Renewable Energy - We Pay, they profit.

[Susan Rose]

Wind Jammers at the White House
A Larry Summers memo exposes the high cost of energy corporate welfare.
President Obama continues to advertise the $814 billion stimulus and its green energy subsidy programs in particular as unqualified successes. But a remarkable memo from Mr. Obama's own advisers tells the real story, neatly illustrating what happens when his anticarbon agenda meets the political allocation of capital. The eight-page October 25 memorandum to the President was written by soon-to-depart chief
economic aide Larry Summers and senior policy aides Carol Browner and Ron Klain, and it's been kicking around Capitol Hill and industry circles for the last week. The trio walks through an interagency dispute about Energy Department subsidies for wind, solar and other forms of "renewable" power, which DOE claimed were being held up by the joint Treasury and White House budget office (OMB) reviews. Recall that the stimulus transformed the government into the world's largest private equity firm.
The many tools now at DOE's disposal include $6 billion to guarantee loans and another
dispensation so that the department can convert an energy investment tax credit equal to 30% of a project's cost into a direct cash grant to green developers.
The Summers memo notes that these two provisions alone reduce "the cost of a new wind farm by about 55% and solar technologies by about half relative to a no-subsidy case." So taxpayers are more than majority partners in these private projects, except they get no upside. DOE wanted the White House to cut OMB and Treasury out of deal-by-deal approval oversight so it could get the money out the door quicker. The department was coming under political attack "from Hill supporters and stakeholders for slow implementation," according to the memo, and impatient Democrats had already raided the $6 billion fund to pay for cash for clunkers. But OMB and Treasury found severe problems with "the economic integrity of government support for renewables." Developers had almost no "skin in the game," meaning that their equity in projects was well below ordinary standards in the private market. They were also "double dipping," obtaining loan guarantees for projects that "would appear likely to move forward without the credit support" in the stimulus because of other subsidy programs. The reason for the roadblock was "an insufficient number of financially and technically viable projects." Treasury and OMB singled out an 845-megawatt wind farm that the Energy Department had guaranteed in Oregon called Shepherds Flat, a $1.9 billion installation of 338 General Electric turbines. Combining the stimulus and other federal and state subsidies, the total taxpayer cost is about $1.2 billion, while sponsors GE and Caithness Energy LLC had invested equity of merely about 11%. The memo also notes the wind farm could sell power at "above-market rates" because of 11/11/2010 Review & Outlook: Wind Jammers at the Oregon's renewable portfolio standard mandate, which requires utilities to buy a certain annual amount of wind, solar, etc. But then GE said it was considering "going to the private market for financing out of frustration with
the review process." Anything but that. The memo dryly observes that "the alternative of private financing would not make the project financially non-viable."
Oh, and while Shepherds Flat might result in about 18 million fewer tons of carbon through 2033, "reductions would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies (more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules)."
So here we have the government already paying for 65% of a project that doesn't even meet its normal cost-benefit test, and then the White House has to referee when one of the largest corporations in the world (GE) importunes the Administration to move faster by threatening to find a private financial substitute like any other business. Remind us again why taxpayers should pay for this kind of corporate welfare? The memo's tone suggests that Messrs. Summers and Klain and Ms. Browner are on the side of the adults at Treasury and the budget office, and they propose several reforms. But they also say that "Failing to make progress on renewables loan guarantees could upset the Hill ([New Mexico] Sen.
[Jeff] Bingaman, Speaker Pelosi)" and changes could "signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the Administration." Well, that answers our question. Meanwhile, the loan guarantee program continues apace.

[XLFD]

Thanks for coming to our forum and discussing these matters in a civil and intelligent manner.  I really hope to get down under one of these days before I get planted.  And I find your discussions intriguing.

I have little more than a sophomore level college class in weather and climate back in the 80's, when there was more concerns about global cooling than the other way.  But I do have a MS degree in another field and many college level science classes.  One thing that was universal is the scientific method. 

Models are nice, theories sound good, experimentation is great, but when I see, as in your Nature link the phrase "There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate..." it loses all objectivity for me.  I do not see that as a given axiom, or even as a theory that has no refutation. 

Recently, Guido and I both posted two global warming/climate change threads here that debated the foundation of the mindset that starts with the proposition that man-caused climate change is irrefutable, and goes on to claim a lot of shaky theories from this proposition.

In logic, if you start out with a false thesis stated as a fact, you can prove just about anything.  In fact, proof through contradiction starts off with an assertion and through a series of logical steps you find an absurd outcome that effectively disproves the assertion.  This has happened again and again with global warming/climate change assertions and its refutations, which generally become apparent only over time. 

At which point, the science has changed to the point of absurdity to cover the refutations.

Alan, you have claimed no great knowledge of climatology, and your belief is based on faith in those who champion the cause.  Scientists and scientific journals need to base their theories on more than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Many people do not trust nuclear companies and also object to their producing waste that has to be confined for 10,000 years. That is their right and until you can convince them your nuclear power program will probably remain democratically frozen, especially as you still don't have a working waste repository despite a huge taxpayer contribution for Yucca Mountain which Nevada still opposes.

False... as almost 60% a majority last time I looked in a democracy, are okay with responsible Nuclear production. And currently all the waste produced is stored on site until a couple of football field area is secured for the 39 grams a year of waste that is created by the average plant. citations below.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new...

 

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html

Not to mention the fact the storage needed is only going to be needed until the technology improves to recycle it as also mentioned in link 2.

Your opinion are respected, but not when at the expense of facts.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I am giving you a lot of leeway due to the fact the country you say you are from does not use Nuclear plants for any purpose but wanton experimentation.

[Alan Flint]

I disagree that there is something false about my comments or conclusions. The same Gallup poll you have referred to concludes as follows (their emphasis):

Implications

There are clearly challenges to expanding nuclear energy use in the United States. Although most Americans support the use of nuclear energy, the level is hardly an overwhelming majority. And there remain concerns among a substantial minority of Americans about the safety of nuclear power plants. Indeed, in prior years, Gallup has found Americans reluctant to support the construction of nuclear power plants in their local communities.

President Obama has said that nuclear power is part of his overall plan to expand the use of alternative energy in the United States, and if public support for it continues to grow, it would seem likely that more Americans would come to rely on nuclear energy.

If you go to the earlier poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/16111/Public-Warm-Nuclear-Power-Cool-N as linked in the poll you relied on you will find that in what is apparently their last survey on the topic 63% of Americans opposed construction of nuclear plants in their local communities.

That seems to be a reasonable democratic concern to me. Some might even call it being justifiably NIMBY. So it seems that to get more nuclear reactors, wind turbines or whatever, some people's rights to being NIMBY will have to be considered greater than others.

Also, the link you have based your comments on waste volumes about is clear that it is about 39 g of wastes per person, per annum, if all electricity was generated from nuclear, so given there are 308 million Americans, the scale of the waste problem if all American electricity was generated from nuclear sources is a bit larger than you suggest. I also suggest that disposal of used nuclear equipment that has radioactive traces is also rather more expansive problem.

It is not just volumes of nuclear waste storage that are important, it is the unprecedented timescale of storage that is required, which is at present longer than recorded history. Over much shorter timescales societies and civil order can and do break down. Imagine potential civil breakdown from war, a meteorite impact in a crucial area, or from massive food shortages that could well arise from climate change in the future. Nuclear wastes could then become vulnerable to inadvertent exposure or exploitation by terrorism. Burdening future generations with such wastes seems to me more than a little bit questionable morally.

You are also assuming that technology to dispose of nuclear waste by recycling will be improved enough to become successful. What if it isn't?

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

My link refers to the waste on the basis that we were in fact powering all generators with Nuclear energy powering all 38 million of us Alan. I also went so far as to point out the current waste from all 50 plus years of Nuclear power in the United states takes up somewhat more than one football field stacked meters high.

Yucca mountain was supposed to not just store waste for the USA but for the whole world thus Generating revenue from all of the countries which would choose to store wastes off site themselves.

Senator Reid being as he is crying for more money from the peiople of his country could have made a breakthrough in added funds by allowing the project to go though.

And where do you get the idea that a 2 to 1 ratio of persons desiring Nuclear power is not an overwhelming majority??? I see no recent votes in your own country on much legislation that gets passed with better than 2 to one?

The technology to recycle already exists A. The cost of doing so is the only issue left to debate.. and as with any other innovation or technology, the cost comes down with mass production of the equipment. As in any manufacturing process.

The quote burden of nuclear energy is only evident in your country and a few European nations. France, UK and Germany have already accepted the fact they can not produce the kind of power they need to prosper without Nuclear plants.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-...

Simply because as I already pointed out through other links if you generated every possible place you could place a solar panel or a wind turbine you could not shut down even a handful of other power plants.

Fun Fact France is over 60% of its power from nuclear turbines while U.S.A. is stuck down at 25%. If we do not change this quickly we will in fact become a banana republic.

                                                        Thank you for your time.. and please do some actual study of the facts here not the "narrative" political save the planet types try to pass as facts.

[Alan Flint]

Guido, you are now objecting to a quote from the selfsame identical Gallup poll material that you yourself relied on earlier.

If you read my posting properly, you will see that I have reproduced material I have quoted using the common convention of italicisation. It's not my quote about the hardly overwhelming majority supporting nuclear energy, it is the Gallup poll's own statement.

Secondly, even if a majority are nominally  in favour, and some or most are only just in favour, that would hardly make it an overwhelming majority, as the Gallup poll itself has commented. I suggest the Gallup pollsters should be qualified to comment on their own findings better than we are.

Furthermore you haven't addressed the fact that the earlier Gallup poll also asked the question whether those polled would want  a nuclear plant in their neighbourhood to which 63% preferred not. This is a very clear NIMBY influence that will make it very, very difficult to build more nuclear plants as I have already correctly stated. And, that is clearly also what is behind Gov Reid's objections to waste storage in Nevada.

It appears from what you have said that you support buying off those with objections as a way of overcoming this moral dilemma. I happen to believe that avoiding the problem altogether by the application of the same kind of ingenuity, energy and effort that went into the Apollo program or the Manhattan project is possible, and probably more affordable and necessary and preferable and ultimately rewarding for the US and other economies.

My impression is that given your misstatements about waste levels (whether intentional or not), and incorrect conclusions denying a proven reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from development of renewable power sources and especially wind power, people have even more right to be suspicious of nuclear proponents.

Hard facts as simple justification for energy needs is an interesting but ultimately sterile argument. Does anyone recall the old saying about there being lies, damn lies and statistics? Selective use of so-called facts can be used to argue practically anything.

Are you saying that you should be able to over-ride the people's democratic rights of choice and the right of choice of future generations simply because you believe you are right about a certain version of the facts that you consider to be correct and that there are no alternatives? Off the top of my head, the US has a huge geothermal resource but doesn't seem to be using much of it. Surely that should be a priority rather than more nuclear.

 

 

 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Explain to us the ( Hidden costs) of producing power through more efficient means such as Nuclear Alan. And explain us me how wind or solar could compete if they also had to pay people to look at those towers in there windows?

I have actually looked trying to find any verifiable statistics showing the use of solar or wind helping to reduce emission of any type of other plant Alan. As most in the industry will tell you you can not shut down a coal or gas turbine plant down for the period of time the sun chooses to shine, or the wind chooses to blow in the correct place to turn a usable amount of energy.

If (incentives) you are speaking of mean charge more for companies who chose the efficient means of production over the 4-6 hour a day production of solar, or the very erratic and expensive wind farms I'll take the type I can afford TY.

Also please site links to the blanket false statements your coming across with here.

For instance the earth has endured your ideas of the current extremes weather wise every 1000-15oo years since the beginning of recorded history and beyond.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/papers-on-1500-year-cli...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971114070632.htm

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/03/hundreds-more-scientists-have-found-the...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFMPP13A0579R

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

P.S I'll be all for more solar and Wind turbines if the same people pushing for them allow a few well placed Reactors to be build. This is the only way a noticeable amount of fossil fuel generations will come off line.And if this CO2 issue you site is the worst problem with fossil fuels use and the only output from Nuclear plants like the one I can see from my home is Steam I don't see where a great compromise can not be founded. ( I really suspect you will have just as large of a problem with Reactors however) Maybe I am wrong on that let me know.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I just noticed the articles in the Ludington Daily News reference the economical impact of the ground based wind farm. I realized after I hit send on a comment, that they request no one post URLs in the comments section. I hope they read all I did was correct a broken link to no where they posted as a link to the study done for this project.

My main point there being.. The study does not seem to account for any negative impact for the project. Do we need to ask specifically for the negative impact study to get a fair shot at real news here?

Also at what point ( we have both a water and land based turbine field likely to be built in the next several years) is there a saturation point IE too many objects in a given county for enough people to feel it maybe too much? I know many of those who seem okay with the turbines were not at all happy about all the condos being built around the water Mariana area?

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Alan just as you claimed at least to RJE that the NIMBY complaint was indeed valid. There are vast uninhabited stretched of the middle of America where a plant would not have to be in anyone's back yard.

The fact I specified a 60 plus percent margin of Americans agreeing to the responcible use of nuclear energy is not excerpted by a portion of the study showing the same thing we already know exists for any industrial tower or solar panel assembly. I did not address that part of the poll simply because the part you are citing, has the same negatives as the solar /wind tower situation in the area of the world we are talking about.

Again I can not speak to the portion of the world you live in, and the fact you found a little narrow forum in another county to debate the solo subject with is somewhat disarming to me even. Have a great day..

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

"I happen to believe that avoiding the problem altogether by the application of the same kind of ingenuity, energy and effort that went into the Apollo program or the Manhattan project is possible"

Hey !! we agree on that line.. Only I believe that we already have the technology safe, clean, nuclear, And you believe in something that thus far has been dis-proven, in that as a matter of Physics the earth can not sustain enough generation capacity using solely renewable resources.

Both sides of the issue are eventually going to have to compromise here and so far the eco crowd is the bunch unwilling to acknowledge simple physics principles showing we as of yet do not have the technology to generate even a small fraction of what is needed world wide with solar or wind alone. WE need a multifaceted approach which will like it or not include either a few nuclear plants or a whole bunch more coal or gas plants.

In my not so humble opinion.. The issue has been turned into a mythological religion rather than a serious give and take debate by a fringe group. The reason I have come to this opinion, is simply by looking at the disclaimers and qualifying factors of the vary studies you and many other cite as authoritative. Only to discover some of those listed in said studies never even signed onto the consensus you seem to keep saying exists.

Bottom line here is we agree to disagree. And polls and other data easily obtained shows more than a little sceptically in the entire scientific community as well.

If it really were the case that all the planets Ills can be treated with renewal's it would be done already as what company would not want to be paid for power that costs them little to produce after the equipment was initially built? So far I only see very socialist or at minimum, liberal people, trying to take monies that have not been created yet ( only borrowed in the case of U.S.A.) to build things that to date run a deficit rather than a profit. JMO