Unofficial Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign

[johnkarls]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Issues Left Hanging Last Evening
From: John Karls
Date: Thu, November 19, 2009 10:56 am
To: Attendees of Our November 18 Meeting
Attachments:
(A) The U.S. Department of Energy definitions of base-load electricity and peak-load plant (with some additional explanation from Wikipedia).
(B) An article from the St. Petersburg Times that explains that the recent controversy regarding electricity rates had nothing to do with the relative “all in” cost of nuclear-powered electric utilities vs., for example, coal-fired electric plants, but rather was caused by a Florida law that calls for electricity rates to be raised in advance to fund the costs of to-be-built nuclear plants, rather than following the normal practice of adjusting rates downward or upward after new capacity has come on stream to cover the cost of amortizing the loans to finance the capital costs of the new capacity.
(C) The U.S. Department of Energy’s Latest Annual Electricity Report which, inter alia, compares the cost of different energy sources for electricity generation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends:

Thank you all for attending our meeting last evening.

Normally, if we do not reach a consensus, we do not launch a six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaign to contact President Obama (or whomever).

However, I wanted to provide each of you with a “heads up” that although we did not reach a consensus, I personally am proceeding to contact President Obama with a message to the effect of the last section on the “Suggested Discussion Outline” for last evening =

“D. What Can Be Done? Outlaw pure electric vehicles until 100% of the nation’s electric utilities burning hydrocarbons (coal, natural gas, fuel oil, etc.) are replaced by electric generation from clean sources (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.)”

Obviously, it troubles me greatly that the U.S. Government’s General Motors subsidiary is trumpeting 230 miles/gallon for the Chevrolet Volt (which is itself fraudulent because mileage is infinite for the first 40 miles between re-charging and only 25% of a gasoline-powered vehicle thereafter, so one could claim any number between 5 miles/gallon and infinity) – WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW THE EXTRA ELECTRICITY TO POWER THE VOLTS WILL BE GENERATED – in an obvious attempt to get the American public to assume that the Volt will have a positive impact on the environment when, upon reflection, that appears highly dubious.

It also troubles me greatly that the Obama Administration is taking a “unilateral approach” (A) in opposition to the European Community, Japan, British Columbia, and California vis-à-vis hydrogen cars, and (B) in opposition to the Democratically-controlled U.S. Congress which restored hydrogen research to the U.S. budget after the Administration eliminated it. Of course, I admit skepticism or perhaps even bias because of President Obama’s history of “carrying water” for the coal industry from his days when he was a U.S. Senator and felt he had to champion the coal mines in Southern Illinois.

Nevertheless, I would submit that President Obama should bear the “burden of proof” with regard to what he is permitting his General Motors subsidiary to do (if, indeed, he is not actually “calling the shots”) – rather than it being my responsibility to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” what he has in mind.

In informing our e-mail list of 150 what I am doing personally, I do not intend to go into any detail regarding your positions last evening other than to say that I favored contacting President Obama on this issue (together with the to-be-drafted text of what I will say, which should parrot Item D in last evening’s Suggested Outline with, perhaps, an admonition that he owes it to the nation to explain how he proposes that the additional electricity be generated accompanied by an overall environmental impact statement as would be required if he were not the government).

However, before resolving to follow this course of action, I did do some further investigation which I would like to report for your possible reactions =

*****
Base-Load Electricity

I believe you, “X”, questioned whether base-load electricity is wasted if it is not used.

Attachment A comprising the U.S. Department of Energy’s definitions of “base-load electricity” and “peak-load plant” (with some additional explanation from Wikipedia), makes clear, I believe, that this is not the case. Rather, if Volts are re-charged at night, then the nation's base-load capacity has to be increased with the adverse environmental
consequences that were anticipated.

*****
The Florida Electricity Rate Imbroglio As Evidence of the Cost of Nuclear Power

One or more of you cited the Florida electric-rate controversy as evidence that nuclear power is not economic.

Attachment B is an article from the St. Petersburg Times that explains that the controversy was caused by a Florida law that calls for electricity rates to be raised in advance to fund the costs of to-be-built nuclear plants, rather than following the normal practice of adjusting rates downward or upward after new capacity has come on stream to cover the cost of amortizing the loans to finance the capital costs of the new capacity.

*****
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Cost Comparisons for All Electrical-Generation Power Sources Including Nuclear

Attachment C is the U.S. Department of Energy’s latest annual report comparing costs for different power sources for electricity generation (it is available on line at http://www.eia.doe.gov > electricity (from “energy sources” menu down left-hand margin) > generating technologies cost (under “costs” in “U.S. Data” menu down left-hand margin)).

I would commend it for your attention on the issue of the comparative cost of nuclear power (especially the table on the third page which is numbered 89).

*****
Energy Independence and Political Independence

I believe you, “Y”, inkled that you were willing to sacrifice environmental considerations for energy sources that would enable the U.S. to re-achieve energy independence (if memory serves, 1961 was when the U.S. ceased being a net exporter of oil & gas) and the accompanying political independence from OPEC countries.

It would appear that coal and nuclear are the only fuels that are both plentiful enough in the U.S. and economic in order to achieve your objective. (Please see the comments that follow concerning the current economic viability of wind and solar – and please note that although there has been quite a bit in the media that recent natural gas discoveries in the U.S. mean that we now have more than 100 years’ supply, this statistic appears to be highly misleading because it seems to mean 100 years’ supply for the small fraction of total U.S. energy consumption that is currently fueled by natural gas rather than its longevity if it became the sole or primary energy source for the nation.)

I respect your ranking of priorities.

Nevertheless, it is not my ranking.

And, more importantly, President Obama owes it to the nation to disclose his ranking.

*****
U.S. Governmental Guarantees of Worldwide Oil Prices to Make Wind and Solar Economic (or Undertake the Investment Itself in a T.V.A.-Style Program)

I believe you, “Z”, once again balked at subsidies or guarantees for wind and solar as you have done at past meetings when we have discussed energy.

Which may be disastrous for both wind and solar because of the tremendous governmental subsidies that are due to expire over the next two years – as discussed in the DOE Annual Electricity Report (Attachment C).

There is terrible drift on “Y”’s issue of energy independence (aka foreign-held U.S. debt) which is now being compounded by the Obama Administration’s new policy to permit foreign holders of U.S. debt the option of being repaid in foreign currency at yesterday’s exchange rates to make them willing to continue to roll the debt and purchase new U.S. debt.

But this is only a temporary expedient because foreign holders will soon lose faith in the ability of the U.S. government to repay its foreign-held debt in foreign currency at yesterday’s exchange rates unless the massive foreign-exchange deficit is brought under control soon.

President Obama can’t “kick this can down the road” much longer, particularly in view of his agreement to redeem U.S. debt in foreign currency.

Indeed, I agree with “Y” insofar that if the President is going to opt for coal rather than nuclear, then it would be far better to do so sooner rather than later.

And it would be nice for him in the process to be honest with the American people.

*****
Miscellaneous

There was a lot of discussion about other political issues such as CAFE standards and how our spineless American politicians will never do anything constructive.

No disagreement here.

However, I don’t believe that is an excuse for letting the Obama Administration’s General Motors subsidiary perpetrate fraud without so much as a whimper.

*****
If any of you have any questions or comments, I would be delighted to discuss them with everyone.

Your friend,

John K.

[johnkarls]

.
**********************************************************
U.S. Department of Energy = www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/glossary.html

Definitions - Electricity Terms

Baseload: The minimum amount of electric power delivered or required over a given period of time at a steady rate.

Baseload Capacity: The generating equipment normally operated to serve loads on an around-the-clock basis.

Baseload Plant: A plant, usually housing high-efficiency steam-electric units, which is normally operated to take all or part of the minimum load of a system, and which consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate and runs continuously. These units are operated to maximize system mechanical and thermal efficiency and minimize system operating costs.

Peak Load Plant: A plant usually housing old, low-efficiency steam units; gas turbines; diesels; or pumped-storage hydroelectric equipment normally used during the peak-load periods.

**********************************************************
Excerpt from Wikipedia Article on “Base Load Power Plant”

Economics

Power plants are designated baseload based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at rated output power levels. Baseload power plants do not change production to match power consumption demands since it is more economical to operate them at constant production levels. Use of higher cost combined-cycle plants or combustion turbines is thus minimized, and these plants can be cycled up and down to match more rapid fluctuations in consumption. Baseload generators, such as nuclear and coal, often have very high fixed costs and very low marginal costs. On the other hand, peak load generators, such as natural gas, have low fixed costs and high marginal costs.[5] Typically these plants are large and provide a majority of the power used by a grid. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid.

Base Load Power Plant Usage

Nuclear and coal power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.[citation needed] On the other hand, they have low fuel costs.[citation needed] Because they require a long period of time to heat up to operating temperature, these plants typically handle large amounts of baseload demand. Different plants and technologies may have differing capacities to increase or decrease output on demand: nuclear plants are generally run at close to peak output continuously (apart from maintenance, refueling and periodic refurbishment), while coal-fired plants may be cycled over the course of a day to meet demand[citation needed]. Plants with multiple generating units may be used as a group to improve the "fit" with demand, by operating each unit as close to peak efficiency as possible.

[johnkarls]

.
Editorial Notes =

1. Top google hit – Florida nuclear electricity rates

2. Only obviously-credible source in top 10 hits that addressed the issue of what the rate increases were designed to cover (here, advance capital costs for to-be-built capacity rather than after-the-fact loan amortization of financing for those costs)

********************************************************************************************************************************
St. Petersburg Times – 10/17/2009
State regulators agree to electric rates to pay for up-front nuclear costs
By Robert Trigaux, Times Staff Writer

Florida regulators gave their blessing Friday to higher electricity rates to cover advance costs for building a nuclear power plant in Levy County.

With a 3-1 vote, the Florida Public Service Commission okayed Progress Energy Florida's request to recover some $207 million in up-front costs. According to the Associated Press, Progress can charge residential customers $5.86 a month — an increase of about $1.55 — per 1,000 kilowatt hours to go toward the up-front costs. Residential customers now pay $127.31 for 1,000 kilowatt hours, enough electricity to power a smaller Florida home for about a month.

The PSC also agreed to allow Florida Power & Light Co. to charge 67 cents per month — a $1.59 decrease, AP reports, in what customers are paying — for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours to cover costs for a new nuclear power plant in South Florida.

Both companies were given slightly less than they had requested, AP said. The rate changes take effect Jan. 1.

Florida is one of a few states whose legislature authorized power companies to charge customers in advance to pay for new, expensive power plants. Critics complain state lawmakers merely dumped the expensive burden of financing high-cost plants on to utility customers, and off the power company that normally would borrow money to build a new plant. Shareholders who typically take on such risks as investors in the company are now spared that exposure.

In a statement, PSC chairman Matthew M. Carter II said nuclear power helps diversify the types of fuels utilities use to generate electricity and will save Florida residents money on future utility bills.

"Utilities have to begin spending now to meet future power needs that will keep the lights on for us, our children and our grandchildren at prices we can afford," Carter stated.

PSC Commissioner Nancy Argenziano was the lone vote against the early cost recovery. The Levy nuclear plant is not scheduled to open until after 2017.

Robert Trigaux can be reached at trigaux@sptimes.com.

[johnkarls]

.
Unfortunately, our bulletin board is not able to up-load Adobe files.

Attachment C is the U.S. Department of Energy’s latest annual report comparing costs for different power sources for electricity generation.

It is available on line at http://www.eia.doe.gov > electricity (from “energy sources” menu down left-hand margin) > generating technologies cost (under “costs” in “U.S. Data” menu down left-hand margin).