Some financial institutions are backing away from Net-Zero and DEI pledges.
The morally right side doesn’t lose the crucial battles: the arc of the moral universe is long, but it does bend toward justice. We know that lesson too well, which may be a problem, in that it gives us undue confidence. …
…
A recent report from Bloomberg lays out the calculations clearly: there is no way for the banks to keep to the pledge without surrendering some part of their business. …
…
The Bloomberg report quotes an exasperated UBS executive telling a closed-door gathering in Tokyo with representatives of “the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and public officials from around the world” that “banks are living and lending on planet Earth,” not on some planet of environmental virtue. According to the report, his “impassioned speech” met with “little pushback.” …
…
To overcome the pull of that treasure you need the kind of push that can come only from mobilized public consciousness. We’ve seen a series of such moments in the course of the past decades, beginning, arguably, with the first Earth Day, fifty-four years ago this month, when twenty million Americans poured into the streets …
…
Public consciousness, in other words, needs another charge. It’s not evident how that can happen in a world as politically divided as this one is. …
…
Read more: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-the-fight-against-c...
The collapse in support has nothing to do with public consciousness or corporate greed. The core problem is renewable energy simply doesn’t work.
COMMENT 1
McKibben, a leftist/journalist/weathervane, was cheerleading for wood burning at Middlebury College, Vermont, but, after California came out against wood burning, he flip-flopped as well.
Here is a ridiculous study performed by his senior students, which is totally amateurish and full of errors.
BUT, HEY, IT HAD GOOD SOME NUMBERS, UNTIL I BLEW THE WHISTLE
VERMONT IS HARVESTING WOOD FAR IN EXCESS OF NET ADDED ABOVEGROUND LIVE BIOMASS
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-w...
EXCERPT
Middlebury College in Vermont, has an Environmental Studies Department.
The Department receives federal and state government grants and alumni bequests to perform environment-related studies
The Department held a Senior Seminar (ES 401) during the Winter of 2010 regarding the CO2 emissions of the Campus wood burning plant, and the sequestering of CO2 by the forest owned by the College.
According to the Campus wood burning plant website, the best estimate of wood chip delivery is 20,000 tons of green wood chips per year.
.
Incorrect CO2 Calculation
The seminar report states: “Thus, a more realistic estimate of carbon emissions is: 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content x 44/12 x 1 = 36,667 tons of carbon”. See URL, pages 38 and 39.
This calculation is incorrect, because it did not account for the carbon content of dry wood
BTW, the word “carbon” should read “CO2”
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010car...
.
Correct CO2 Calculation
The wood chips contain 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content = 10,000 US ton of dry wood.
The dry wood contains 10,000 US ton of dry wood x 0.487 lb carbon/lb dry wood = 4,870 US ton of carbon.
The CO2 created by combustion is 44/12 x 4,870 = 17,857 US ton of CO2.
The report overstated the CO2 emissions by 36,667/17,856 = 2.05 times
.
Incorrect Calculation of CO2 Sequestered by the Middlebury-owned Forest
The report states: “Middlebury College-owned forests, 1295 ha (3200 acre), will sequester about 9,905 US ton of carbon/y, or 9905/3200 = 3.095 US ton of carbon/acre, or 44/12 x 3.095 = 11.35 US ton of CO2/acre. See URL, page 39, table 7
.
For reference:
Vermont forestland, 4,511,000 acres, sequestered about 4,390,000 metricton of CO2, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/acre, or 1.073 US ton of CO2/acre, per US Forest Service.
https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...
The McKibben report overstated the sequestered CO2 by 11.35/1.073 = 10.6 times
.
Good bye McKibben. Your time is up, like Gore and Kerry, two more climate charlatans.
COMMENT 2
We all know that some of our supposed trusted institutions like NASA have been captured and corrupted by the global warming cult. Here's a new study by a Danish scientist explaining the blatant manipulation of temperature data by NASA.
PROFESSOR EXPOSES NASA’S ‘MASSIVE RETROSPECTIVE TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS’
Danish professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, Ole Humlum, has exposed large ‘alterations’ made to the surface air temperatures by the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis — an estimate of global surface temperature change run by NASA.
GISS has altered its historical warming trend (between Jan 1915 to Jan 2000) from 0.45C to 0.67C, so reveals Humlum. This is a massive increase of 49%, and in turn means that almost half of the documented warming in that period—the majority of the 20th century—is due to administrative ‘adjustments’ made years after the original temperature measurements were logged.
In his recently published 2023 climate report, Humlum concedes that such adjustments can be important when evaluating the overall quality of the various temperature records.
But the GISS results don’t show rises and falls spread evenly throughout the record; instead, these tamperings invariably cool the past and warm the present, thus fabricating—or at best exaggerating—the modern day warming trend.
Humlum provides the below graph.
What it shows is administrative alterations made to past temperatures since May 2008.
The blue lines show where historic measurements have been adjusted downwards, the red lines are where they have been adjusted upwards.
In just the past 16 years, NASA has been altering historic inputs, cooling the past and warming the present.
These adjustments cannot be overstated.
They have injected substantial cooling into the ‘official’ record from ≈1900 up to the 1970s, and substantial heating over the most recent 50 years.
Even more concerningly, GISS (i.e. NASA) is not alone in adjusting its database in this fashion. NOAA do it all the time. So do the UK Met Office.
Charged with a similar global temperature collection ‘HadCRUT’, the UK Met Office has, in the past decade alone, made two major revisions to the record which, lo and behold, added ≈30% extra warming to dataset.
In doing so it removed an inconvenient temperature pause from ≈2000 to 2012 (a pause still visible in the satellite record).
Professor Ole Humlum explains that the climate has remained in a quasi-stable condition for millions of years.
“Modern observations show that this normal behavior is also characterizing recent years, including 2023, and there is no observational evidence for any global climate crisis.”
Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, controls nearly all aspects of climate is “naive and entirely unrealistic,” he concludes.
APPENDIX 1
World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021
During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%
At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:
1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and
2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.
About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...
The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
APPENDIX 2
Floating Offshore Wind in Norway
Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company
Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.
On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.
The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.
The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL
That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher
The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites
The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies
In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.
Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.
If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.
.
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
.
.
APPENDIX 3
Offshore Wind in US and UK
Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article
US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals
1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government
Those US/UK goals are physically unachievable, even with abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.
Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid:
Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh
In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid
Cost of curtailments, about 2.0 c/kWh
Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
.
APPENDIX 4
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
.
.
APPENDIX 5
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide total payments over 15 years by throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
APPENDIX 6
SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand.
Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-s...
The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-...
APPENDIX 7
World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow...
Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-ec...
Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-proje...
EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soari...
U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plan...
Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plu...
Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catc...
The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debac...
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...
UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-proje...
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-...
.
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
APPENDIX 8
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-202....
.
Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022 |
370200 |
|
Proposed tripling |
3 |
|
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050 |
1110600 |
|
New Nuclear, MW |
740400 |
|
MW/reactor |
1200 |
|
Reactors |
617 |
|
New Reactors, rounded |
620 |
|
Reactors/site |
2 |
|
Sites |
310 |
|
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050 |
5841311760 |
|
Conversion factor |
1000000 |
% |
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050 |
5841 |
11 |
World total production, TWh, 2050 |
53000 |
APPENDIX 9
Electricity prices vary by type of customer
Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.
In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1
The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:
Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh
Electricity prices vary by locality
Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.
Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.
Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.
See URL
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...
In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.
US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y
With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,
US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented
NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars
APPENDIX 10
LIFE WITHOUT OIL?
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.
Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.
If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.
Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.
.
.
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine