NYT: Coming Full Circle in Energy, to Nuclear
[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]
"But even as the consensus among experts builds that coal and other fossil fuels must be sharply reduced and eventually removed from the energy matrix, there is no agreement on what sources of energy could feasibly take their place, and how to get from here to there.
As in the 1970s, environmental activists remain enthralled by the sun and the wind. But three decades’ worth of renewable energy dreams have yielded too little to entrust them with the job of replacing fossil fuels."
<>
"A new generation of nuclear power, by contrast, is potentially the cheapest energy source of all.
The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt-hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt-hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/economy/coming-full-circle-in-energy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
= new reply since forum marked as read
Nuclear's need for subsidies is undiminished after 50 years - in fact it is increasing. And that is in spite of the fact that the amount of subsidies solar and wind has is minuscule in relation to the vast sums nuclear has received over that time.
Here is what is Supposed to Happen when we subsidize a new technology.
One of the country’s top regulators explains why he is so bullish on solar.
HERMAN K. TRABISH: AUGUST 21, 2013
If anybody doubts that federal energy regulators are aware of the rapidly changing electricity landscape, they should talk to Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
“Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything,” Wellinghoff told GTM last week in a sideline conversation at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.
If a single drop of water on the pitcher’s mound at Dodger Stadium is doubled every minute, Wellinghoff said, a person chained to the highest seat would be in danger of drowning in an hour.
“That’s what is happening in solar. It could double every two years," he said.
Indeed, as ...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ferc-chair-wellinghoff-sees-a-solar-future-and-a-utility-of-the-future?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
As to the content of the article in the OP, it is straight propaganda from the nuclear industry. The inept dismissal of the capabilities of renewables along with the use of the EIA as a reputable source for forecasting renders its conclusions invalid.
“It’s not 1990 anymore.”
CHRIS NELDER: MAY 9, 2013
"We're fifteen to twenty years out of date in how we think about renewables," said Dr. Eric Martinot to an audience at the first Pathways to 100% Renewables Conference held April 16 in San Francisco. "It's not 1990 anymore."
Dr. Martinot and his team recently compiled their 2013 Renewables Global Futures report from two years of research in which they conducted interviews with 170 experts and policymakers from fifteen countries, including local city officials and stakeholders from more than twenty cities. They also reviewed more than 50 recently published scenarios by credible international organizations, energy companies, and research institutes, along with government policy targets for renewable energy, and various corporate reports and energy literature.
The report observes that "[t]he history of energy scenarios is full of similar projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected." For example, the International Energy Agency's 2000 estimate for wind power in 2010 was 34 gigawatts, while the actual level was 200 gigawatts. The World Bank's 1996 estimate for China was 9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV by 2020, but by 2011 the country had already achieved 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV.
Dr. Martinot's conclusion from this exhaustive survey? "The conservative scenarios are simply no longer credible."
There is now a yawning gap between "conservative" scenarios and more optimistic ones, as illustrated in this chart contrasting scenarios published in 2012 by entities like the IEA and ExxonMobil with those offered by groups like the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (an international scientific policy research organization), Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-clean-energy-is-way-out-of-date?utm_source=Solar&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
Let's recap the numbers above:
..."projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected"
in 2000 International Energy Agency saysin 2010 wind power will be at 34 gigawatts;
actual level was 200 gigawatts.
1996 World Bank estimate for China by 2020:
9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV
China in 2011 has 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV (and they are just getting started - k)
10 years ahead of schedule and wind is 7X+ while solar is 6X. How much do you think they will exceed World Bank predictions by the time 2020 actually gets here?
So when you look at charts like this:
Or tables like this:
Remember who has a record of poor predictions. That isn't saying we are going to address this threat as fast as we need to, but at least let's start the discussion about what we are going to do with a realistic eye on what is good analysis and what isn't.