggests a cheap closed AB-Dome which protects the densely populated cities from nuclear, chemical, biological weapon (bombs) delivered by warheads, strategic missiles, rockets, and various incarnations of aviation technology. The offered AB-Dome is also very useful in peacetime because it shields a city from exterior weather and creates a fine climate within the ABDome. The hemispherical AB-Dome is the inflatable, thin transparent film, located at altitude up to as much as 15 km, which converts the city into a closed-loop system. The film may be armored the stones which destroy the rockets and nuclear warhead. AB-Dome protects the city in case the World nuclear war and total poisoning the Earth’s atmosphere by radioactive fallout (gases and dust). Construction of the AB-Dome is easy; the enclosure’s film is spread upon the ground, the air pump is turned on, and the cover rises to its planned altitude and supported by a small air overpressure. The offered method is cheaper by thousand times than protection of city by current antirocket systems. The AB-Dome may be also used (height up to 15 and more kilometers) for TV, communication, telescope, long distance location, tourism, high placed windmills (energy), illumination and entertainments. The author developed theory of AB-Dome, made estimation, computation and computed a typical project.
H/T to Wired Danger room
Yes, the Simpson's movie had a dome over Springfield.
His idea is a thin dome covering a city with that is a very transparent film 2 (Fig.1). The film has thickness 0.05 – 0.3 mm. One is located at high altitude (5 - 20 km). The film is supported at this altitude by a small additional air pressure produced by ground ventilators. That is connected to Earth's ground by managed cables 3. The film may have a controlled transparency option. The system can have the second lower film 6 with controlled reflectivity, a further option.
The offered protection defends in the following way. The smallest space warhead has a
minimum cross-section area 1 m2 and a huge speed 3 – 5 km/s. The warhead gets a blow and overload from film (mass about 0.5 kg). This overload is 500 – 1500g and destroys the warhead (see computation below). Warhead also gets an overpowering blow from 2 -5 (every mass is 0.5 - 1 kg) of the strong stones. Relative (about warhead) kinetic energy of every stone is about 8 millions of Joules! (It is in 2-3 more than energy of 1 kg explosive!). The film destroys the high speed warhead (aircraft, bomber, wing missile) especially if the film will be armored by stone.
Our dome cover (film) has 2 layers: top transparant layer 2, located at a maximum altitude (up 5 -20 km), and lower transparant layer 4 having control reflectivity, located at altitude of 1-3 km (option). Upper transparant cover has thickness about 0.05 – 0.3 mm and supports the protection strong stones (rebbles) 8. The stones have a mass 0.2 – 1 kg and locate the step about 0.5 m.
If we want to control temperature in city, the top film must have some layers: transparant dielectric layer, conducting layer (about 1 - 3 microns), liquid crystal layer (about 10 - 100 microns), conducting layer (for example, SnO2), and transparant dielectric layer. Common thickness is 0.05 - 0.5 mm. Control voltage is 5 - 10 V. This film may be produced by industry relatively cheaply.
If some level of light control is needed materials can be incorporated to control transparency. Also, some transparent solar cells can be used to gather wide area solar power.
As you see the 10 kt bomb exploded at altitude 10 km decreases the air blast effect about in 1000
times and thermal radiation effect without the second cover film in 500 times, with the second reflected film about 5000 times. The hydrogen 100kt bomb exploded at altitude 10 km decreases the air blast effect about in 10 times and thermal radiation effect without the second cover film in 20 times, with the second reflected film about 200 times. Only power 1000kt thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb can damage city. But this damage will be in 10 times less from air blast and in 10 times less from thermal radiation. If the film located at altitude 15 km, the
damage will be in 85 times less from the air blast and in 65 times less from the thermal radiation.
For protection from super thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb we need in higher dome altitudes (20-30 km and more). We can cover by AB-Dome the important large region and full country.
Because the Dome is light weight it could be to stay in place even with very large holes. Multiple shells of domes could still be made for more protection.
Better climate inside a dome can make for more productive farming.
AB-Dome is cheaper in hundreds times then current anti-rocket systems.
2. AB-Dome does not need in high technology and can build by poor country.
3. It is easy for building.
4. Dome is used in peacetime; it creates the fine climate (weather) into Dome.
5. AB-Dome protects from nuclear, chemical, biological weapon.
6. Dome produces the autonomous existence of the city population after total World nuclear war
and total confinement (infection) all planet and its atmosphere.
7. Dome may be used for high region TV, for communication, for long distance locator, for
astronomy (telescope).
8. Dome may be used for high altitude tourism.
9. Dome may be used for the high altitude windmills (getting of cheap renewable wind energy).
10. Dome may be used for a night illumination and entertainment
The protection from the first and maybe more nuclear missiles is very good. Better than other systems. But the best part is $153 million/city to make and install cheaper than a communication satellite launch. Put high speed communication all over it. Gigabit+ per second wireless citywide and upgradeable systems so when better communications gear comes along then upgrade to terabit per second.
Obviously if someone blows up your dome. It is war and you have made your cities at least twice as hard to kill. It would take time for the Dome to fall and there is a second or third layer dome farther below. Plus mini-domes could be inflated in the event of primary dome collapse or when you detect more nuclear launches. Mini-domes able to deploy quickly and handle 5 psi of over pressure can reduce any followup damage radius by ten times. Then dozens nukes would be needed to completely kill a city.
He is assuming the nuke blows up on the outside of the dome because if it hits the dome it would be destroyed and not blow up. Then the distance means that the explosive effect is far less. With other domes deployed then the overpressure blasts can be protected against as well.
FURTHER INFO
Bolonkin worked in Soviet aviation, rocket and Space industries and lectured in main Soviet University about 15 years. In particularty, in Kiev Aircraft State Design Bureau headed by O.Antonov, Bolonkin took part in design of aircraft AN-8 through AN-225 (Enginer-Senior Engineer-Chairman of Department); in Rocket engine Construction Bureau headed by Academician V.P.Glushko, Bolonkin was Chairman of Reliability Department and took part in design of rocket engines for main strategic rockets of the USSR; in TsAGI (central Aero-Hydrodynamic Research Institute) A. Bolonkin was a scientific researcher.
He lectured as a professor and worked as a Project Director in Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow Aviation Technological Institute, Bauman Highest Technical University, Technological Institute, He contacted with Construction Bureaus of Tupolev, Yakovlev, Mikoyan, Ilushin, Sykhoy, with all main aviation, rocket and space research and design Centrers of the USSR. He had many awards in the Soviet Union.
In 1988, Alexander Bolonkin arrived as a political refuge in the USA and became American citizen in 1994. He worked as a mathematician in Sherson Lehman Hutton (American Express), N.Y., (Research, computation, programming, Optimal portfolio of securities), a Senior Researcher in Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences of New York University; two years as a Senior Research Associate in Wright Laboratory, Flight Dynamic Directorate (Dayton, Ohio), (it is the main Laboratory of the USA Air Force with over 20,000 scientists); as a professor in New jersy Institute of Technology, Computer and Information Department. He worked as an expert of Association Engineers and Scientists in N.Y.C. (Estimation of new ideas, projects, patents. Consulting).
He worked two years as a Senior Research Associate in the NASA (Dryden Flight
Research Center) in California, Edwards.
Now Dr. Bolonkin lectures at the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Over the four years alone, A.Bolonkin published 9 scientific articles and books in the USA and a lot of articles in Russia-American press about scientific problems. He took part in three World Space Congress (1992, 1994, 1996), in World Aviation Congress (Los-Angeles, 1998, 1999) and eight National Scientific Conferences in the USa. In particularly, he published monograph "Development of Soviet pocket engines for Strategic Missiles", Delphic Ass., USA, 1991, 133 p., and large Chapter "Aviation, motor, and Space Designs" in book "Development Technology in the Soviet Union", pp.32-80, Delphic Ass., USA, 1990.
Alexander Bolonkin is the author of 60 scientific articles and books and 13 inventions
If frost damage protection can be provided. It could make sense to cover contiguous areas of Florida's citrus crops.
The Florida citrus industry provides $9 billion/year of crops from 748,000 acres of land.
One square kilometer is 247.1 acres.
$60,000/km**2 for material (triple for installed price).
Less than $700 per acre.
Could be about $500 million to protect Florida crops for decades.
Cheaper and smaller domes (around $200,000-1,000,000) could provide secondary containment for nuclear power plants by covering one square kilometer, while also providing aircraft and missile protection. It would be very cheap extra insurance.
March 30, 2008
The big energy picture
This is how much energy the United States was using from 2002 to 2006. Notice that solar is 0.1%. Nuclear increase from 2002 to 2006 was equal to the total amount of all solar power. (even though that was just operating efficiency and some small nuclear uprates).
Oil and fossil fuel usage was increasing. Petroleum (oil) was the primary source. 21 million barrels per day or about 7.4 billion barrels per year.
Oil usage in the united states is described here
Twenty times as much solar power as there was in 2006 would be 1.2 quads. It would be nice but 5% of the coal usage. Increasing wind by ten times 2006 would be 2.6 quads. Combined it would be equal to about what one would expect to be the business as usual increase in energy consumption. All of the old coal and oil would stay in place.
The California million roof plan is subsidies of $2.9 billion and the hope is to get 3GW of solar power installed by 2018. These kind of programs are not good energy investments because the same investment could buy more nuclear power, wind power or pay for the research for more efficient and effective solar or other energy. A Berkeley study shows that solar installations do not pay back their investment.
Biomass has a more significant share.
France was able to achieve over 30% energy from nuclear (80% of electricity) [4.4 quads out of 11.4 quads).
Brazil has been able to get more of its cars running on biofuels from sugarcane.
Energy Plan
Any reasonable energy plan has to look at still obtaining and using oil for the next ten to twenty years. This means enhanced oil recovery and new oil sources (such as the Bakken Formation) and new natural gas sources.
Even drilling oil from profitable reserves takes time. US drilling activity in 2007
Making our homes and houses more energy efficient. Heating, insulation and appliances need to be addressed more aggressively.
New technology for uprating nuclear power plants can add 50% more power to existing reactors within 10 years. Regular nuclear power uprates will be adding 4% to nuclear reactor in France and 2% to US reactors over the next 6 years. New nuclear plants are being constructed and could add 150-250 GW worldwide by 2020.
I had a prior post on short, mid and long term energy strategy.
Short term: conservation and drilling for more oil, enhancing oil recovery, uprate nuclear power, develop and deploy more efficient thermoelectric processes and technology, ecomod existing the fraction of the 800 million existing cars and trucks with a lot of highway travel (make them more aerodynamic with a focus on those that drive on the highway the most.), increase industrial and home efficiency. Adopt policies that shift energy away from coal and oil.
Mid-term (2012-2020) signficant nuclear power and efficiency technology could be brought into play. The privately funded nuclear "battery" (Hyperion Uranium hydride reactor) could be developed and placed into fairly high production (50 per year would be equal to one large nuclear plant
Kitegen is an interesting wind power technology which has interesting potential.
By 2015 Iris reactor and/or the Modular Helium Reactor could provide greater fuel and energy effiency and lower costs.
Nuclear fusion could start making a significant difference to the energy picture in the 2015-2020 timeframe if the IEC fusion, colliding beam fusion or some of the other private projects pan out.
UPDATE:
Oil prices fell March 31, 2008 to about $100/barrel.Refineries operated at 82.2 percent of capacity in the week ended March 21, the lowest since October 2005, the department said last week. Total implied US fuel demand averaged 20.3 million barrels a day in the four weeks ended March 21, down 2.2 percent [440,000 barrels per day, 0.8 quads which is more than the power from wind and solar from some demand destruction caused by higher prices] from a year earlier, the Energy Department said last week. Fighting between government forces and militiamen in Iraq eased after a truce offer from Moqtada al-Sadr. Iraq has the world's third biggest oil reserves, according to BP Plc.
Electric cars using a cellphone like billing service model could be dominant in countries like Isreal and Denmark within ten years. Smaller countries, islands (Hawaii, Singapore, some Japanese islands) and city regions with smaller service areas and higher gasoline prices and car taxes are most suitable for the new model.
March 14, 2008
Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources
Update: A superior form of solar power would be the Coolearth concentrated solar power system which would be installed on the ground or wires over a ground installation.
The ExternE calculation of death/TWh from different energy sources (not including global warming effects and is the average for European nations). 
This draws on data from 4290 energy-related accidents, 1943 of them classified as severe, and compares different energy sources. It considers over 15,000 fatalities related to oil, over 8000 related to coal and 5000 from hydro.
Deaths statistics from the fuel chain for coal and nuclear
Higher level of deaths from coal in public health would be related to the increased deaths from particulates. The deaths totals are more from coal occupation are mining.
The World Health Organization and other sources attribute about 1 million deaths/year to coal air pollution. Coal generates about 6200 TWh out of the world total of 15500 TWh of electricity. This would be 161 deaths per TWh.
In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh.
In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh.
The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e); & natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m**3 concrete.
Wind power generation was 95 GW at the end of 2007.
1 MW produces 3,066 MWh if 35% efficient.
20 GW in Germany generated 30 TWh in 2006.
95GW would be generating about 150TWh.
95000GW would have taken 43.7 million tons of steel and 82.7 million tons of concrete. 3% of one year of global steel production. 4% of one year of the world’s concrete production. Half of one year’s production in the US for steel. About 15 deaths if corresponded to half of one years metal/nonmetal mining fatalities. 0.1 deaths per TWh. If the metal and concrete had come from China about 2700 metal/nonmetal mining deaths per year for 5 times the amount of steel. 270 deaths to get the metal for the wind turbines. 1.9 deaths per TWh. These construction related deaths are amortized over the life of the wind turbines of 30 years. Other wind power deaths need to factor in dangers associated with working with very tall structures (50 stories tall) and with deep water work associated with building and anchoring offshore. Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. By comparison, hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996. This includes the Banqiao Dam collapse in 1975 that killed thousands.
Metal/Nonmetal fatalities in the USA (iron and concrete components mainly)
(3.1 GWp generated 2TWh in Germany for solar)
Coal and fossil fuel deaths usually do not include deaths caused during transportation. The more trucking and rail transport is used then the more deaths there are. The transportation deaths are a larger component of the deaths in the USA than direct industry deaths. Moving 1.2 billion tons of coal takes up 40% of the freight rail traffic and a few percent of the trucking in the USA.
Uranium mining is a lot safer because insitu leaching (the main method of uranium mining) involves flushing acid down pipes. No workers are digging underground anymore. Only about 60,000 tons of uranium are needed each year so that is 200 times less material being moved than for coal plants.
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
The safety issues with Rooftop solar installations
Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights.
Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths.
Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers.
In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh.
$4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007.
The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.
Maintenance and Functional life of solar panels
[Q26. Do they require any maintenance?
A26: Only an occasional wipe to ensure optimal performance of the solar panel.]
15. How long will the panels last?
Generally, systems last 20-30 years since the waterproof seals on the panels tend to deteriorate over time.
16. If I move home, can I take the solar panels with me?
You could take your solar power system down and re-install it at your new house provided the roof of the new house is suitable. Or, you could include it in the selling price of your house. If your house is in a remote area and the solar power system is the sole source of power, the purchaser of your house would be wise to make sure the solar power system is included in the price, or they’ll be left without electricity.
[Generally hail resistant but a storm big enough to damage a regular roof would also damage a rooftop solar panel system.]
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq24
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq28http://www.heatmyhome.co.uk/pv-solar-panels.htm
The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5 [also, solar power related]
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002
Conclusion:
Nothing is perfectly safe. Chasing perfection can cause us to ignore just improving and trading worse for a lot better. Non-roof installations of solar is safer than roof installation. Nuclear, wind, non-roof solar and hydro are a lot safer than coal and oil. Natural gas is safer but not as much as nuclear and those others. The focus needs to be on getting rid of the most dangerous energy sources which are coal and oil first. Then after that decades long project is done to look at the other energy sources. Safety and improvements for all energy sources should be made as we go.
UPDATE:
Rooftop solar is still a hundred times safer than coal and oil power because of air pollution deaths. Other ways to make solar power safer:
1. Increase safety for all rooftop work (can reduce deaths by half or more)
2. Rooftop solar tiles installed on new buildings might not have any more incremental deaths as opposed to panels that are separate from the roof tiles or systems installed that replace roof tiles before they would normally be replaced.
3. Create some new installation system where people stay on the ground using some forklift or crane to raise and place a solar power system onto a roof. Have to ensure that the heavy machinery system is safer than the roofing process being replaced.
Some responders online are in denial that people who work on a roof can fall off regardless of the reason they went up there. If I go up there to replace roofing tiles or go up there to install solar panels, the risk of falling is pretty much the same especially when the number of times being compared heads to large numbers like millions of times for each. As I noted in the comments, statistics show that 70% of fatal construction falls occur at height of 3 stories or less.
Some have also claimed that someone who went up onto a roof to install a solar panel but then fell is not a death associated with solar power. Similarly then if someone is killed in a coal mine then that is not a coal power death because the coal was not in the power plant yet or they might have some other reason for being underground and would have been crushed anyway.
FURTHER READING
189 page pdf from the 1997 Externe analysis of energy sources and fuel cycles.
RELATED NEWS
Canada is increasing the planned number of nuclear reactors in Alberta to 4 plants generating 4 GW. The plan is to complete them by 2017.
Southern California Edison (SCE) plans to spend $875 million over the next five years putting solar panels onto commercial roofs to generate 250 megawatts of solar capacity. The panels will be on 65 million square feet of roof.
San Jose has a 15 year green vision to install 100,000 solar power roofs.
San Jose was chosen a Solar America City by the U.S. Department of Energy and will share $2.4 million in funding with 11 other cities. Other cities designated as Solar America Cities include Sacramento, Santa Rosa, Seattle, Wash.; Houston, Texas; Knoxville, Tenn.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Minneapolis & St. Paul, Minn.; Orlando, Fla.; Philadelphia, Penn.; and San Antonio, Texas.
Severin Borenstein, director of the U.C. Energy Institute and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's business school, called existing technology "a loser" in a research paper. "We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV technology," he said.Borenstein calls for more state and federal money to be spent on research into better technology, rather than on subsidies for residential solar power systems. In his analysis, Borenstein found that a typical PV system costs between $86,000 and $91,000 to install, while the value of its power over its lifetime ranges from $19,000 to $51,000. Even assuming a 5 percent annual increase in electric costs and a 1 percent interest rate, the cost of a PV system is 80 percent greater than the value of the electricity it will produce. In his paper, Borenstein also factored in the value of greenhouse gas reductions into his calculations, and found that at current prices the PV technology still doesn't deliver.
California's Million Solar Roofs Plan, signed into law in 2006, which will provide 3,000 megawatts of additional clean energy and reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 3 million tons. The 2.9-billion-dollar incentive plan for homeowners and building owners who install solar electric systems will lead to 1 million solar roofs in California by the year 2018.
FURTHER READING
Sample solar power installation instructions
More rooftop solar panel installation instructions
Solar thermal panels for hot water heating are typically 36-75kg in weight per panel.
Solar PV panels are currently about 40-60 pounds (20-30kg).
US energy use by source
March 06, 2008
Uprating wind turbine blades and more efficient ceiling fans
WhalePower, based in Toronto, Ontario, is testing this wind-turbine blade at a wind-testing facility in Prince Edward Island. The bumps, or "tubercles," on the blade's leading edge reduce noise, increase its stability, and enable it to capture more energy from the wind.
Credit: WhalePower
I have talked frequently about nuclear power uprating (changes in fuel design and other changes that can increase the power generated at existing nuclear power plants. Now there is reports that bumpy wind turbine blades could uprate existing and future wind turbines. The new wind turbine blades come from WhalePower of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Uprates can be very good, because you spend a lot less to get a lot more out of what is already there.
Prototypes of wind-turbine blades have shown that the delayed stall doubles the performance of the turbines at wind speeds of about 17 miles per hour and allows the turbine to capture more energy out of lower-speed winds. For example, the turbines generate the same amount of power at 10 miles per hour that conventional turbines generate at 17 miles per hour. The tubercles effectively channel the air flow across the blades and create swirling vortices that enhance lift.
WhalePower can rapidly develop precise designs for retrofit leading edges or fully integerated tubercle technology blades for any turbine.
-Retrofit blades are stronger than the original unmodified blades.
-Integrated blades meet or exceed all required performance crieria.
They should be commercially available later this year (2008). Stephen Dewar, director of research and development at WhalePower, says that ongoing tests at the Wind Energy Institute of Canada, in the province of Prince Edward Island, have shown the tubercle-lined blades to be more stable, quiet, and durable than conventional blades. "The turbine has survived being hit by the edge of a hurricane, and it survived wind-driven snow and ice," he says.
WhalePower has also shown in demonstrations that tubercle-lined blades on industrial ceiling fans can operate 20 percent more efficiently than conventional blades can, and they do a better job at circulating air flow in a building.
February 26, 2008
the Moving target for energy dominance
Members of the [NAE Engineering Grand Challenges] panel are "confident that we are not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be [economically] competitive with fossil fuels," Kurzweil said, adding that it could happen within five years.
"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he said. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years."
I reviewed the 14 21st century engineering grand challenges and MIT's ten emerging technologies for 2008
The National Academy of Engineering has a page that discusses the challenges for economical solar power.
The US DOE has an analysis of projected energy costs until 2030 The chart shown does not have the adjustment for operating load factors. It takes three times as much wind MW to generate the same as 1 MW of nuclear power.
The total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.
In January 2007, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel at likely contract prices (about one third of current spot price):
Uranium: 8.9 kg U3O8 x $53 472
Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $12 90
Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $135 985
Fuel fabrication: per kg 240
Total, approx: US$ 1787
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.50 c/kWh.
If assuming a higher uranium price, say two thirds of current spot price: 8.9 kg x 108 = 961, giving a total of $2286, or 0.635 c/kWh.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.
50 GWd/t standard burn up could go up to 65 GWd/t while still 5% enrichment Up to 100GWd/t burnup could be reached with existing reactors but would need 8-10% enrichment.
Accelerator enhanced constant reprocessing would enable Ultra high burnup of 700 GWd/t. [pg 96-102 discusses Possible Transmutation Strategies Based on Pebble Bed ADS (accelerator driven systems) Reactors for a Nuclear Fuel Cycle without Pu Recycling in Critical Reactors.]
There are many advanced fission reactor designs that are in development There are several possibilities for reducing the DOE estimated overnight construction cost in half and for reducing fueling and operating costs by four times by 2015-2020. It will take several completions of any new power plants and a few years of operations before cost reductions are recognized. China has ordered four AP1000 plants for $5.3 billion. However, until several are completed the new cost savings will not be recognized. Utilities are also continuing to order other plants which may be more expensive because Westinghouse is only able to build at a certain maximum rate.
South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) aims for a step change in safety, economics and proliferation resistance. Production units will be 165 MWe. They will have a direct-cycle gas turbine generator and thermal efficiency about 42%. Up to 450,000 fuel pebbles recycle through the reactor continuously (about six times each) until they are expended, giving an average enrichment in the fuel load of 4-5% and average burn-up of 90 GWday/t U (eventual target burn-ups are 200 GWd/t) [start two times as effiencient with fuel and then four times]. This means on-line refuelling as expended pebbles are replaced, giving high capacity factor.
Overnight construction cost (when in clusters of eight units) is expected to be US$ 1000/kW and generating cost below 3 US cents/kWh. A demonstration plant is due to be built in 2007 for commercial operation in 2010. A design certification application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected in 2008, with approval expected in 2012, opening up world markets.
UPDATE: More recent estimates suggest that production costs could be US$2500-3500/kW for pebble bed reactors. Inflation in the cost of steel, cement and other materials is increasing the cost of all energy production.
According to Business Report, it could cost between $9.9 billion (R67 billion) and $13.8 billion to build 24 reactor installations, which together could generate 3,960 megawatts. That's expensive power coming in at $3,500/Kw at the upper end of the cost estimate.
A larger US design, the Modular Helium Reactor (MHR , formerly the GT-MHR), will be built as modules of up to 600 MWt. In its electrical application each would directly drive a gas turbine at 47% thermal efficiency, giving 280 MWe. It can also be used for hydrogen production (100,000 t/yr claimed) and other high temperature process heat applications. Half the core is replaced every 18 months. Burn-up is up to 220 GWd/t, and coolant outlet temperature is 850°C with a target of 1000°C.
The Westinghouse AP-1000 has received several design certifications. Overnight capital costs are projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months. The 1100 MWe AP-1000 generating costs are expected to be below US$ 3.5 cents/kWh and its has a 60 year operating life.
Another US-origin but international project which is a few years behind the AP-1000 is the International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS). IRIS is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. It is nominally 335 MWe but can be less, eg 100 MWe. Fuel is initially similar to present LWRs with 5% enrichment and burn-up of 60,000 MWd/t with fuelling interval of 3 to 3.5 years, but is designed ultimately for 10% enrichment and 80 GWd/t burn-up with an 8 year cycle, or equivalent MOX core. The core has low power density. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade (2015), and US design certification is at pre-application stage. Multiple modules are expected to cost US$ 1000-1200 per kW for power generation. They expect that construction of the first IRIS unit will be completed in three years, with subsequent reduction to only two years.
The Remote-Site Modular Helium Reactor (RS-MHR) of 10-25 MWe has been proposed by General Atomics. The fuel would be 20% enriched and refuelling interval would be 6-8 years.
Another full-size HTR design is Areva's Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) being put forward by Areva NP. It is based on the MHR and has also involved Fuji. Reference design is 600 MW (thermal) with prismatic block fuel like the MHR. HTRs can potentially use thorium-based fuels, such as HEU or LEU with Th, U-233 with Th, and Pu with Th. Most of the experience with thorium fuels has been in HTRs. General Atomics say that the MHR has a neutron spectrum is such and the TRISO fuel so stable that the reactor can be powered fully with separated transuranic wastes (neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium) from light water reactor used fuel. The fertile actinides enable reactivity control and very high burn-up can be achieved with it - over 500 GWd/t - the Deep Burn concept and hence DB-MHR design. Over 95% of the Pu-239 and 60% of other actinides are destroyed in a single pass.
Nuclear fusion success offers the possibility of $500/kw to $20/kw of installed power. However, there is still great uncertainty of any success with nuclear fusion.
Thermoelectrics could boost the efficiency and total power generated from high heat central power such as nuclear, coal and natural gas power plants Increasing the efficiency of power plant heat conversion to 150-200% of what they are now would greatly reduce the costs of existing plants and these types of plants. The thermoelectrics have many commonalities with advanced solar power. Broad success with solar power should also mean broad success with thermoelectronics for alternative power plants. Thermoelectronics could provide an across the board boost of 30-50% in cost efficiency for nuclear, coal and natural gas by 2020.
Kitegen offers the possibility of greatly reducing the cost and increasing the total power generated by wind while reducing the materials used in construction per MW
The Uranium hydride [nuclear battery] could be mass produced at factories starting with $1400/kw prices in 2012
So there are several possibilities getting into the range of $1000/kw overnight costs for new nuclear reactors. Advanced thermoelectronics and further advances in nuclear fuel and nuclear design could provide $500/kw prices in 2020-2030 and would have far lower variable and operating costs. Nuclear fusion could push off the day of solar power price supremacy indefinitely into the future. This will not matter if we are building nuclear fission with far less waste and no air pollution, or clean aneutronic nuclear fusion or efficient wind power. Any future with clean and abundant power would be a pretty good future.
February 15, 2008
Feed in Tariffs- support for renewable power
Some call Feed in Tariffs justified to make up for unpaid externalities from other energy sources like coal and natural gas but the incremental Feed in tariff payment is support. Even Ren21 of France calls it support. Feed in tariffs are paying a subsidy for 20 years on renewable capacity that is installed. 5.3 billion Euro is an older estimate from 2001 and the amount has gone up since then with a bigger program in Spain and other places. I like wind and solar power, but I think it is wrong to say that wind and solar are not getting enough support relative to nuclear power.
Feed in Tariff's at wikipedia
Feed in tariff is an incentive structure that boosts the adoption of renewable energy through government legislation. The regional or national electricity utilities are obligated to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources such as solar photovoltaics, wind power, biomass, and geothermal power) at above market rates.
Feed in tariff presentation
Not just Germany but Spain and Denmark have big feed in tariff systems. Many other European countries and Canada also have feed in tariff systems (they are just smaller programs than the German one)
Estimated impact on end use electricity prices (according to european commmission)
Between 4% and 5% for Germany and Spain
Around 15% for Denmark
Back in 2001: The Netherlands (more than EUR 1.5 billion), the UK (circa EUR 1.5 billion) and Germany (circa EUR 1.8 billion) provided substantial off -budget support to electricity consumption. The Feed in tariff support has gone up since then.
European Environment Agency figures in 2004 gave indicative estimates of total energy subsidies in the EU-15 for 2001: solid fuel (coal) EUR 13.0, oil & gas EUR 8.7, nuclear EUR 2.2, renewables EUR 5.3 billion.
Ren21 in France (pro-renewables) calls Feed in Tariffs support.
The European Environment Agency estimated at least $0.8 billion in on-budget support and $6 billion in offbudget support for renewable energy in Europe in 2001. A large share of the off-budget support was due to feed-in tariffs, with purchase obligations and competitive tendering representing other forms of off-budget support
UPDATE:
Calculating the difference between the Feed in Tariff and the market price to get the level of support.
40 billion kwh X 3 cents Euro (8 cents for wind less 5 cent market price) per kwh. Euro 1.2 billion.
That is only Germany and not the Spain and Denmark subsidies. Spain and Denmark combined have about the same wind as Germany. So that would double up differential only subsidy. 2.4 billion. Still have over a dozen other European countries like France and UK but those programs are smaller.
The solar PV tax credit is about 8 to twenty times the market rate. So subtracting out that part of the subsidy is not that different.
About 2 billion kwh for solar in Germany at 30 cents per kwh or a 25 cent premium. Some figures I have seen for the solar feed in tariff are 71 cents/kwh. 400 million more including the solar part. Double that for the rest of Europe or triple to get to the world figure.
So 2.4 billion for wind (europe only) and 800 million for solar europe only for the differential above market price for $3.2 billion Europe only feed in tariff estimate. About 30 other countries have feed in tariffs for renewables. US, Canada, Japan and other countries also have subsidies.
Most utilities in the USA charge 2-32 cent/kwh added charges for wind.
Figure from the American wind energy association
Plus there is the 1.5 cent per kwh production tax credit
Wind production incentives
Also, I don't agree with the subtract carbon emissions from that total. The carbon emissions should be counted separately as an externality or subsidy for coal, oil and natural gas. Otherwise it would be an adjustment for nuclear.
Some estimates for Solar have fairly high greenhouse gas emissions although still better than coal and natural gas
The Solar PV incentives swamp the market price figure.
So solar and wind should be supported, but it is not true that they are not getting enough support. Coal and oil are the things that should be penalized and shifted away from and it will take support for every other energy source to make that happen in a timely way.
February 12, 2008
Currently largest wind turbine will generate 7+ MW
The Worlds highest power wind turbine is officially rated at 6 megawatts too, but will most likely produce 7+ megawatts. (20 million kilowatt hours per year). 
Chart of largest wind turbines
FURTHER READING
A 10 MW superconducting wind turbine is under development
There are larger systems like kitegen being studied.
February 01, 2008
Improving wind power
For the same wind velocity, FloDesign’s Mixer Ejector Wind Turbine (MEWT) having a maximum diameter 50% smaller than an existing 3-Bladed regular wind turbine can potentially generate over 50% more power, and can potentially cost 25-35% less than the same conventional wind turbine (horizontal axis wind turbines, HAWT).
Hat tip to Al fin for this and the Aerogenerator info later in this article.
FloDesign Wind Turbine used advanced aerospace technology to develop the unique, state of the art wind power machine called the Mixer Ejector Wind Turbine. The MEWT machine uses cambered ringed airfoils (shrouds) surrounding a stator-rotor turbine cascade design, and an efficient mixer/ejector pump to produce more energy than a HAWT system from any wind at any site location. The cambered shrouds act similar to an aircraft wing when landing. The camber produces low pressure on the shroud inside surface which sucks in more wind flow into the turbine. The same low pressure on a wing would produce more aircraft lift for landing or taking off.
The low inertia, smaller rotor blades spin faster and provide more energy extraction at both lower and higher wind speeds. The shrouded blades and higher rotor speeds also reduce gear box complexity and result in quieter, safer wind turbines.
Here is a ten page research paper that describes the new Flodesign system
An MEWT can produce much higher power levels at higher annual mean wind speeds—such as encountered in off-shore applications for example.
FloDesign’s MEWT machine also delivers many additional valuable benefits such as:
• Significant load shift from the rotating to static parts
• Earlier, easier startup
• Minimization or elimination rotor stall complications
• More robust, easier to manufacture blades
• Reduction of gearing requirements
• Reduced sensitivity to wind incidence or gusts
• Quieter and safer design
• Lower first and life costs
FURTHER READING
Another proposed new wind generator is the vertical aerogenerator.
It could be up to 144 meters tall, should have less maintenance costs and could generate up to 9MW.
It will be at least 2013 before we see Aerogenerators as powerful as 9MW
I do not think the Aerogenerator has enough advantages to be the dominant wind turbine design. 9MW is not enough as conventional horizontal systems can be made up to 10MW or more in size by using superconducting wire to reduce component size.
I also believe kitegen can work better
January 18, 2008
Energy costs with externalities
Anti-nuclear people like to talk about the lack of complete business insurance coverage of nuclear power plant accidents. They ignore the uncovered external costs of other energy sources. They also ignore the disproportionate subsidies for wind and solar power. I will review research related to the subsidies, research, external costs and fatalities. I adapted this from a discussion I had on the Oil Drum.
ANOTHER UPDATE
I have a new article with a closer look at Feed in Tariff support of renewable energy
UPDATE:
Geoffrey S. Rothwell of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research examined the nuclear insurance issue
In economics, a subsidy is a "payment made by the government (or possibly by private individuals) which forms a wedge between the price consumers pay and the costs incurred by producers, such that price is less than marginal cost" (The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics, 4th Edition, 1992). Here, the "consumers" (of insurance/indemnification) are firms in the nuclear power industry and the "producer" (of insurance/indemnification) is the federal government. However, there is no subsidy payment unless there is an accident and damages are above the PAA liability limit. Because there is no payment, there is no "direct subsidy," although there is a
potential (or expected) subsidy.
Opponents of the PAA have used these estimates to argue for the ending of the "PAA subsidy" to the nuclear power industry. Without questioning the probability distribution assumption, they have followed the advice in Heyes and Heyes (2000, p. 99): "The implications for how anti-nuclear lobbyists should go about persuading regulators and governments that the extent of the subsidy which current law confers is unacceptably high are that it is likely to be more fruitful to ‘argue up’ consequences rather than probabilities." This has been done by claiming that the costs of a Chernobyl-like accident in the US would be more than $300 billion, without any discussion of the probability of such an accident in the US. See, for example, www.citizen.org/cmep. By focusing on one assumption (consequences) without considering other assumptions (probabilities), the anti-nuclear argument is incomplete.
In regards to government support and subsidies for different energy sources
A 2002 Cato Institute report showed that in the previous 20 years renewable technologies received $24.2 billion in US federal R&D expenditure, compared with $20.1 billion for nuclear and $15.5 for coal (adjusted 1996 dollars). The result of this was minimal electricity contribution from non hydro renewables, and 20% and 50% respectively contribution from nuclear and coal.
A 2006 study from Management Information Services on The US Energy Subsidy Scorecard showed that total federal incentives (of which R&D expenditure is only a part) from 1950 to 2003 totalled $63 billion for nuclear power, $111 billion for renewables, $81 billion for coal and $87 billion for natural gas (2003 dollars), lining this up against the resultant contribution to US energy.
Government support versus actual delivered electricity
R&D versus electricity generation
Focusing on R&D alone over 1994-2003, the study showed coal got $3.9 billion and nuclear $1.6 billion - both commensurate with their contribution to US electricity, while renewables other than hydro received $3.7 billion - vastly more than their foreseeable contribution.
Germany applies a mixture of incentives for renewables, such as a feed-in tariffs. The average feed-in tariff apart from solar PV is 8.5 c/kWh, or 16.4 cents including solar PV in 2006 (solar PV being 49 cents). The combined subsidy from consumers and government totals some EUR 5 billion per year - for 6% of its electricity.
Germany also provides producer subsidies to its coal industry amounting to EUR 68 per tonne for 34 Mt coal in 2000 - total EUR 2.3 billion.
EU energy subsidy analysis from 2004
External energy costs totals for energy. In the notes a discussion of the hypothetical severe nuclear accident. Chernobyl cost $370 billion. Equal to 10-20 years of excess coal or oil costs for the EU15 only. 2-6 years for world (US, China, India etc...) excess coal or oil costs.
Paul Scherrer Institut (swiss) for the study of energy costs with impacts and externalities included
333 final report on energy external costs
External energy costs added to costs of energy. High estimate on top and low estimate below. Nuclear price looks good.
Top ten energy related events for evacuees and costs
Chernobyl is put at US (2000) $370 billion. $6 billion for three mile island. when compared to the annual higher external costs for coal and oil. Then 10-20 years of EU only external costs balances out one Chernobyl. The coal and oil damage for the US and china and other non-EU countries would balance out the one time Chernobyl Chernobyl 3-5 times faster. Chernobyl happened once in 50 years with a particularly dangerous reactor.
The risk assessment for the modern reactors that we would be building should be considered This is important - no one is suggesting that we make more Chernobyl style reactors. Even all of the old Chernobyl style reactors now have containment domes. This would limit almost all of the worst case scenarios to Three Mile Island level accidents.
The AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 5.09 x 10-7 per plant per year. The Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) has a maximum core damage frequency of 4 x 10-7 per plant per year. General Electric has recalculated maximum core damage frequencies per year per plant for its nuclear power plant designs:
BWR/4 -- 1 x 10-5
BWR/6 -- 1 x 10-6
ABWR -- 2 x 10-7
ESBWR -- 3 x 10-8
This means you would multiply the 1 in 100,000 to 3 in 100 million chances against the potential costs. All insurance risks and costs are calculated in this way. (Frequency times cost)
In the footnotes of one of the references there is a high range estimate of 5.5 trillion euro for a worst case damage event. How could a 5.5 trillion damage event happen ? I do not believe it is possible. Even blowing up like a nuclear bomb (which is impossible since the uranium is not pure enough) reactors are not close enough to population centers with the blast radius.
The world only has $140 trillion in financial assets.
Even estimates for the nuclear bombing of New York do not have direct economic damage at that 5.5 trillion level.
A worst case analysis for a terrorist attack on Indian point reactor. Has damage of 1.1 trillion to 2.1 trillion, where everything goes exactly to maximum damages. (700 to 1.5 trillion euro). All reactors are not near important financial centers, so the value of the surrounding areas would be less for all other reactors. However, the analysis has been that nuclear reactors would not release radiation if hit by a plane. So even that worst case scenario would not happen or it would involve several dozen people planting massive explosives or firing missiles to breach the containment dome while at the same time causing the reactor to meltdown before they could be stopped.
I believe the core damage event not breaching containment would cost $6 billion max (loss of reactor,that level of damage is covered under the insurance) and for the current reactors and processes 1 in 100,000. So once every 200 years for a slightly larger than current reactor fleet.
5 billion euro / 200 years = 25 million euro/year (covered under paid insurance)
1 in a million for some kind of containment breaching event
500 billion euro / 2000 years = 250 million euro/year
500,000 euro/year/reactor
A discussion by Heyes in 2003 about his 1998 estimate of nuclear insurance.
Heyes and Liston-Heyes noted an error in the way in which Dubin and Rothwell interpreted current insurance arrangements, and reapplied their methodology corrected for the reinterpretation. Heyes and Liston-Heyes’ correction reduced the estimates
of the subsidy substantially to $2.3 million/reactor/year.
I [ANTHONY HEYES] will let you in on a little secret: The two estimates and the methods used to generate them are, at best, unreliable and, at worst, deeply flawed. I can say that because I am one of the authors. I know squat about nuclear power. Do no