Electric rate fantasies: who subsidizes who?

electricgridScott Sklar, former head of the Solar Electric Industries Association and now the principal of The Stella Group, is one of America’s most knowledgeable and outspoken proponents of solar power, and has been for decades. In this piece, first posted (but with a somewhat garbled ending) on RenewableEnergyWorld.com, he takes on the false notion that everyone pays the same rates for electricity. We don’t. And that makes a difference when there are nuclear and fossil fuel utilities arguing that people without solar power are somehow subsidizing those who do have it. They don’t.

Many electric utilities are flexing their political muscles against solar net metering and state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Their main issue is that other consumers are subsidizing solar (and renewables), particularly pointing to lower-income consumers. I have already written about the numerous studies that disprove those allegations, but that is not what this article is about. Continue reading

The accelerating decline of French nuclear power

The containment dome at Flamanville-3 has been installed. It would be exceedingly difficult and costly to replace the bottom head of the reactor pressure vessel installed here.

The containment dome at Flamanville-3 has been installed. It would be exceedingly difficult and costly to replace the bottom head of the reactor pressure vessel installed here.

For most people with any interest in energy issues, France is synonymous with nuclear power. With 78% of its electricity generated by the atom, it is by far the most nuclear-dependent country in the world. It’s state-owned flagship Electricite de France is the world’s largest nuclear utility. State-owned Areva is one of the largest nuclear reactor manufacturers in the world.

When nuclear industry lobbyists–anywhere in the world–try to find a success story for their technology, they invariably point to France. Continue reading

Redacted DOE report gives details on MOX boondoogle

The Savannah River Site, with the unfinished MOX facility in the foreground. In the background is Georgia's Vogtle reactor complex, where two new reactors are under construction. With the likely demise of the MOX project, their power won't be needed at SRS. Photo by High Flyer, special to SRS Watch.

The Savannah River Site, with the unfinished MOX facility in the right foreground. In the background is Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear complex, where two reactors are operating and two new reactors are under construction. With the likely demise of the MOX project, their power won’t be needed at SRS. Photo by High Flyer, special to SRS Watch.

For decades, some in the U.S. government backed by a few in the nuclear industry and perhaps more in what I call the “nuclear priesthood”–those who have conducted their careers in the shadows of the nuclear industry and in academic settings where they can promote all things nuclear–have espoused the idea of reprocessing used fuel rods (also known as high-level radioactive waste) and creating MOX (plutonium-based) fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

It’s always been a stupid idea environmentally–reprocessing is perhaps the dirtiest of all nuclear industry processes–and an even stupider idea economically. That’s because reprocessing is so expensive that mining and enriching uranium from scratch is still cheaper and always will be. Use of plutonium fuel would also exacerbate nuclear accidents, another trait that makes it undesirable, even for most of the nuclear industry.
Continue reading

Tesla and its implications: it’s a wild time

If you read our piece Tuesday on Tesla’s new PowerWall battery storage announcement, but spent the past three days thinking about whether you wanted to get one for your own home, well, you waited too long.

According to several reports, Tesla has sold 38,000 PowerWalls since its announcement a week ago, and is now sold out through mid-2016. Not terribly surprising since its Nevada Gigafactory to manufacture batteries for both its cars and electricity storage use won’t even be completed until then.

Perhaps more significantly for the future of clean energy, Tesla also has sold 2,500 of its larger PowerPacks. Those are the systems designed for commercial, industrial and utility purposes. And those 2,500 batteries will surely store a lot more power and enable a lot more renewable energy deployment than will the larger number of home systems.

That’s especially true since, as several media outlets reported (perhaps a little too gleefully),  the home systems aren’t–yet–particularly useful for going off the grid or even enabling rooftop solar owners to store their own power generated during the day and use it at night.

SolarCity, the rooftop solar company of which Tesla’s Elon Musk is chairman, isn’t even marketing the smaller (7 kw) battery that would serve that purpose. Again, not yet.

All batteries are designed for specific purposes. In this case, the 10 kw PowerWall is intended only to handle the occasional power outage experienced by the grid and thus enable consumers to have some (although a quite small) amount of backup power to keep some essential systems running. It is designed to cycle only about 50 times/year.

The smaller 7 kw battery is designed to cycle much more frequently–a few hundred times per year–making it suitable for rooftop solar owners to store their electricity and use it on a daily basis. But SolarCity won’t market it right now because current net metering policies (in which rooftop solar owners sell excess power back to utilities) established in most states make more economic sense for homeowners than saving their power and using it later.

Some other companies, and there are a growing number planning to sell the PowerWall,  may market it for the purpose of homeowner energy independence, but for the most part, that’s still a few years into the future.

So does all this mean that Tesla, and electricity storage generally, is not the fundamental game-changer, the new paradigm, that we and many others described it as just a few days ago?

Not at all. As we wrote Tuesday, “What Tesla is doing–and we’re just at the very beginning of this transformation–is changing the entire nature of electricity generation and distribution.” Let’s emphasize “the very beginning of this transformation.”

The significance of Elon Musk’s Tesla battery-powered announcement is two-fold: first, Tesla has dramatically lowered the cost of electricity storage, and has done so even before its Gigafactory is in operation. Mass production will lead to both lower prices and greater capacity. Tesla competitors will also have to up their game and develop lower-cost batteries. Second, Tesla is doing this with the precise intent of entirely transforming the nature of electricity generation and distribution, and of moving the entire world–as quickly as possible–to a clean energy future.

Indeed, Musk already is saying that Tesla’s energy storage business could become larger than its automobile business  –and Musk isn’t shy about his intent to make his car business compete with the General Motors, Toyotas and Hondas of the world.

As nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen has famously pointed out, “The nuclear industry would have you believe that humankind is smart enough to develop techniques to store nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years, but at the same time humankind is so dumb we can’t figure out a way to store solar electricity overnight.”

We have now figured it out. And we’ve figured it out in a way that is beginning to make economic sense. This is following the solar trendline itself: first, the technology was developed and matured; then the cost became accessible; and finally, where we are now: the cost has dropped to the point where it is not only competitive, it is increasingly the lowest-cost option and will be so nearly everywhere before the end of this decade.

But it’s not only Tesla; they have competitors both in the battery storage arena and other storage technologies. For larger, utility-scale uses, for example, compressed air storage was figured out by the ancient Greeks; now it’s becoming a viable technology and competitor to Tesla’s PowerPack.

As EarthTrack’s Doug Koplow pointed out yesterday, the economics and trends are clear: storage beats nuclear power.

It’s not going to be instantaneous. The change will be nearly invisible for a while. We’re in the very beginning. But the energy transformation is happening–right before our eyes. Don’t close them too long, or it may even pass you by. It’s a fascinating, hopeful, wild time. The clean energy future and accompanying end of nuclear power and fossil fuels are nearly in sight, and will become so blatantly obvious even Exelon will be able to see it. In fact, Exelon and its ilk already do. That’s why they’re thrashing about greedily trying to get as much as possible in their waning days before their obsolete technologies and utility structures all come crashing down around them.

For those of you interested in the more practical side of the issue; this article compares the costs of Tesla’s PowerWall with other currently available residential storage systems.  This post from Australia’s ReNewEconomy features a downloadable app that will help you determine what level of solar and storage will be appropriate for where you live while a post from Rocky Mountain Institute discusses how much battery storage your rooftop solar system may need.

Michael Mariotte

May 8, 2015

Permalink: http://safeenergy.org/2015/05/08/tesla-and-its-implications-its-a-wild-time/

Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it. Or just put your e-mail address into the box in the right-hand column.

If you like GreenWorld, help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

Tesla wants to change the world. It just might happen.

The Tesla PowerWall. Photo by Tesla.

The Tesla PowerWall. Photo by Tesla.

Last week, Elon Musk and his Tesla corporation changed the world. Or so you might think from reading the press coverage about Musk’s long-expected announcement that the gigafactory Tesla is building in Nevada will produce batteries not only for Tesla automobiles, but to use as storage for renewable energy–especially rooftop solar–as well.

EverReady is probably pretty jealous; an announcement about a new battery has never received so much attention. Continue reading

Exelon presses its luck

Exelon's allegedly uneconomic Byron reactors.  Photo from wikipedia.

Exelon’s allegedly uneconomic Byron reactors. Photo from wikipedia.

Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power utility, has upped the ante in its quest for a bailout from the Illinois legislature, saying it has “to have an answer” by September as to whether Illinois ratepayers are going to pay more for their electricity just because it’s from nuclear power.

Although Exelon consistently has refused to publicly release any of the relevant financial information to back up its claims that some of its reactors are losing money, the utility now claims that, as E & E put it, “the month of September represents decision day for Exelon.” Continue reading

The evidence that radiation from nuclear reactors causes childhood leukemia

Radiation spike caused by refueling at one of Bavaria's Gundremmingen reactors.

Radiation spike caused by refueling at one of Bavaria’s Gundremmingen reactors.

Last July, we published a piece on recent groundbreaking work from the U.K.’s Dr. Ian Fairlie and the connection between radiation releases from nuclear reactors and childhood leukemia.

We quoted Dr. Fairlie:

“The core issue is that, world-wide, over 60 epidemiological studies have examined cancer incidences in children near nuclear power plants (NPPs): most (>70%) indicate leukemia increases. I can think of no other area of toxicology (eg asbestos, lead, smoking) with so many studies, and with such clear associations as those between NPPs and child leukemias. Yet many nuclear governments and the nuclear industry refute these findings and continue to resist their implications. It’s similar to the situations with cigarette smoking in the 1960s and with man-made global warming nowadays.”

Continue reading