On the LAKE Front

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

Shutdown at San Onofre: permanent this time?

California only has a couple of nuclear reactor locations (unlike the 32 reactors within 500 miles of here), and one is in even worse shape than the other: San Onofre, almost as bad as Crystal River. I'm sure Southern Company would never cut corners or have design or construction problems at Plant Vogtle, right?

Harvey Wasserman wrote for AlterNet 7 January 2013, Showdown at San Onofre: Why the Nuclear Industry May Be Dealt a Big Blow,

Perched on an ocean cliff between Los Angeles and San Diego, the reactors' owners cut unconscionable corners in replacing their multi-million-dollar steam generators. According to Russell Hoffman, one of California's leading experts on San Onofre, inferior metals and major design failures turned what was meant to be an upgrade into an utter fiasco.

Installed by Mitsubishi, the generators simply did not work. When they were shut nearly a year ago, tubes were leaking, banging together and overall rendering further operations impossible.

Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric have unofficially thrown in the towel on Unit 3. But they're lobbying hard to get at least Unit 2 back up and running. Their technical problems are so serious that they've asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to let them run Unit 2 at 70% capacity. In essence, they want to “see what happens” without daring to take the reactor to full power.

The NRC has expressed serious doubts. On December 26 it demanded answers to more than 30 questions about the plant's technical realities. There have been assertions that unless San Onofre can be shown as operable at full power, its license should be negated.

It's good the NRC got around to doing something, after

2 gigawatts of Wind Power off Fukushima, plus solar

Southern Company didn't do the renewable energy study for Georgia when Mark Z. Jacobson's study showed All U.S. east coast electricity could come from offshore wind 3 seasons out of 4. Now somebody else has, including how to build offshore wind turbines to withstand hurricanes.

Rob Gilhooly wrote for New Scientist 16 January 2013, Japan to build world's largest offshore wind farm,

The wind farm, which will generate 1 gigawatt of power once completed, is part of a national plan to increase renewable energy resources following the post-tsunami shutdown of the nation's 54 nuclear reactors. Only two have since come back online.

The project is part of Fukushima's plan to become completely energy self-sufficient by 2040, using renewable sources alone. The prefecture is also set to build the country's biggest solar park.

The wind farm will surpass the 504 megawatts generated by the 140 turbines at the Greater Gabbard farm off the coast of Suffolk, UK — currently the world's largest farm. This accolade will soon pass to the London Array in the Thames Estuary, where 175 turbines will produce 630 megawatts of power when it comes online later this year. The Fukushima farm will beat this, too.

How will these wind turbines work?

Solar: Pieces of a Puzzle —Dr. Michael G. Noll

Op-ed in the VDT today, responding to a response to my op-ed. -jsq

If the attempt of a guest column from Jan 13 was to shine light on solar power, it left everyone in the dark. Neither mockery nor close mindedness will assist us in finding real answers if we want to solve the energy puzzle of the 21st century.

In July 2012, the Financial Times interviewed Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE. GE knows perhaps more about the world of energy business than any other company. Immelt stated that

"on a cost basis it is impossible to justfy investing in nuclar power for the future."

People who sitll claim that solar is more expensive than nuclear are not paying attention. If solar is viable as far north as New Jersey, it certainly is in Georgia. If countries like Germany can excel in solar energy production, so can we. Companies like Walmart, Costco, Apple, and Google are havily investing in solar because it works.

It should also be noted that the nuclear plant on Crystal River has been idle since 2009. As the Tampa Bay Times reported last December,

China, etc., mining uranium in Niger and Mali

A commenter on Mali: a French War for Uranium suggested that if "that zone" (presumably the Sahara in Mali and Niger) were such an El Dorado the U.S. and the Chinese would have long been interested. Actually, it turns out numerous countries are involved, especially along the Uranium Highway in the Uranium Province in Niger. Not the Americans so much, but definitely the Chinese.

According to World Information Service on Energy Uranium Project, in Mali, it's the Canadians (Cascade Resources Ltd., Northern Canadian Uranium Inc., Rockgate Capital Corp.) and the Australians (Oklo Uranium Ltd).:

The following companies are performing uranium prospection and/or exploration in Mali: Cascade Resources Ltd. , Northern Canadian Uranium Inc. , Rockgate Capital Corp. , Oklo Uranium Ltd

Faléa uranium/silver project

> View deposit info
Opposition to uranium mining in Faléa: Association des ressortissants et amis de la Commune de Faléa (ARACF)

Pre-Feasibility study on Faléa mine project started: On Nov. 15, 2012, Rockgate Capital Corp. announced the commencement of a Pre-Feasibility study on its Faléa U-Ag-Cu project in south-west Mali. Rockgate has engaged the services of the DRA Group of Johannesburg, South Africa to complete the study.

Environmental and social baseline studies commissioned on Faléa mine project: On April 26, 2010, Rockgate Capital Corp. announced that it has commissioned environmental and social baseline studies on the Faléa Project, Mali.

Apparently Niger has more recoverable Uranium than either the U.S. or Canada; more than Kazakhstan; more than any country except Australia.

In Niger, it's Russia, Korea, India, and here are a few notes about Chinese involvement:

Areva ready to give Chinese access to Imouraren uranium mine: French nuclear giant Areva is ready to open up to a Chinese partner the

Mali: a French War for Uranium

Google for Mali War in French, and it seems nobody in France is fooled: France is going to war in Mali for oil, gas, gold and... uranium just across the border in Niger. Have you ever heard of a war for sunshine or wind? Let's get on with solar and wind for energy independence, including from wars for fuels.

Even Le Monde politely asks the question, Pourquoi la France intervient-elle au Mali? Why is France intervening in Mali?

matL : Quels sont les enjeux stratégiques majeurs que présente le Mali, non seulement pour la France mais pour la région entière ?	matL : What are the important policy challenges posed by Mali, not only for France but for the entire region?
Les enjeux sur les ressources extractives, à savoir notamment le pétrole et le gaz sur le site de Taoudenni qui se trouve à cheval sur trois pays, Mauritanie, Mali et Algérie. Ensuite, l'uranium puisqu'il en a été découvert dans l'Adar des Iforas. Mais ces trois ressources extractives ne sont pas encore en état d'exploitation. En revanche, le Mali est le troisième producteur d'or sur le continent africain. Ce sont là les enjeux géostragégiques.	Issues of extractive resources, notably including oil and gas on the site Taoudenni which straddles three countries, Mauritania, Mali and Algeria. Then, since uranium has been discovered in the Adrar des Iforas. But these three extractive resources are not yet ready to use. However, Mali is the third largest gold producer in Africa. These are the geostratigic issues.
S'il y avait implosion du Mali par la prise du pouvoir central par les groupes armés djihadistes, il y aurait nécessairement des conséquences négatives sur l'ensemble des pays de la sous-région.	If there was implosion of Mali by making the central government by armed groups jihadists, there would have negative consequences for all countries in the sub-region.
Visiteur : Bonjour, le gisement d'uranium exploité par Areva se trouve au Niger à quelques centaines de kilomètres à l'est de la zone de combats. Pensez-vous qu'il existe un lien entre l'intervention et la protection éventuelle de cette source d'énergie vitale pour la France ?	Caller: Hello, the uranium deposit is operated by Areva in Niger a few hundred kilometers east of the combat zone. Do you think there is a link between the intervention and the possible protection of this vital energy source for France?
En tout cas, l'hypothèse n'est pas du tout à écarter car il y aura des conséquences sur l'ensemble de la sous-région.	In any case, the hypothesis is not at all ruled out because there will be an impact on the entire sub-region.

Stéphane Lhomme was more blunt in Le nouvel Observateur yesterday, Guerre au Mali : sécuriser notre approvisionnement en uranium, War in Mali: secure our provisions of uranium,

Failed concrete: the bane of nuclear reactors

Let's not forget the failed concrete on which Plant Vogtle's unprotected stranded reactor vessel is supposed to sit.

A week before the reactor vessel train wreck, news stories said concrete pouring was delayed due to "noncompliant rebar". Thomas Clements elaborated for the Aiken Leader 14 January 2013, Vogtle AP1000 Nuclear Reactor Vessel Discovered Unprotected, Stranded in Savannah Port since December 15 Shipment Failure,

Due to chronic delays in the pouring of “nuclear concrete” for the basemat of the AP1000 units at Vogtle and VC Summer, it remains unknown when or if any reactor vessels can actually be placed into the excavated holes at the sites. A January 10 meeting of the NRC confirmed that another basemat-related “license amendment request” (LAR) was soon to be filed by SCE&G for its AP1000 project and that the target date for granting of the LAR was March 18. It appears that the Vogtle project has fallen behind the V.C. Summer project and no strategy for the filing of a similar and necessary LAR by Southern Company is known.

Concrete, the long-time bane of Seabrook Station and also what's keeping Crystal River shut down because nobody wants to pay the billions of dollars it would take to fix it.

 

What say we call the whole thing off, like Dominion Power did with its existing Kewaunee nuke, and TEPCO and NRG did with their plans for new South Texas nukes.

 

Maybe it's a sign that meanwhile Google has invested a billion dollars in wind and solar and gotten 2 gigawatts of power, almost as much as the 2.2 GW the two new Vogtle nukes were supposed to produce, except Google's solar and wind projects are online on time, and for less than just the cost overruns at Vogtle.

The Georgia legislature is in session. You can contact your legislator or the PSC today about toppling Southern Company's three-legged nuclear regulatory-capture stool and fixing that 1973 Territoriality Law so we can get on with solar and wind in Georgia, for jobs and energy independence, and oh by the way clean air and plenty of clean water.

-jsq

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?

The water is not lost. —Forrest H. Williams

Valdosta resident Forrest H. Williams replied in the VDT today to my op-ed of 6 January. His information seems a bit out of date. For example, he cites Progress Energy's Crystal River nuke as a good example, when it's been down since 2009 and is still producing zero percent power, both according to the NRC. Readers of this blog know that the blog version of my op-ed already links to sources for everything I said. I may respond more later, but no doubt there are other people who want to get involved in this discussion. And I do thank Forrest H. Williams for airing the sort of disinformation that is out there, so others can dispel it.

Oh, and saying water that is evaporated is not lost is like saying trees that are burned are not lost. Evaporated water is not available for agricultural or wildlife or drinking water use, and thus is indeed lost.