Arguing with an idiot

Too fracking funny…

Our Model:

We operate a unique model. We use our customers’ energy bills to fund the building of new sources of Green Energy. We like to refer to this as turning ‘Bills into Mills’ – energy bills into windmills. We’re a not-for-dividend company – our profits go back into our mission.

With no shareholders to answer to we’re free to dedicate ourselves to the task of building new sources of Green Energy. And that’s what we do, on average spending more per customer each year on new sources of Green Energy than any other energy company in Britain – bar none. And we share the benefits of our work through our ecobonds – giving people the chance to share the financial benefits of the Green Energy revolution.

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/about-ecotricity

Ecotricity is a green scam. When you charge up your PEV at one of their charging stations, you’re just getting electricity from the grid… From whatever mix of sources is delivering to the grid. They then “invest” their profits into windmills and other greenschist.

  • The chart doesn’t include the costs of earthquakes, tsunamis or asteroid impacts either.

    The chart shows the actual (real) costs and actual (mythical) benefits of emissions reductions. The actual costs of building nuclear power plants are very high. The actual emissions reductions are also the highest of any power source.

    Nuclear power plants cost almost twice as much as gas-fired power plants…

    If cost is a factor, solar is the biggest loser, wind breaks even and gas kicks @$$.

  • One nuclear power plant not getting built doesn’t alter the cost of building nuclear power plants.

    The costs of massive earthquakes and tsunamis is no more relevant to the cost of nuclear power plants than the costs of asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts, or invaders from Mars.

  • Can you not grasp the fact that potential damages from massive earthquakes and tsunamis is no more relevant to the cost of a power plant than asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts or invaders from outer space?

  • Can you not grasp the fact that insurance covers potential damages to nuclear power plants? Can you not grasp that no private sector insurance company is willing to take the risk of insuring nuclear power? Can you not grasp that without publicly subsidized insurance for nuclear power that they would not operate the plants? Can you not grasp that if a Fukishima type incident occurred in the USA, that the taxpayers would be on the hook for the cleanup?

  • Nuclear power plant operators are required to carry private insurance. The Price-Anderson Act established a pool to cover up to $13 billion per reactor incident above the private insurance coverage. The Price-Anderson pool is funded by the nuclear power industry.

    If a reactor incident in the U.S. caused damages above and beyond the Price-Anderson $13 billion cap and the Federal government had to cover the excess damages, a subsidy would then exist.

    Thus far, only about $151 million has been paid out under the Price-Anderson Act, including Three Mile Island.

    If a massive earthquake, tsunami, asteroid impact, ultra-plinian volcanic eruption, gamma ray burst, Godzilla or space alien invasion caused a Fukushima-style disaster in the US, there would be an actual insurance subsidy required.

    […]

    • David, you don’t understand insurance. You say, ” and the Federal government had to cover the excess damages, a subsidy would then exist.” That is not true. The fact that the Federal government backstops the liability limits is ITSELF AN ONGOING SUBSIDY. Damages over and above the current $13 billion are “covered” by taxpayers. A simple test of this would be as follows….. If Price Anderson were repealed tomorrow, would nuclear power plants continue operation? NOPE. It was the enactment of Price Anderson, with the promise of unlimited liability insurance that enabled the nuclear power industry. You seriously think $13 billion would cover a catastrophe at Indian Point with a southerly blowing wind?

    • Crispin: “….accidents can’t happen in Ontario…” Your attitude reminds me of the crew member of the White Star ship that told Mrs. Sylvia Caldwell, “God himself could not sink this ship!”

    • “There are hundreds of nuclear reactors in operation around the world at the moment and thousands more will be built” … So with hundreds running we’ve had two major disasters at Chernobyl and Fukishima. With thousands will we have seven, twelve or sixteen major disasters?

    •  

      […]

     

    • I do math. I don’t imagine.

      The ChiCom’s are capable learners. The only nuclear power plant disaster of significant magnitude, related to the design and operation of a nuclear power plant was Chernobyl.

      The Red Chinese have generally been smart enough to learn from Soviet mistakes.

      That said, Red China’s relative valuation of life is wholly irrelevant to the cost of power plants in the US and other civilized nations.

    • I’ve been discussing the costs of nuclear power, and their subsidies. I really don’t care how many coal mining deaths there are in China. You keep throwing stuff against the wall seeing what will stick. Get back to me when you can keep to the subject matter at hand, and stop digressing.

    • No. You have not been discussing the costs of nuclear power, and their subsidies. You have been repeating the same straw man over and over again.

      I discussed the actual costs and actual subsidies and provided actual documentaton of the costs and subsidies.

    • “The only nuclear power plant disaster of significant magnitude, related to the design and operation of a nuclear power plant was Chernobyl.”

      HA HA HA HA
      ….
      HA HA HA HA

      Fukishima YOU!!!!!

    • Fukushima was the result of one of the most powerful eartquakes ever recorded and a massive tsunami which flooded the backup power diesel generators.

      It was not the result of nuclear technology or the operation of the power plant.

    • Your graphic with “subsidies” has the caveat “DIRECT.”

      I gave you the prime INDIRECT one.
      ..
      I started this whole thread of discussion mentioning the fact that the South Carolina plant’s construction was HALTED because it determined to be unprofitable. That’s got to be the biggest black hole for $$$ for nuclear power that can be imagined.

    • Mark S Johnson on July 31, 2017 at 4:39 pm
      David, you don’t understand insurance. You say, ” and the Federal government had to cover the excess damages, a subsidy would then exist.” That is not true. The fact that the Federal government backstops the liability limits is ITSELF AN ONGOING SUBSIDY. Damages over and above the current $13 billion are “covered” by taxpayers. A simple test of this would be as follows….. If Price Anderson were repealed tomorrow, would nuclear power plants continue operation? NOPE. It was the enactment of Price Anderson, with the promise of unlimited liability insurance that enabled the nuclear power industry. You seriously think $13 billion would cover a catastrophe at Indian Point with a southerly blowing wind?

      Abject nonsense.

      A subsidy is a direct expediture, either through an actual cash payment, tax expenditure or some other actual fiscal event.

      A hypothetical future subsidy is not a subsidy.

    • Backstopping the liability for nuclear power plants is called “insurance.”
      Price Anderson provides this insurance.
      This is an indirect subsidy.
      To see what happens in the real world, look at who is paying for the costs of the Fukishima disaster. The same thing will happen here when a nuclear disaster happens.

      PS….leasing federal land at $1.00 acre for oil drilling technically is not a subsidy in your world.

      HA HA HA HA

    • Price-Anderson doesn’t “provide” anything. It requires nuclear power plant operators to maintain a certain level of insurance and it requires the nuclear power industry to backstop that insurance.

    • In my world, words have definitions. A subsidy is a direct fiscal support.

      If no oil company is willing to bid more than $1/acre for a particular lease, that’s all it’s worth. In reality, leases with higher potential will draw higher competitive bids, occasionally topping $5,000/acre.

      However, the Fed’s make far more from royalties… 1/6 to 1/8 of the gross revenue from the oil & gas production. Then they tax net earnings at 35%. And then collect $0.18/gal in sales taxes.

      A 1 million bbl discovery in the Gulf of Mexico at $50/bbl delivers $6-8 miilion in royalties, 35% of the profits over the full cycle from production to retail sales and about $4 million in gasoline taxes.

    • You have no clue do you Middleton. Price Anderson caps the industry’s liability. When damages exceed these limits, the taxpayer’s pick up the rest. I suggest you review how “backstopping” applies to Price Anderson.

    • It ‘caps” liability per incident at almost 100 times the sum total that has been paid out under Price-Anderson since 1957.

      Even then, it’s not really a “cap.” If a nuclear power plant operator was found to be negligent, they could still be held liable for civil and/or criminal damages.

      Price-Anderson and similar programs are not subsidies…

      These programs are not addressed in this report because of the difficulty in determining the sufficiency of the funds to meet potential liabilities and the fact that there is no direct federal budgetary impact in FY 2013.

      https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

      Until such time that Price-Anderson causes a “direct federal budgetary impact,” it is not a subsidy.

    • In 2013, the Department of Energy said it wasn’t.

      Even if Price-Anderson was valued at $600,000 per reactor year, it would have no significant effect on nuclear power subsidies.

    • $2.3 million per reactor year would have only moved the subsidy from $0.23/mmbtu to $0.25/mmbtu. $600k per reactor year is barely a rounding error.

    • Irrespective of their analysis, it is not a subsidy because it has no budgetary impact.

      But, let’s look at $237 million per year vs power plant output.

      Actual 2013 nuclear power subsidies were $1.66 billion:

      $1.66 B + $0.237 B ~ $1.9 B

      Let’s round it up to $2 billion.

      US Nuclear power plants generated over 8,000 trillion btu in 2013…

      8,000 trillion btu = 8,000,000 billion btu = 8,000,000,000 million btu

      That works out to $0.25 per million btu. So, even if you added in a mythical Price-Anderson subsidy of $237 million/yr, it would only elevate the total subsidy from $0.23/mmbtu to $0.25/mmbtu… a fraction of the wind and solar subsidies per unit of energy.

    • Oh, and that $13 billion in the current fund would have been gone long ago had a Fukishima type event happen at one of the plants here in the USA. Estimates vary, but Fukishima could end up costing about $100 billion by the time it’s cleaned up. In circumstances like that the taxpayers of would have to fork over the extra $87 billion.

    • Strawman, lather, rinse, repeat, strawman.

      If a massive earthquake, tsunami, asteroid impact, Godzilla, space invaders, an ultra-plinian eruption, a flood basalt event or some other massive natural disaster occurred, a Fukushima-type event could trigger the need for a subsidy.

      Until then, Price-Anderson is not a subsidy. A hypothetical future subsidy is not a subsidy because it has no budgetary impact.

    • Middleton says: “It was not the result of nuclear technology or the operation of the power plant. ” 

      WRONG, it was the result of POOR NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DESIGN. The plant shut down as designed due to the earthquake. The placement of the backup diesel generators was the design problem. Had they been located on higher ground (as insurance against a tsunami) there would not have been any problem.

    • The placement of the diesel-powered backup generators was not a *nuclear* technology or design flaw. Diesel engines are not part of the nuclear power technology or design.

      The Fukushima could have been avoided; but the flaws weren’t realted to the reactors or nuclear power issues.

    • You have now demonstrated complete cluelessness. Tell me Mr. Nuclear Scientist, what happens to a reactor after the control rods are inserted?….. The chain reaction stops correct? Yes it does. Does the reactor stop producing heat? Nope, residual decay continues……. Is this heat significant? Yup…you’d better have pumps running for cooling or……guess what happens? Fukishima happens, that’s what!!!!
      ….
      Those diesel engines are a critical nuclear safety system. Because in an earthquake situation (like what happened) power from outside the plant was interrupted….and the cooling water pumps stopped.

      Here’s a clue for you to help you conquer your cluelessness: All nuclear power plants have a backup emergency power supplies…..it’s part of the plant design!!!!!

    • The placement of the diesel engines still isn’t a nuclear power design flaw. Nor is an insufficiently high seawall a nuclear design flaw.

      The failure to protect a nuclear power plant from a low probability natural disaster is not a failure of nuclear technology. Fukushima should have been better-protected from tsunamis. However, unlike Chernobyl, that’s not a reactor design or operations failure.

    • Given the choice between the CBO’s definition of a “subsidy” and Middleton’s definition, I’ll go with the CBO, because they know more about money, government, laws and regulation than Davie does.

    • The LCOE for nuclear power is about $0 10/kWh. CBO says the value of Price-Anderson is about 1% of the LCOE… $0.001/kWh…

    • That and an inadequate seawall… and one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded and a massive tsunami.

    • “The failure to protect a nuclear power plant from a low probability natural disaster is not a failure of nuclear technology.”
      ..
      BUT 
      ..
      The failure to pump cooling water into a SCRAMED reactor is a failure of nuclear technology.

      […]

      • The failure to pump cooling water wasn’t a failure of nuclear technology. It was a civil engineering and geotechnical failure.

        This failure could have and should have been avoided.

      • The CBO calls it a “subsidy” you say it is not a “subsidy”

        Only one of you can be right, and you are not.

        PS…An “insignificant” subsidy is still a subsidy, further proof that your claim is bogus.

      • The DOE doesn’t count it as a subsidy either and CBO only roughly estimates its value because it is insignificant and has no actual budgetary impact.

      • HA HA HA HA HA

        “The failure to pump cooling water wasn’t a failure of nuclear technology.”
        ….
        Please stop embarrassing yourself.

        The SCRAMED core melted down because of a failure to keep it cool.

        Give it up Middleton

      • Now… That made me laugh. Tomorrow, when I’m on an actual PC (as opposed to my phone) I will walk through each and every one of tour comments and demonstrate that I hit every one of them out of the park. I might even roll it up into a full-fledged post.

        Btw… Thank you for the CBO and academic “valuations” of Price-Anderson. They are the poster children for “lack of perspective”!

        😎

      • I can’t wait to see how you explain the failure to cool a SCRAMED reactor as not being a technology failure……and better yet, I want to see your evaluation of $0.00 compared to the CBO et. al.

        […]

        • Mark S Johnson,

          I have followed the whole discussion between David and you. Here some additional thoughts:

          – The plant was designed to survive an earthquacke of magnitude 7, which was the maximum expected over hundreds of years. It survived a once-in-1000 years earthquake of magnitude 9 (which is 100 times more severe – it is a logarithmic scale) with a minimum of damage. The diesel cooling was working perfect until the tsunami hit the plant. Excellent design.
          – The tsunami wall was 6 m high, which was more than the maximum expected over hundreds of years. The once in 1000 years tsunami was 10 meters high. That flooded the diesel cooling. Design was good for what was expected, not the unexpected.
          – The tsunami hit the full coast taking 19,000 lives and many billions of damage. Poor urbanisation that didn’t expect such a huge tsunami? Shall we forbid any urbanisation below 10 m above MSL everywhere because of a natural disaster once every 1,000 years? Then 2/3 of The Netherlands (lowest point MSL-12 m) must be moved somehwere else…

          The Japanese have calculated the costs for a new nuclear plant, including the costs of the Fukushima cleanup:
          http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx

          a draft report for Enecan estimated nuclear generation costs for 2010 to be ¥8.9 per kWh (11.4 US cents). This included capital costs (¥2.5), operation and maintenance costs (¥3.1), and fuel cycle costs (¥1.4). In addition, the estimate included ¥0.2 for additional post-Fukushima safety measures, ¥1.1 in policy expenses and ¥0.5 for dealing with future nuclear risks. The ¥0.5 for future nuclear risks is a minimum: the cost would increase by ¥0.1 for each additional ¥1 trillion ($13 billion) of damage.

          The base costs for the Fukushima cleanup was estimated at ¥5 trillion ($65 billion)

          You see, even the Fukushima disaster is peanuts in the kWh price of nuclear energy…

        • Thanks Ferd!

          Let’s put that hypothetical $65 billion subsidy into perspective. In 2013, nuclear power received $1.66 billion in Federal subsidies. That works out to $0.002/kWh.

          If the US nuclear power industry was subsidized to foot the $65 billion tab for Fukushima in 2013, the subsidy per kWh would be 40 times $0.002/kWh… $0.08/kWh. Solar subsidies in 2013 amounted to $0.23/kWh.

          Since Fukushima was a 1,000-yr geophysical hazard, the undiscounted annual value would be $650,000… effectively zero-point-zero.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: