On the LAKE Front

Let the Sun Shine: Fact versus Fiction —Michael G. Noll

LTE in the VDT today. I've added a few links. -jsq

Fox News recently claimed that "solar won't work in America because it's not as sunny as Germany". Such statements are common for a network that has long lost its credibility. Unfortunately too many take such gibberish at face value. Thus columns like “environmentalism or obstructionism?” are not surprising, but in the end it's the facts that matter:

• Global warming is real. For years we have been experiencing record heat waves, droughts, wild fires, etc., and while seawater levels are rising, storms like hurricane Sandy become major threats to low lying areas along coast lines.
• The main culprit for global warming are greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil.
• While China overall emits more than we do, the US leads in per capita emissions. The average US citizen produces three times more carbon dioxide than the average Chinese citizen.

Denmark beats Georgia Power's 20 year plan

As anticipated, Georgia Power released that 20-year energy plan Thursday, because they have file one every three years with the PSC. It includes far less solar power than tiny little far-north-of-here Denmark is busily deploying.

The good news: Georgia Power is closing a bunch of coal plants. And this plan makes a nod towards "demand response programs, energy efficiency programs, pricing tariffs and other activities".

The bad news: they're replacing those coal plants with natural gas, and of course "two new state-of-the-art nuclear facilities at Plant Vogtle"; you know, the two Georgia Power has been charging customers for since 2009 while they deliver no electricity. Georgia Power can't even seem to deliver the reactor containment vessels.

But what about renewable energy?

NRC Power Reactor Status Reports Graphed

Do you know how many outages nuclear reactors near here have had? Probably not, because that's usually not in the news, and you have to dig into day by day NRC reactor status reports to find out. It turns out nuclear power is 0/7 instead of 24/7 on many a day.

Looking at all nine nuclear reactors within 200 miles of here, the graph drips downtime like tears.

The available data on NRC's website and graphed here goes back to 31 March 2006, through 29 January 2013. Let's look at each of our closest reactors one by one. Hatch 1 on the Altamaha River, in addition to its recent 40% power on 21 January and 87% on 5 January, has had quite a few outages:

Power source growth rates like compound interest

What if instead of projecting percentages, we project gigawatts from FERC's December 2012 Installed Operating Generating Capacity table? Solar and wind still win in less than a decade.

Ignore the fastest-growing curve for a moment; I added that. All the other curves start with the December 2012 gigawatts for each power source in the FERC table, and an annual compound growth rate computed by comparing that installed operating capacity to the capacity added in 2012 for that power source. That compound annual growth rate for solar is 60.9% and for wind is 22.8%. Nothing else comes close.

Solar passes coal in about 8 years, wind in about 9, and natural gas in about

Solar energy growth like compound interest

Some nuclear backers only want to look at the next table in that FERC report, Office of Energy Projects Energy Infrastructure Update For December 2012, which shows solar energy as 0.34% of total U.S. energy production, and then they stop thinking. But what about that 30% increase in solar power deployed between 2011 and 2012? Think of it like compound interest.

Total Installed Operating Generating Capacity

	Installed Capacity (GW)	% of Total Capacity	% Growth 2011-2012
Coal	337.71	29.17%	1.3%
Natural Gas	491.82	42.48%	1.8%
Nuclear	107.01	9.24%	0.1%
Oil	41.32	3.57%	0.1%
Water	98.12	8.47%	0.1%
Wind	57.53	4.97%	22.8%
Biomass	15.00	1.30%	3.7%
Geothermal Steam	3.70	0.32%	4.2%
Solar	3.90	0.34%	60.9%
Waste Heat	0.69	0.06%	0.4%
Other	1.04	0.09%	0.0%
Total	1,157.86	100.00%	23.3%

Source: Data derived from Ventyx Global LLC, Velocity Suite.
Growth rates computed by jsq for LAKE www.l-a-k-e.org 24 January 2013.

Let's look what happens if we assume 30% growth in solar power deployed per year:

At 30% annual growth, we're up to solar as 50% of all generation within

New U.S. energy in 2012 —FERC

What new energy sources are being deployed the fastest in the U.S.? According to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it's not what you may think. The big winners are coal, wind, and solar.

According to the report Office of Energy Projects Energy Infrastructure Update For December 2012, Coal, while accounting for only 17% of new capacity in 2012, unfortunately increased by 133% over new capacity installed in 2011. Natural gas did account for the second most new installed capacity in 2012, 33%, but the amount in megawatts installed actually decreased by 20% from 2011.

The most new capacity installed in 2012? Wind, at 40%, with a 56% increase over new installations in 2011. That's right, wind beat natural gas 40% to 33% in total new capacity in 2012, and whomped gas in increase in new capacity in 2011, by 56% to -20%.

While solar only accounted for 5.59% of new capacity in 2012, that was an increase of 30% over new capacity in 2011, which is way more than gas and after only coal and wind.

New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)

	December 2012		January - December 2012 Cumulative		January - December 2011 Cumulative		Percent of Total New 2012	Percent Increase 2011- 2012
Primary Fuel Type	No. of Units	Installed Capacity (MW)	No. of Units	Installed Capacity (MW)	No. of Units	Installed Capacity (MW)
Coal	4	1,434	8	4,510	15	1,932	17.1%	133%
Natural Gas	6	2,306	94	8,746	108	11,020	33.1%	-20.6%
Nuclear	0	0	1	125	0	0	0.474%	-%
Oil	0	0	19	49	66	136	0.186%	-64%
Water	2	4	13	99	41	94	0.375%	5.32%
Wind	45	3,095	164	10,689	146	6,844	40.5%	56.2%
Biomass	5	91	100	543	131	446	2.06%	21.7%
Geo- thermal Steam	2	9	13	149	9	56	0.565%	166%
Solar	16	77	240	1,476	354	1,131	5.59%	30.5%
Waste Heat	0	0	1	3	2	136	0.0114%	-97.8%
Other	2	0	5	0	11	0	0%	-%
Total	82	7,016	658	26,387	883	21,795	100%	21.1%

Source: Data derived from Ventyx Global LLC, Velocity Suite.
Last two columns added by jsq for LAKE www.l-a-k-e.org 24 January 2013.

Biomass unfortunately accounted for

Overwhelming majority of Americans want clean water and renewable energy --poll

A new poll says 94% want new energy balanced with clean air and water, 86% want to shift from coal and nuclear to wind and water power, and 79% are concerned about shale gas fracking affecting water quality.

A few excerpts from the PR Water is High Priority for Bipartisan Majority of Americans, 10 January 2013,

• 92 percent of Americans think “U.S. energy planning and decision making” should be based on “a comprehensive understanding of what our national water resources are” — a national water roadmap that Congress asked for, but which was never produced. The national water roadmap attracts the support of 92 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Independents, and 94 percent of Democrats.
• 86 percent of Americans want leadership on shifting from coal and nuclear energy to wind and solar. Support for this approach exists across party lines, including 72 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.
• 86 percent of Americans “support more studies of the health and environmental consequences of the chemicals” used in fracking. Supporters of this approach include 81 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Independents, and 89 percent of Democrats.
• Three quarters of Americans have heard of fracking, with 51 percent saying they are very or somewhat familiar with it. 79 percent of Americans are concerned about fracking “as it relates to water quality.”

What is to be done?

Nukes economically hard to justify —GE CEO Immelt

The CEO of General Electric, the company that designed the reactors at Fukushima and Hatch 1 and 2, said nukes are economically hard to justify. And that was back in July, before the first new nukes permitted in 30 years, at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah River, slipped 15 months. What's winning? Shale gas, temporarily, but that's just a bump in the road on the way to wind and solar power.

Pilita Clark wrote for Financial Times 30 July 2012, Nuclear ‘hard to justify’, says GE chief,

Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world's largest suppliers of atomic equipment.

“It's really a gas and wind world today,” said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes “permanently cheap”.

“When I talk to the guys who run the oil companies they say look, they're finding more gas all the time. It's just hard to justify nuclear, really hard. Gas is so cheap and at some point, really, economics rule,” Mr Immelt told the Financial Times in an interview in London at the weekend. “So I think some combination of gas, and either wind or solar ... that's where we see most countries around the world going.”

GE CEO Immelt may also want to talk to GE's own research director

Solar cars and charging stations: who wouldn't?

Tired of Southern Company CEO Fanning's maybe "next decade" for solar power? Tired of Georgia Power's Bowers trying to push solar off for fifty years? Let's hear from somebody who takes on big tasks and gets them done: Elon Musk, who's already built a rocket that is resupplying the International Space Station, and who is also building all-electric cars.

Carl Hoffman wrote for Smithsonian magazine December 2012, Elon Musk, the Rocket Man With a Sweet Ride

When he's not launching rockets, Musk is disrupting the notoriously obdurate automobile industry (see National Treasure, p. 42). While industry giants like Chevrolet and Nissan and Toyota were dithering with electric-gasoline hybrids, this upstart kid said he would design and manufacture an all-electric car that would travel hundreds of miles on a single charge. The Tesla Roadster hit the streets in 2008 with a range of 200 miles, and the far more functional Model S, starting at $57,000, was introduced in June. It's the world's first all-electric car that does everything my old gasoline version does, only better. The high-end model travels 300 miles on a single charge, leaps from zero to 60 in 5.5 seconds, slows from 60 to a dead stop in 105 feet, can seat up to five, has room for mulch bags and golf clubs, handles like a race car and its battery comes with an eight-year, 100,000-mile warranty. If you charged it via solar panels, it would run off the sun. One hundred a week are being produced in a former Toyota factory in Fremont, California, and nearly 13,000 people have put deposits on them....

And since that story:

Fake fracking reports: professor and institute head quit, other institute disbanded

From Austin to Buffalo, fake science for fracking is increasingly being exposed, with academic consequences: lead professor resigns, institute head quits, another institute disbanded. The image on the right (Frack U) is not a reputation any university wants to see. At least academia takes conflicts of interest seriously; now if government and the voters would do the same.... Or energy companies. Remember, shale gas (plus nuclear) is what Georgia Power and Southern Company are shifting to from coal, while shading us from the finances that would enable solar power for jobs and energy independence in south Georgia.

Terrence Henry wrote for NPR 6 December 2012, Review of UT Fracking Study Finds Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest (Updated)

The original report by UT Austin's Energy Institute, ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in the Shale Gas Development,’ was released early this year, and claimed that there was no link between fracking and water contamination. But this summer, the Public Accountability Initiative, a watchdog group, reported that the head of the study, UT professor Chip Groat, had been sitting on the board of a drilling company the entire time. His compensation totaled over $1.5 million over the last five years. That prompted the University to announce an independent review of the study a month later, which was released today.

The review finds many problems with the original study, chief among them that Groat did not disclose what it calls a “clear conflict of interest,” which “severely diminished” the study. The study was originally commissioned as a way to correct what it called “controversies” over fracking because of media reports, but ironically ended up as a lightning rod itself for failing to disclose conflicts of interest and for lacking scientific rigor.

Unrepentant as recently as July, Professor Groat resigned in November. Plus this:

Raymond Orbach of UT's Energy Institute has resigned after the group became engulfed in controversy over a study of fracking.

And elsewhere even more drastic results have ensued: