backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 174 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Sep 15 at 5:22 PM


Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaks to a who's who of the top executives in America at the Corporate EcoForum. He outlined a detailed plan to eliminate all utility fossil fuel dependence and 50 percent of automobile fossil fuel dependence by 2030. He says the plan will save consumers money and will protect the Earth -- all part of not being evil.  (Source: Stefanie Olsen/CNET)
Google says that alternative energy justification is simple math

Google has already made it clear that it wants to promote alternative energy in a big way as part of its "Don't be evil" philosophy.  Its initial round of funding included grants to solar and a high-altitude wind power startup.  In its second round, Google granted $10M USD more to a couple of geothermal startups, looking to harness Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) -- which involve injecting water deep into the ground to make steam.

Now Google has outlined a comprehensive plan to accomplish what the U.S. government and private business has thus far been unable to do -- eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil and non-renewable energy sources. 

Google CEO Eric Schmidt outlined the new plan at the Corporate EcoForum which featured executives from Coca-Cola, Motorola, Clorox, Microsoft, and other top industry players.  In order to back his plan, Mr. Schmidt used a great deal of calculations.  He says that the justification for adopting alternative energy boils down to basic math, with the formula energy efficiency = savings (or E2=$) being the key.  He stated, "It's just a math problem."

His plan is for the U.S. to by 2030 adopt renewable energy sources for 100 percent of the country's power generation.  This would eliminate the coal-fired plants primarily used to provide electricity.  Further, he says that in that time span half the cars need to be replaced with plug-in hybrids, like the Chevy Volt.

The math adds up, he says.  The result will be to cut U.S. carbon emissions in half, which he says will help to avert man-made climate change.  He says there are also great financial benefits to the adoption.  He says the U.S. would save 97 percent of $2.17 trillion in energy spending over the next 22 years. 

Alternative energy would add up to big in-sourcing of alternative energy design, production, and installation jobs as well, says Mr. Schmidt.  According to his figures, there are currently 500,000 jobs in wind companies alone. 

Google has invested in wind, solar, and geothermal thus far.  Mr. Schmidt explained it is currently avoiding nuclear as it is unsatisfied with current response to security concerns, including physical terrorism or remote online attacks from foreign nationalists.  Mr. Schmidt explains that once these concerns are properly addressed it will start investing in nuclear.  Google is considering tidal and wave power as fourth or fifth investment plan.

While Google has recently filed patents for a floating barge, powered by the ocean's mechanical energy, which could serve as a floating data center, it says it has no current plans to construct it yet.  But, Mr. Schmidt adds, "You never know at Google."

A key question in the alternative energy debate, according to Mr. Schmidt, is how the long it takes to return the investment.  He states, "The model you have is...one of a distributed renewable power structure. It's a matter of how long is the payback?"

He says that it only cost $5M USD for Google to restructure its buildings to cut carbon emissions, and it is reaping the benefits after only 2.5 years.  Furthermore, Schmidt says Google has installed solar and power monitoring equipment, which are currently saving Google money each year.  He adds, "The question is: can any one of you make a difference...Of course we can.  But we must have a policy."

Google's chief blames the country's energy woes on a "total failure of political leadership".  He declined to endorse a specific candidate, but merely stated that the government was being shortsighted on the financial, political, and climate impacts of continued reliance on fossil fuels. 

He argues that one key is for the government to provide tax breaks to energy efficient businesses.  For consumers, he suggests utilities provide consumers with real-time power meters, so they can see their use and then see the savings of items such as home solar installations.  Google is also incorporating climate change projections into Google Earth to help users visualize the future with warming.  For example, it shows the predicted iceless North Pole in the year 2050 if projections of 40 deg. C temperatures hold true.

Google is also focusing its efforts on the Climate Savers Computing Initiative.  The goal of this organization is to work with companies such as AMD and Intel to cut computer power requirements in half by 2010.  This would be equivalent of taking 11 million cars off the road in terms of carbon emission cuts. 

Mr. Schmidt also says there's a need for power grid innovation.  He says the decrepit power grid currently has 9 percent efficiency loss, by his calculations.  This could be eliminated by restructuring the grid and adopting more technologies where customers can feed power back into the grid at times of peak use.  He suggests plug-ins charge at night, then by day put their power back into the grid when unused, forming a sort of battery network.

He describes, "I could imagine a smart garage where I would plug in my car and the computer handles it. I could even make money by cost shifting.  It sure sounds to me like a problem for the Internet...and personal computers. It's the largest opportunity I could possibly imagine.  It solves energy security, energy prices and job creation...and by the way, climate change."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 11:40:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
He says that the justification for adopting alternative energy boils down to basic math, with the formula energy efficiency = savings (or E2=$) being the key
This guy obviously hasn't taken many math classes. There are no "savings" from wind and solar; both are substantially more expensive than conventional source, and both are utterly uncapable of powering more than a small fraction of the nation's energy needs without several quantum advances in construction, energy storage, and energy transmission.




RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 11:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
While Google has recently filed patents for a floating barge, powered by the ocean's mechanical energy, which could serve as a floating data center, it says it has no current plans to construct it
Further highlighting the fact that, despite Google's starry-eyed dreams, their ideas are still utterly impractical, and remain so for the foreseable future.


RE: Oops
By Mitch101 on 9/9/2008 12:13:20 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds like Eric Schmidt slept at a Holiday Inn.


RE: Oops
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By TomZ on 9/9/2008 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Further highlighting the fact that, despite Google's starry-eyed dreams, their ideas are still utterly impractical, and remain so for the foreseable future.

Not for Google. They are practical - mainly because Google can afford the higher energy costs and still make a fine profit. The same cannot be said for most other businesses/industries. Therefore, what Google advocates, while practical for them, is not possible for most others.

To me, "alternative energy" is only "practical" when the total cost is on par with traditional energy.


RE: Oops
By homerdog on 9/9/2008 12:50:49 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that they are reluctant to invest in nuclear power over concerns of terrorism, yet they are filing patents on data centers that float in the ocean.


RE: Oops
By bodar on 9/9/2008 3:00:39 PM , Rating: 5
That should take software piracy to a whole new level.


RE: Oops
By spuddyt on 9/9/2008 3:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
^ +1, that is the only decent pun i've heard in my LIFE


RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:09:44 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't think it was very punny.

*Smacks elbow


RE: Oops
By DonkeyRhubarb on 9/9/2008 4:21:15 PM , Rating: 1
That should get a 6!


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yar...the high seas be a dangerous place for data...


RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well of course! Android robotics and saltwater don't mix!


RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/10/2008 3:33:25 AM , Rating: 1
Is everyone on DT an idiot? First of all, I highly doubt Masher is an energy expert. Google has $ to do some heavy research. Their experts don't 'cruise the net' like Masher does and pretend to be experts. They ARE experts and they get paid 20X as much as Masher does no doubt.

Furthermore, I would think that few data center vessles in various locations around the world would be pretty hard to steal. You can blow up a boat in the middle of the ocean, and servers can be backed up off-site. I think that's the general idea. It's secure, it's powered by the ocean, and most importantly it is COOLED by the ocean. Wasn't I reading about that on here? Maybe it was Popular Science.

It's like gullable is written on everyone's ceiling here or something. Seriously, where did you get your brains? At BrainMart? Crimony.


RE: Oops
By Polynikes on 9/9/2008 1:34:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, seriously. The math is simple, trillions of dollars spent up front to save billions in the future. Maybe we'll break even in 2100.

Google should stick to teh internets.


RE: Oops
By SiliconJon on 9/10/2008 10:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody here seems to understand what externalities are. Ah, but why bother to explain to self-proclaiming experts only to sound like one myself...


RE: Oops
By cokbun on 9/9/2008 10:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and remain so for the foreseable future
probably that's what the " by 2030 " means


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 12:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
In 200 years, the "government" has never once footed a single bill. It's merely passed it on the cost to us taxpayers. But even if one ignores the technical reasons that prevent alternative energy from supply more than a few percent of total energy needs, a boondoggle this size is far larger than we can afford.

Furthermore, the "cost to produce" doesn't get lower as the scale increases -- it *rises*. Wind turbines on 200 foot-tall towers are not computer chips. The more you build, the more steel, copper, and concrete you consume. That raises prices for those raw materials. Trying to power then entire nation on wind would require the entire world output of steel for several years. . . and cause prices to skyrocket beyond anyone's wildest dreams.


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 12:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Palin/Asher 2012


RE: Oops
By thepalinator on 9/9/2008 12:37:56 PM , Rating: 4
I second that!

Seriously, Google is just trying to grab some free "green" image. I'm sure Schmidt knows he's spouting garbage, but if it persuades a few dimwitted types that Google is a good guy, why not?


RE: Oops
By Oregonian2 on 9/9/2008 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 5
Interesting comment. The McCain/Palin ticket is promoting a future much like Google's both as a way to get power generation 100% domestic but as the next big thing driving American technology much like semiconductors were in the "last round". Big difference is that the McCain/Palin ticket also has aggressive short term objectives (Nuclear, more domestic oil, etc) simultaneous with the Google-like long term in order to achieve results quicker (and it's more than just energy source stability, it also makes OPEC a "who cares" thing in terms of world politics which should yield overall better stability in that arena as well).

The Google guy is funny talking about math where he hasn't done any himself that I can see. The investments they've put in are I think trivial in terms of all that has been invested overall to date. Nice token investments in conceptual things, but still pretty small ones (a startup I once worked for spent over a hundred million of venture capital -- company now extinct).

I think he'll find that 100% change of the power infrastructure may take a good bit longer than that and cost more than the couple trillion of savings by a lot. It's a good start, but it's like thinking that the establishment of the U.N. will lead to world peace and nirvana for all. It helps, but not as easy as that.


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/2008 12:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
wow. you're saying private companies created microwaves, the integrated chip, fission, etc out of their own pockets. nope, they did it with funding from gov defense contracts.

and the cost to produce wind power is lower. you have to buy oil. you don't buy wind. you have to maintain refineries and you have to maintain wind farms. but wind farms require less labor/maintenance than a refinery (as already proven by the wind farms already in texas).


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 4
> "Apparently he thinks Nuclear reactors don't use a TON of concrete and steel. "

I've already posted links to a university study demonstrating that, per-MWh generated, nuclear plants use 1/10 the steel and 1/5 the concrete as wind farms. Are you ignoring them, or just philosophically opposed to the truth?


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By thepalinator on 9/9/2008 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"I'm ignoring the study"
Want some more sand to bury your head in?


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By kkwst2 on 9/9/2008 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 4
Because you provided no evidence that the study is invalid.

It certainly comes across as "I don't believe it because I don't want to."

Have you seen a wind farm and a nuclear reactor? I don't think you need a study to believe that a nuclear reactor is much more efficient in terms of steel/concrete used.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't arguments for wind power having a place. But you're barking up the wrong tree with this argument.


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By Zoomer on 9/9/2008 9:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's like comparing an elephant and a turtle.

Sure, they are not all exactly the same, but even a mutant ninja turtle won't come close to the size of an elephant.


RE: Oops
By icanhascpu on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By inighthawki on 9/9/2008 8:19:44 PM , Rating: 3
You are


RE: Oops
By icanhascpu on 9/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what the argument is. Who cares if they use 1/10 and 1/5 (LINK PLEASE? I see you state that you posted it but I'm not seeing anywhere north of this post). You have to figure in overall costs. That includes maintainance, waste disposal, man operating hours, construction hours, environmental impacts, length of time used, electricity produced, electricity WASTED (let's face it, nuke plants have to unload energy frequently), and of course, legalities and permits. My guess is that the cost of round the clock security at a nuke plant alone would help to sway any intial cost difference in setup. But unlike you I say "GUESS" rather than act like I know everything.


RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 12:33:23 PM , Rating: 5
> "they did it with funding from gov defense contracts"

There is a large difference between the government funding research, and it paying massive subsidies to prop up an industry which cannot economically produce a product.

> "and the cost to produce wind power is lower"

I'm sorry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Conventional source of electricity have a wholesale cost from 3.5-7c kWh. Wind *starts* at 7-9c and rises to double that for less than optimal locations. Furthermore, that assumes wind is only filling 10% or less of the local grid's power. As the ratio rises, the problems of load matching and energy surface, raising the cost still further.

This is the reason that the world leader in wind power -- Denmark -- has only been able to achieve a 19% ratio from wind. . . and even there, only by selling excess wind power to the EU grid, and buying back conventional power.

Denmark, by the way, has the highest costs for electricity in all Europe, a rate several times the US average.



RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 1:20:04 PM , Rating: 4
Didn't read your own link, did you? Allow me to quote:
quote:
The prices reported here would therefore be higher if wind projects did not have access to these state and federal incentives and, as a result, these prices do not represent wind energy generation costs .
Furthermore, the report points out that the costs for wind power *increased* in 2007, due to the upward price pressure from its consumption of metals.

Also, the costs here (which the report indicates are nowhere near indicative) are only valid when wind fills only a tiny fraction of the total grid. As several studies and real-world examples have proven, load-matching more than about 10% of the grids needs to wind is very costly.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're comparing wind to refinery costs. The majority of electricity generated in this country is from coal, nuclear, and hydro.


RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 1:28:52 PM , Rating: 3
Also from your own link, prices for wind turbines have nearly doubled in the past 6 years.:
quote:
Since hitting a nadir of roughly $700/kW in the 2000-2002 period, turbine prices appear to have increased by approximately $600/kW (85%), on average. Between 2006 and 2007, capacity-weighted-
average turbine prices increased by roughly $115/kW (10%), from $1,125/kW to $1,240/kW.
Finally, check out table 8 on page 27, which demonstrates that, once wind rises above about 10% of total supply, integration costs rapidly escalate due to its variable nature, which causes severe under- and over-utilization.


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 2:08:42 PM , Rating: 4
> "as i pointed out in another post, the DoE subsidized NuStart $260M to figure out where to put a new nuke"

Oops, you've again misread your link. The DOE is funding half of a research project to design a new type of nuclear reactor. It's not paying one cent to subsidize the contruction, purchase, or operation of any actual nuclear plant.

Just last year alone, the federal government spent over $16B to subsidize energy. The WSJ sums it up well:
quote:
For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie... But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation . Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069...


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By JustTom on 9/10/2008 2:29:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
and please don't cite opinion columnists who don't support their figures. here's the gospel


Here is a link from the EIA that directly supports the WSJ article.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_su...

You used the aggregate for renewable resources rather than item specific. Since the lion's share of renewable energy production is hydro-electric and hydro receives very little government support it skews the numbers for renewables. Solar and wind receive a hugely disproportional share of support compared to every other form of energy production, including other form of renewable energy.


RE: Oops
By Starcub on 9/10/2008 6:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Solar and wind receive a hugely disproportional share of support compared to every other form of energy production, including other form of renewable energy.

Bio-energy is also recieving significant help. Why? In part I think because the ROI isn't there for those other state of the art techs. Fossile fuels (and nuclear in particular) received huge subsidies through the sixties and into the seventies in part because advances in the geo-sciences and in the physical sciences made large ROI's realistically achievable.

What happened decades ago with currently established industrial techs is now happening with clean renewables partly for the same reason. Additionally, clean renewables have paybacks that are difficult to quantify through financial metrics alone. This is why the subsidies, investments, and advances in clean alternatives will likely continue for at least another decade.

Masher's comment re:govt spending only makes sense from the obvious perspective that technically, the government only has taxpayer money to spend; otherwise it seems to me to be a non-sensical statement.


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/10/2008 9:26:19 AM , Rating: 1
you guys won't do math and won't read.

for the 3rd time, tax breaks/credits ARE NOT TAXPAYER PAID subsidies. the PAID subsidies, the ones that come from OUR TAX DOLLARS, place the subsidy RATE for the category at about 2x nukes and the CASH OUTLAY about the same as nukes.

if it weren't for the tax breaks, the wind/soloar industry wouldn't exist since the suppliers couldn't pay transmission taxes and make a profit. tax breaks/credits are given to many fledging industries, and IT COSTS TAXPAYERS NOTHING. so the hype that the gov is FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING the industry is WRONG.

and the topic of the discussion is google is pushing for energy independence from RENEWABLE SOURCES. you naysayers are focusing solely on a few of many RENEWABLE energy sources but i'm citing the figures for the entire RENEWABLE category.


RE: Oops
By JustTom on 9/10/2008 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am perfectly capable of doing math. Your figures are still skewed if you use renewable as a group. Hydro is by far the biggest source of renewable energy and receives very little governmental support. The simple fact is we are near maxed out on our most important source of renewable power, hydro, and any growth in renewables will have to come from other areas. Solar and wind are small pieces of renewables and receive proportional much more. Whether this is a good or bad thing is arguable but it is true.

Tx breaks certainly do impact taxpayers. Producing renewable energy incurs opportunity costs. Skewing the market by giving an advantage to renewable energy means the money used cannot be used in other areas that would be more profitable and thus lead to higher tab payments. Once again whether this is a good thing is arguable, there are benefits to renewable energy that might warrant government backing. But saying it is without cost to taxpayers is a canard.


RE: Oops
By Solandri on 9/10/2008 4:44:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
and please don't cite opinion columnists who don't support their figures. here's the gospel (table ES1).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pd...

Page 18 of your link has a table (ES5) which confirms the $23-$30 per MWh subsidy amounts quoted by the WSJ "opinion columnist" quoted by M. Asher.

Tax breaks/credits cost taxpayers just as much as spending. If the government starts with a balanced budget and spends $4b on subsidies, it will have a $4b deficit. If the government starts with a balanced budget and gives $4b in tax breaks, it will have a $4b deficit. The only incentive which doesn't cost us money are loan guarantees (they only carry the risk that they will cost us money if the borrower defaults).


RE: Oops
By nah on 9/9/2008 1:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a large difference between the government funding research, and it paying massive subsidies to prop up an industry which cannot economically produce a product.


the fact is nuclear has benefited tremendously from govt. funding--the Manhattan Project alone costs an estimated USD 30 billion in 2008 dollars. In economic terms the end results is the same --in both the cases money flows out of the govt. exchequer
Also. nuclear is not the ultimate solution, ultimately, only about 70 million tonnes of uranium and thorium may be available--depending on technology. Using breeder reactors--which are yet unproven commercially , 30 to 40 times the energy could come out of the fuel--that would still mean around 2.1 to 2.8 billion tonnes of uranium/thorium equivalent. To supply world energy usage at around 6 TWs per year would require around 15-20 million tons of uranium--enough energy for perhaps 110,000 years ;)--what afterward--although I grant that we'll all be safely dead


RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "...around 15-20 million tons of uranium--enough energy for perhaps 110,000 years ;)--what afterward [?]"

Thorium. It's three times as plentiful as uranium, and can be just as easily used in a nuclear reactor.


RE: Oops
By nah on 9/9/2008 2:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thorium. It's three times as plentiful as uranium, and can be just as easily used in a nuclear reactor.


I've included thorium in the reserves list--


RE: Oops
By nah on 9/9/2008 1:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
110,000 years ;


Typo-110 years


RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 2:30:45 PM , Rating: 3
No. If you're simply using the known reserves today, you're using a figure several orders of magnitude too small. Uranium prospecting stopped nearly as soon as it began. Why spend money looking for more deposits, when you've already found much more than you need for the foreseeable future?

In 1915, known world deposits of oil were not even enough to last ten years. Yet a century later, despite world consumption dozens of times greater, we now have *fifty* years of known reserves. Understand that, and you'll see why your 110 figure is total nonsense.

Furthermore, you certainly haven't included thorium in that figure. Thorium has never been seriously prospected for.

Assuming reprocessing, there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to power civilization for many tens of thousands of years, without even having to delve deeply into the earth's crust, or mine asteroids. Factor in either of those, and the supply is essentially unlimited.


RE: Oops
By nah on 9/9/2008 3:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you certainly haven't included thorium in that figure.


I have--read Nature Vol 454 Aug 14 2008--Electricity without carbon


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 3:19:40 PM , Rating: 3
The Manhattan Project had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. Did it pave the way for allowing us to utilize nuclear power? Yes. But it has as much to do with nuclear power generation as the invention of plastic has to do with making plastic figurines.


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/2008 7:27:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But it has as much to do with nuclear power generation as the invention of plastic has to do with making plastic figurines.

so, can you make plastic figurines without plastic?


RE: Oops
By nah on 9/10/2008 2:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Manhattan Project had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power


The equivalent quote in IT would be the 8086 having absolutely nothing in common with the core2duo, or the p4


RE: Oops
By BigPeen on 9/9/2008 3:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
You can get uranium from seawater. If so facto, nearly unlimited supply of uranium http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-...


RE: Oops
By OoklaTheMok on 9/9/2008 6:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a large difference between the government funding research, and it paying massive subsidies to prop up an industry which cannot economically produce a product.


Yeah, government never props up economically unsound industries...

*cough* Boeing
*cough* Fannie Mae
*cough* Freddie Mac
*cough* Bear Sterns
*cough* The State of California
*cough* *cough* *cough*


RE: Oops
By JustTom on 9/10/2008 2:42:39 AM , Rating: 4
I would argue all those were bad decisions since they remove risk from those who seek to profit.


RE: Oops
By NT78stonewobble on 9/10/2008 8:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
Hi masher. Don't know which figures you are referring too but for end user electricity prices in Denmark.

25 % Is for generating the electricity.
1 % Is for the powersupplier subscription.
7 % Is for for gridsupplier subscription.
10 % Is for use of the grid.
2 % Is public obligations into research or enviromental friendly electricity production.
29 % Is an electricity tax.
4 % Is an CO2 tax.
2 % Is an power distribution tax.
20 % Is the danish equivalent of V.A.T.

Apparently 55 % of the end user price in Denmark is taxes...


RE: Oops
By Oregonian2 on 9/9/2008 12:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Government may have been a customer, but it still was private companies that did those things.

As to the cost to produce power -- I personally don't know about cost, but I do know the price of wind power is higher than that of conventional means. I'm given choice by my utility to buy wind power and other alternative power choices and the per-kwh that I'm offered is significantly higher for those alternatives. Price I know and have in hard numbers (albeit the paper printed on is has since been recycled into who knows what). Are you saying that the wind power companies are ripping us off?


RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm given choice by my utility to buy wind power and other alternative power choices and the per-kwh that I'm offered is significantly higher for those alternatives.
Even worse is the fact that this higher cost is already substantially subsidized by the government...a cost you wind up paying eventually, hidden deep in your tax bill.


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 1:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
No. Nuclear research is still funded by the government -- the majority of that goes to basic research in fusion, however. The nuclear power industry itself does not receive subsidies.

Furthermore, the only decomissioning costs paid by the federal government were for locations such as Hanford, where nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials were manufactured.


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/2008 2:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
145.5 billion in subsidies have been paid out in the last 50 years to nuclear.

Actually I, and everyone else where I live pays a decommissioning charge-- every month to SCE.


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 3:38:31 PM , Rating: 1
He didn't say you didn't. Read what he said.


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Who really cares what he said? He rarely backs anything up, yet speaks as though he's an encyclopedia. DT. Bleh.


RE: Oops
By Doormat on 9/9/2008 5:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
What about the billions for Yucca Mtn to store waste?

The industry is essentially getting the government to build the facility to take over responsibility of storing the waste.


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
If we start reprocessing fuel, there won't be any real waste to speak of. And you can't exactly leave what nuclear waste there is in the hands of private companies.


RE: Oops
By Doormat on 9/9/2008 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
I agree on the reprocessing front. But why cant we leave it in the hands of private companies. They're the ones who made money off the power they sold, they should have to clean up their mess. Why should the government take it off their hands?


RE: Oops
By Solandri on 9/10/2008 4:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because reprocessing is currently banned by the government. Breeder (reprocessing) reactors produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, which is part of the reason why the government decided to ban them. So the nuclear waste "mess" is really of the government's own making.

Given that we probably don't want private facilities producing weapons-grade plutonium, any breeder reactor will probably have to be owned and operated by the government. So whether we store the stuff in Yucca or reprocess it, the government is going to be paying for it either way.

I actually consider Yucca to be a better idea than some of the safer proposals (like sealing it in ceramic pellets). If we ever change our minds and decide to reprocess, we'd just have to go into Yucca and pull the radioactive material out. If you've sealed the material in ceramic pellets, there's going to be some nasty crushing, grinding, and melting required to extract the material.


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 7:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
The government doesn't have to own it. They just have to have monitors on site to ensure the plutonium is extracted from the reprocessed material and then securely shipped to a government facility.


RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 7:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should the government take it off their hands?


Companies pay the government to store the waste. The government doesn't just take it off their hands.


RE: Oops
By 67STANG on 9/9/2008 6:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the government should be responsible for the waste. They should also be responsible to allow the recycling of the spent fuel. Currently a lot of the Uranium ore is not being used as we are still using fuel from dismantled weapons, per our contract with Russia. That contract ends in 2013.

You can only recycle the Uranium so many times before it is totatly unusable, but I can't seem to find the details on how many times it takes before that becomes the case.


RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:48:25 AM , Rating: 1
Call me a liberalist if you feel you must but I like to think I live in a reality and am not blinded by emotion like the millions of soldiers who signed up for active duty following 911...

Wake up. Bush = oil. Arnie took over as governor after Enron, who caused the Cali energy "crisis". Arnie and Bush are dear friends. Doesn't anyone realize that energy and politics go hand in hand yet? Why the heck do you think we're in Iraq? It isn't because of weapons of mass destruction, it isn't because of Christianity (I'll be darned if anyone in non-local politics actually has or believes in a God), and it isn't because we're hunting a "bad man" who killed a few thousand civilians with our own airplanes in broad daylight. It certainly isn't to bring our perfect little democracy to the good people of Iraq either, as we Americans are pretty much ready to string up anyone here that even gets an idea about wearing a turban.

No, the reason we are in Iraq is because we're dumb enough to "support the war" (occupation), we're ethnocentric enough to think that they should have democracy like us, and we're blind enough to be used to make a few guys sitting together drinking beers a lot of freaking money.

War = MONEY. Defense contracts, military budget, taxation, First, we sell weapons. Then, we kill and take the weapons back. Then, we sell the weapons again. The United States is the LARGEST ARMS DEALER IN THE WORLD. How the heck could we NOT be. We have a "defense" budget that makes the gross domestic product of several nations around the world look like a child's allowance.

Anyway, what does this have to do with Yucca Mt.? Simple. The big guys at the top of the totem own politics with cash, just like they own the energy industry. Remember our friends years ago at AT&T? They're no different.

Democracy is DEAD. D-E-A-D. DEAD.

We live in an OLIGARCHY.

Bush is quite possibly nothing more than a puppet. Democracy is a curtain for what is really going on. There is no better way to take away the freedoms of Americans than to tell them their freedoms are being threatened and that you will protect them, but that you need their keys.

If you give me your keys, I promise you I'll keep you safe from the bad guys. For this service you need only to pay me 60% in taxes (30% income, 20% business, 10% everything else and if you play the lotto that's more money for me too). If for some reason you object, you're a communist if it's the cold war, and a terrorist if it's post 911. In either case, you can be rest assured that I won't torture you. However, my Cuban friends who I embargoed to keep my secrets, have no problem bleeding you to death.

Rest easy tonight, for I am watching over you.

~Big Brother


RE: Oops
By JonnyDough on 9/11/2008 5:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Oops
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 12:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes the initial designs for those things were developed under government contracts due to a need for them. But after that, yes it was done by private industry. Intel doesn't get money from the government to develop quad core processors. GE doesn't get money to produce better microwaves. The government has invested millions (maybe billions) in solar. What has it netted? Nothing economically feasible without massive subsidies.

And just because the "fuel" is free doesn't mean you get all you want. No wind = no power. No sun = no power. Pure and simple. Are you going to sit in the heat of the summer with no AC because it is/was a cloudy, windless day? Nuclear, coal, oil, geo-thermal don't suffer from that problem. Geo-thermal always works. Nuclear always works and only needs new fuel every now and then and you can reuse the same fuel for decades (even centuries). Oil and coal just need a steady supply of oil/coal.

And your post really didn't address anything he said to begin with.


RE: Oops
By RamarC on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oops
By masher2 (blog) on 9/9/2008 1:56:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "one of the largest solar park in operation is a 10MW unit in pocking germany that was built [at] at a cost of 40M euro."

That's nearly $60M, plus much more in government grants and subsidies, all for a plant that, once the availability factor is figured in, will generate only about 2.5MW. It's also one of the largest solar plants in the world (some 10 (*miles* of solar cells)

Contrast that to a nuclear or coal installation, the largest of which generates 3,000X as much power, on sites as small as a few hundred acres (less than 1 square mile).


RE: Oops