DOSSIER COURS
54 PAGES
AVIGNON 2005

2 ANS AVANT
LES MENSONGES
DE CROISSANCE
DE SARKO

PARFAIT 





http://www.oilcrisis.com/Laherrere/Avignon-1.pdf

 

 

SENDAI

 

CHIBA

 

OORAI  beach , port

 

KAJIMA  port

 

LIOKA port ,town

 

HIRAISO

 

FUKUSHIMA

 

IBARAKI

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/print/56530

 

 

 

 

 

---

As nuclear falters, here is a practical, affordable (and safe) clean electricity plan

 

  --------------

 

 

It's not like consumers have more money. With the ongoing destruction of the middle class, American workers are experiencing declining real wages. Retiring Baby Boomers will be living on fixed incomes   Will households be able to pay skyrocketing electric bills, and still buy prescriptions and groceries?

Consumers have supported clean energy standards that have price controls, such as Colorado's 2%/year limit for renewable power rate increases above the comparable cost of fossil fuel power.  (See "Colorado Shows How It's Done".) 

If utilities ignore affordability, however, build-out plans can come to an inglorious end.  Utilities can learn a lesson from the Florida ratepayer revolt that effectively halted Florida P&L's nuclear plans after it proposed drastic rate increases to fund the new nukes.

Need #2:  Always Available.  Americans expect their electric utility will always "keep the lights on".  This will be increasingly important as our other energy sources such as oil begin to decline.  Our entire economy and indeed way of life is threatened by Peak Oil Coming Much Sooner Than Expected.

 

The economic disruptions from high priced oil will destroy millions of jobs if we have not prepared alternative ways to fuel our society.  An increased use of electricity for transportation -- with electric cars, electrified freight and passenger trains, and increased use of electric transit -- is a core solution to ending our addiction to oil.  Our electric grid must prepare to meet this national security challenge.  

Need #3:  Clean Power.  Protecting our jobs and homes from severe droughts, floods, sea level rise and other impacts of climate change can prevent literally trillions of dollars of economic losses.  

Americans support the prevention of activities that harm innocent victims as a legitimate role of government. Polls thus show overwhelming support for EPA efforts to cut harmful utility pollutants.  According to a recently released report from the American Lung Association, coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollutants (including mercury, arsenic, lead, acidic gases, and dioxins) than any other industrial polluters in the U.S.

Electric utilities also currently emit 39% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.  Because electricity can be generated from a myriad of clean sources, utilities have been asked to lead the way to achieve 80% of total projected carbon dioxide emission reductions by 2030. 

Reducing Unemployment.  While most consumers and businesses have maxed-out debt and cannot help the economy grow, utilities can still borrow money and invest in new job-creating projects.

 -------------

 

Utility spending can thus help counter the current deflationary pressure from the collapse of the Consumer Credit Bubble.  Spending on U.S. productive capacity is also far better than cranking up money printing presses.

If American industries develop innovative solutions, we can also export technologies to other nations to help them clean up their power grids. 

Just How Big a Challenge is this Clean Energy Moonshot?  The graph below presents the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), on the sources of electricity generation in the U.S., in 2010:

If one accepts the President's definition of "Clean Energy" (though many do not especially in the wake of the Japanese nuclear accidents), the nation is already generating almost 54% of its electricity from qualifying sources -- renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear.  

To meet an "80% by 2035" standard, therefore, would require a conversion of another 26% of the generation mix over the next 24 years -- an average shift of 1.1%/year of total kWh's generated. 

If U.S. kWh demand did not grow at all, this would require the equivalent generation of installing about 13,500 Megawatts (MW) of new wind farms each year in the U.S (after accounting for wind's kWh output per MW, and transmission losses).  This is achievable -- in 2009, the U.S installed 10,010 MW of new wind capacity, and "Clean Energy" will include more than wind.

Of course, if demand for electricity grows, even more new generation will be needed. If kWh use grows by 1% per year, by 2035 we will need about 30% more electricity. 

Challenges Facing Electric Utilities.  While consumers and politicians want utilities to supply affordable and clean power that is always available, there are major challenges facing electric utilities. 

Utility Challenge #1: Demand is Soft and Unpredictable.   Utilities are in the business of selling electricity, and must build new power plants to provide it.  However, customers can cut kWh use and leave the utility with no ability to pay for these new power plants.  

Electricity demand in the U.S. declined from 2007 to 2008, and further still in 2009.  While 2010 numbers show a rebound, total kWh use for 2010 was still lower than peak U.S. kWh use in 2007. 

The Great Recession is a major cause, and thus the overall macroeconomic risks from Peak Oil and other expected shocks to the economy must weigh heavily on utility planning.  Electricity is only a service to the general economy.  Will general economic growth collapse again? 

Utility Challenge #2: Consumers Can Now Walk Away.  In most parts of America, customers have still not implemented even the most basic of energy efficiency measures. The "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency has yet to be harvested.  When power bills get too high, even simple measures like a clothesline can drastically cut electricity use.

Electric customers can now "walk away" from their central utility not only through efficiency, but also by generating their own power.  As recently noted by Yahoo Finance, on-site electricity generation with solar panels is now reaching parity with retail electric rates.  Combined Heat and Power offers customers yet another cost-effective distributed power solution. The days of a captive customer base for central utilities are over.

The unspoken fear of all utility managers is the Death Spiral Scenario.  In this nightmare, a utility commits to build a very expensive new power plant.  However, when electric rates are raised to pay for the new plant, the rate shock moves customers to cut their kWh use.  The utility then has no way to pay for the new power plant unless it raises rates even higher -- causing a further spiral as customers cut their use even more or "walk away".   

 

Utility Challenge #3: Unused Capacity.   U.S. utilities currently have a large, relatively young, and highly-efficient fleet of natural gas combined-cycle gas turbines -- that sit idle approximately 57% of the time.  Their power simply isn't needed for large portions of each day.

Utilities also have impressive fields of zero-fuel-cost wind turbines -- that generate a lot of inexpensive power in the middle of the night when it is not needed.  However, many wind farms don't run much when their power is most needed, on hot summer days.  

On those summer days, even solar produces the most power at Solar Noon, rather than late afternoon when air conditioners are running full tilt.  

When those peak power times come, utilities must "pull out all the stops".  Utilities use cheap-to-build but highly inefficient single-cycle gas peaker units, that provide some of the most expensive kWh's on the grid, and emit almost as much GHG emissions per kWh as coal.

Even baseload power plants that run 24 hours per day are affected greatly by fluctuations in consumer demand for electricity.  Nuclear and coal plants run through the middle of the night -- but they aren't paid very much for that power.  An expensive baseload plant such as a new nuclear plant may need to charge about 25 cents for every kWh, but it can't get paid that much for off-peak power so its economics don't work.

Utility Challenge #4: Need to Replace Aging Power Plants.   The President's challenge to the utility industry to move away from dirty power and toward clean power is actually a challenge the industry is already facing, due to the age of existing plants. 

The dirtiest parts of our power plant fleet are already quite old. The capacity-weighted age of power plants in the U.S. is now 38 years old for coal, and 30 years for nuclear plants.  Many if not most of the older coal plants will be retired by 2035.  In contrast, natural gas plants have a capacity weighted age of only 19 years, and wind plants only 6 years.  

Retiring Old Coal.  The 45% of our kWh's now supplied by dirty coal must be drastically reduced.  If 1.1% of total current electric generation (2.5% of current coal generation) was retired each year and shifted to clean sources, and no new coal-fired power plants were built unless they were low-carbon, the 80% Clean Energy Goal could be met. 

This seems a tall order.  Over the next 24 years, we would need to see a retirement or conversion of some 60% of existing coal generation.  However, by 2035 the median age of the existing coal fleet would be 62 years old.  This is beyond the traditional retirement age for coal plants, so it is likely at least this number of of today's old coal plants will be phased out anyway.   The opportunity will be to decide how best to replace today's dirty and old power plants. 

Retiring Old Nuclear?  Our nuclear fleet is also quite old, and if it also has to be replaced before 2035, the challenge will be much greater.  Because of this, it seems likely (however one feels about it) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will extend the licenses of most existing U.S. nukes somewhat beyond the 2035 timeline.  By then, we must already be on a path toward cleaner power, and can then take on that next wave of replacements.

While the NRC seems committed to extending nuclear licenses, this will be a massive experiment and reality will likely intrude.  Aging plants tend to require ever increasing capital expenditures to keep in operation, as happened recently with the Oyster Creek power plant in New Jersey, which will close 10 years earlier than its current license allows.  Public concern over radiation leaks, such as at the Vermont Yankee plant and the Japanese nuclear debacle, may also force nuclear plant shutdowns.

Utility Challenge #5:  New Power Plants Are Much More Expensive.  We are now obtaining over two thirds of our kWh's from coal and nuclear plants built over three decades ago.  It should come as no surprise that as we replace these very old plants, newer power plants are going to cost more -- a lot more -- than old power plants built decades ago.

We've gotten used to driving the old paid-off clunker.  Now, when the old beater finally has to be retired, the shock to the pocketbook will come.  

How Much Money Will Need to Be Invested?  If we have to build brand new power plants to accomplish replacement of 60% of old coal plants, it's going to matter a great deal what we choose to replace them: 

Gas and Small Hydro. Just replacing the existing kWh's generated by those old coal plants is likely to cost over $250 billion in up-front capital costs (in today's dollars) if we replace those old coal plants with about 130,000 MW of the cheapest choices for new power plants -- small hydro such as "Run of River" power, or gas plants using landfill gas, Combined-Heat-and-Power, or traditonal natural gas power plants.

While the small hydro and CHP plants have zero or low fuel costs, natural gas plants may require paying significant life cycle fuel costs.  This used to make utility managers leery of natural gas.  However, natural gas fuel is very cheap today, and expected to stay cheap for the next couple decades, so central utilities are now moving primarily to build natural gas power plants. 

Natural gas plants are also compatible with wind and solar energy, as they can cycle on and off quickly.  As renewable power sources come on line, natural gas plants can cut their fuel costs.

Wind and Geothermal.  One step up in capital costs per annual kWh, but with zero fuel costs and therefore roughly comparable to natural gas in life cycle costs per kWh, are wind farms and geothermal power.  Building enough wind turbines and geothermal (and transmission lines for these) to generate the kWh's from the retiring coal plants might cost about $600 billion -- more than natural gas, but with no worries about fuel costs, and zero GHG emissions.  

Concentrating Solar Power.  Another step up in capital costs per annual kWh are the concentrating solar power plants -- thermal CSP, concentrating photovoltaic, and Stirling Engine -- now being built in the desert Southwest. These plants are competitive in their intended market --  daytime peaking power -- but are currently more expensive per kWh than wind or geothermal.  (They will not be installed nationwide, so a comparative cost to replace all retiring coal plants is not appropriate.)

Large numbers of gas, hydro, wind and geothermal plants, and some CSP plants, have recently been built -- so we know what they cost. The renewable capacity already installed and under construction dwarfs nuclear and CCS efforts.

Two new technologies, however, require much larger and more expensive power plants, and none have yet been built in the U.S.:

New Coal.  If we tried instead to build new coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to replace the retiring coal-fired plants, the tally would likely be in the $700 - $850 billion range.  Unlike renewables, however, coal requires paying fuel costs that would grow over time. "Clean Coal" is thus a more expensive option -- and we don't really know how expensive, because CCS is still an unproven technology.  

----------------------

 

 

 

Utility spending can thus help counter the current deflationary pressure from the collapse of the Consumer Credit Bubble.  Spending on U.S. productive capacity is also far better than cranking up money printing presses.

If American industries develop innovative solutions, we can also export technologies to other nations to help them clean up their power grids. 

Just How Big a Challenge is this Clean Energy Moonshot?  The graph below presents the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), on the sources of electricity generation in the U.S., in 2010:

If one accepts the President's definition of "Clean Energy" (though many do not especially in the wake of the Japanese nuclear accidents), the nation is already generating almost 54% of its electricity from qualifying sources -- renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear.  

To meet an "80% by 2035" standard, therefore, would require a conversion of another 26% of the generation mix over the next 24 years -- an average shift of 1.1%/year of total kWh's generated. 

If U.S. kWh demand did not grow at all, this would require the equivalent generation of installing about 13,500 Megawatts (MW) of new wind farms each year in the U.S (after accounting for wind's kWh output per MW, and transmission losses).  This is achievable -- in 2009, the U.S installed 10,010 MW of new wind capacity, and "Clean Energy" will include more than wind.

Of course, if demand for electricity grows, even more new generation will be needed. If kWh use grows by 1% per year, by 2035 we will need about 30% more electricity. 

Challenges Facing Electric Utilities.  While consumers and politicians want utilities to supply affordable and clean power that is always available, there are major challenges facing electric utilities. 

Utility Challenge #1: Demand is Soft and Unpredictable.   Utilities are in the business of selling electricity, and must build new power plants to provide it.  However, customers can cut kWh use and leave the utility with no ability to pay for these new power plants.  

Electricity demand in the U.S. declined from 2007 to 2008, and further still in 2009.  While 2010 numbers show a rebound, total kWh use for 2010 was still lower than peak U.S. kWh use in 2007. 

The Great Recession is a major cause, and thus the overall macroeconomic risks from Peak Oil and other expected shocks to the economy must weigh heavily on utility planning.  Electricity is only a service to the general economy.  Will general economic growth collapse again? 

Utility Challenge #2: Consumers Can Now Walk Away.  In most parts of America, customers have still not implemented even the most basic of energy efficiency measures. The "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency has yet to be harvested.  When power bills get too high, even simple measures like a clothesline can drastically cut electricity use.

Electric customers can now "walk away" from their central utility not only through efficiency, but also by generating their own power.  As recently noted by Yahoo Finance, on-site electricity generation with solar panels is now reaching parity with retail electric rates.  Combined Heat and Power offers customers yet another cost-effective distributed power solution. The days of a captive customer base for central utilities are over.

The unspoken fear of all utility managers is the Death Spiral Scenario.  In this nightmare, a utility commits to build a very expensive new power plant.  However, when electric rates are raised to pay for the new plant, the rate shock moves customers to cut their kWh use.  The utility then has no way to pay for the new power plant unless it raises rates even higher -- causing a further spiral as customers cut their use even more or "walk away".   

 

Utility Challenge #3: Unused Capacity.   U.S. utilities currently have a large, relatively young, and highly-efficient fleet of natural gas combined-cycle gas turbines -- that sit idle approximately 57% of the time.  Their power simply isn't needed for large portions of each day.

Utilities also have impressive fields of zero-fuel-cost wind turbines -- that generate a lot of inexpensive power in the middle of the night when it is not needed.  However, many wind farms don't run much when their power is most needed, on hot summer days.  

On those summer days, even solar produces the most power at Solar Noon, rather than late afternoon when air conditioners are running full tilt.  

When those peak power times come, utilities must "pull out all the stops".  Utilities use cheap-to-build but highly inefficient single-cycle gas peaker units, that provide some of the most expensive kWh's on the grid, and emit almost as much GHG emissions per kWh as coal.

Even baseload power plants that run 24 hours per day are affected greatly by fluctuations in consumer demand for electricity.  Nuclear and coal plants run through the middle of the night -- but they aren't paid very much for that power.  An expensive baseload plant such as a new nuclear plant may need to charge about 25 cents for every kWh, but it can't get paid that much for off-peak power so its economics don't work.

Utility Challenge #4: Need to Replace Aging Power Plants.   The President's challenge to the utility industry to move away from dirty power and toward clean power is actually a challenge the industry is already facing, due to the age of existing plants. 

The dirtiest parts of our power plant fleet are already quite old. The capacity-weighted age of power plants in the U.S. is now 38 years old for coal, and 30 years for nuclear plants.  Many if not most of the older coal plants will be retired by 2035.  In contrast, natural gas plants have a capacity weighted age of only 19 years, and wind plants only 6 years.  

Retiring Old Coal.  The 45% of our kWh's now supplied by dirty coal must be drastically reduced.  If 1.1% of total current electric generation (2.5% of current coal generation) was retired each year and shifted to clean sources, and no new coal-fired power plants were built unless they were low-carbon, the 80% Clean Energy Goal could be met. 

This seems a tall order.  Over the next 24 years, we would need to see a retirement or conversion of some 60% of existing coal generation.  However, by 2035 the median age of the existing coal fleet would be 62 years old.  This is beyond the traditional retirement age for coal plants, so it is likely at least this number of of today's old coal plants will be phased out anyway.   The opportunity will be to decide how best to replace today's dirty and old power plants. 

Retiring Old Nuclear?  Our nuclear fleet is also quite old, and if it also has to be replaced before 2035, the challenge will be much greater.  Because of this, it seems likely (however one feels about it) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will extend the licenses of most existing U.S. nukes somewhat beyond the 2035 timeline.  By then, we must already be on a path toward cleaner power, and can then take on that next wave of replacements.

While the NRC seems committed to extending nuclear licenses, this will be a massive experiment and reality will likely intrude.  Aging plants tend to require ever increasing capital expenditures to keep in operation, as happened recently with the Oyster Creek power plant in New Jersey, which will close 10 years earlier than its current license allows.  Public concern over radiation leaks, such as at the Vermont Yankee plant and the Japanese nuclear debacle, may also force nuclear plant shutdowns.

Utility Challenge #5:  New Power Plants Are Much More Expensive.  We are now obtaining over two thirds of our kWh's from coal and nuclear plants built over three decades ago.  It should come as no surprise that as we replace these very old plants, newer power plants are going to cost more -- a lot more -- than old power plants built decades ago.

We've gotten used to driving the old paid-off clunker.  Now, when the old beater finally has to be retired, the shock to the pocketbook will come.  

How Much Money Will Need to Be Invested?  If we have to build brand new power plants to accomplish replacement of 60% of old coal plants, it's going to matter a great deal what we choose to replace them: 

Gas and Small Hydro. Just replacing the existing kWh's generated by those old coal plants is likely to cost over $250 billion in up-front capital costs (in today's dollars) if we replace those old coal plants with about 130,000 MW of the cheapest choices for new power plants -- small hydro such as "Run of River" power, or gas plants using landfill gas, Combined-Heat-and-Power, or traditonal natural gas power plants.

While the small hydro and CHP plants have zero or low fuel costs, natural gas plants may require paying significant life cycle fuel costs.  This used to make utility managers leery of natural gas.  However, natural gas fuel is very cheap today, and expected to stay cheap for the next couple decades, so central utilities are now moving primarily to build natural gas power plants. 

Natural gas plants are also compatible with wind and solar energy, as they can cycle on and off quickly.  As renewable power sources come on line, natural gas plants can cut their fuel costs.

Wind and Geothermal.  One step up in capital costs per annual kWh, but with zero fuel costs and therefore roughly comparable to natural gas in life cycle costs per kWh, are wind farms and geothermal power.  Building enough wind turbines and geothermal (and transmission lines for these) to generate the kWh's from the retiring coal plants might cost about $600 billion -- more than natural gas, but with no worries about fuel costs, and zero GHG emissions.  

Concentrating Solar Power.  Another step up in capital costs per annual kWh are the concentrating solar power plants -- thermal CSP, concentrating photovoltaic, and Stirling Engine -- now being built in the desert Southwest. These plants are competitive in their intended market --  daytime peaking power -- but are currently more expensive per kWh than wind or geothermal.  (They will not be installed nationwide, so a comparative cost to replace all retiring coal plants is not appropriate.)

Large numbers of gas, hydro, wind and geothermal plants, and some CSP plants, have recently been built -- so we know what they cost. The renewable capacity already installed and under construction dwarfs nuclear and CCS efforts.

Two new technologies, however, require much larger and more expensive power plants, and none have yet been built in the U.S.:

New Coal.  If we tried instead to build new coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to replace the retiring coal-fired plants, the tally would likely be in the $700 - $850 billion range.  Unlike renewables, however, coal requires paying fuel costs that would grow over time. "Clean Coal" is thus a more expensive option -- and we don't really know how expensive, because CCS is still an unproven technology.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/print/56530

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/feb/03/egypt-protesters-head-protection-helmets?intcmp=239

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-