The Tories' War On Data

[-1=e^ipi]

What to do, well, now there's the rub. Propose a solution which is doable and seems likely to work without making us worse off due to its cost than we'd be by ignoring climate change.

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy.

2. Global pigouvian tax (say $15 per metric ton and increase it in real value at a rate of about 3% per year).

[Argus]

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy.

2. Global pigouvian tax (say $15 per metric ton and increase it in real value at a rate of about 3% per year).

Can you guarantee no more nuclear plants will melt down? Would you like having one upwind of you/

A 'global' tax on such things? Who does the money go to? And what affect on economic activity will such a tax have? Would third world countries even be able to pay it?

Edited September 24, 2015 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

We have these amazing things called batteries.

Or you could use pumped hydro storage...

[-1=e^ipi]

Can you guarantee no more nuclear plants will melt down?

I can't guarantee a flying spaghetti monster wont appear out of thin air and turn you into a meat ball.

It's a matter of probability and risk management. Also, some reactor types are very safe and even physically incapable of meltdowns.

Would you like having one upwind of you

Yes.

Who does the money go to?

That's up for debate. Maybe it should be used to fund geoengineering. Maybe it should be used to lower taxes. Maybe it should be given back directly to people of Earth in the form of a transfer.

And what affect on economic activity will such a tax have?

It would have negative impacts on economic activity, but so would the effects of climate change. That's why you set the value of the tax to be the marginal external net cost to society. You can try to estimate the best value of a CO2 emission tax using integrated assessment models, such as those by Nordhaus.

Would third world countries even be able to pay it?

Everyone should pay it.

[WIP]

I think the sadder interpretation is that the Tories despise knowledge.

Knowledge can be a dangerous thing! People may start thinking independently when they have knowledge, instead of copying and pasting the same conservative talkingpoints and phony issues on every message board available.

[WIP]

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy.

2. Global pigouvian tax (say $15 per metric ton and increase it in real value at a rate of about 3% per year).

If nuclear is the holy grail, how about the boosters of nuclear finance it themselves...including their insurance liability costs...then we'll all be happy!

[WIP]

We've gone over this. Harper is a control freak who doesn't tolerate dissent. So was Chretien. So was Trudeau. So is Mulcair. And the new Trudeau is showing strong signs of being the same way. Canadians don't want nice guys to run this country. They want bastards. Every PM has been one except Clark, who was a weakling who barely lasted long enough to warm his chair.

Change the rules back the way they were before PET turned the PMO into a dictatorship! There was a time long ago, when cabinet ministers thought for themselves and even contradicted the Prime Minister.

[ToadBrother]

Or you could use pumped hydro storage...

I read an article about that in SciAm a few years ago. An awesome way of storing energy, but it is pretty geographically dependent.

There is energy all over the place, the whole bloody planet is filled with it, and in many cases we know how to capture it, it's just that oil has a century-long had start in infrastructure.

[ToadBrother]

Can you guarantee no more nuclear plants will melt down? Would you like having one upwind of you/

A 'global' tax on such things? Who does the money go to? And what affect on economic activity will such a tax have? Would third world countries even be able to pay it?

You are aware that coal burning releases a heck of lot of radiation, right?

[-1=e^ipi]

it's just that oil has a century-long had start in infrastructure.

And cost... Don't forget about the cost difference.

[dre]

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy.

The problem with nuclear energy is the economics around it, not government policy. Government policy has actually been consistantly favorable to the nuclear industry, and they have been the recipient of speedy regulatory approval, huge subsidies, and massive loan guarantees. And a lot of the plants built in the last couple of decades were directly financed by the government, so its a little silly to blaim them. The problem is both public and private investors are terrified and modern plant designs are extremely expensive to build. This is compounded in North America because theres virtually zerio constuction or operating experience with modern designs like ABWR, EPR, ESBWR, Westinghouse 1000. And places where they ARE trying to build these things are seeing massive cost overruns and the projects in most cases are years behind. Theres are also plagued by quality problems.

Theres an EPR under construction in Finland but its estimated to be 50% over budget by the time its done. And theres two ABWR's under constuction in Tiawaan, but they are 5 years behind schedule, and costs have more than doubled from 3.7 billion to as high as 9 billion.

The big reasons for the increase in new plant costs are stiff competition for the resources, commodities, and manufacturing capacity required to build plants. Key plant constuction materials like copper, concrete and steel are seeing anual double digit cost increases. Companies to do the engineering, procurement, and construction are also in short supply and thats also putting upwards pressure on prices. Another problem is theres only two heavy forging companies in the world that are able to create the largest components in new plants (Japan Steel Works, and Creuset Forge, and their queues are full of petro-chemical projects for years to come.

In North America the ability to build plants has all but dissappeared. 20 years ago there was 400 companies producing nuclear components... Now theres 80. And there was 900 N-Stamp nuclear contracting companies in the US 20 years ago, now theres less than 200.

A project investment risk analysis done by Moodys had the following summary...

Dramatic increases in commodity prices over the recent past,

exacerbated by a skilled labor shortage, have led to significant

increases in the over-all cost estimates for major construction

projects around the world. In the case of new nuclear, the very

detailed specifications for forgings and other critical components

for the construction process can add a new element of complexity

and uncertainty. As noted previously, labor is in short supply and

commodity costs have been extremely volatile. Most importantly,

the commodities and world wide supply network associated with

new nuclear projects are also being called upon to build other

generation facilities, including coal as well as nuclear, nationally

and internationally. Nuclear operators are also competing with

major oil, petrochemical and steel companies for access to these

resources, and thus represent a challenge to all major construction

projects."

It wasnt hippies and environmentalists that killed the nuclear industry in North America it was Utilities executives and Wall Street Financiers. Nobody on earth with half a brain is going to invest in building a nuclear plant in an area thats rich in natural gas and coal.

Who Stopped U.S. Nuclear Power?

An entire generation has passed since nuclear power has been seriously considered in America. New

faces are now on utility boards, and new reporters are covering the energy beat. After so much

time, a particular amnesia about the record of the nuclear industry is evident in discussions.

Contrary to historical revisionism now promoted by some, it was not the environmentalists who

stopped the growth of U.S. nuclear power. Environmentalists were uniformly ineffectual, as

government policies at both the Federal and state levels continued to favor nuclear power.

It was also not the Three Mile Island accident that caused the nuclear industry’s collapse. By the

time Three Mile Island happened in 1979, a wave of cancellations of new nuclear plant orders was

already underway. If anything, the accident simply capped off a trend which was already occurring.

Utility executives and Wall Street financiers were the ones who stopped nuclear power’s expansion

in the 1970's. As more evidence of the business risks and the costs associated with nuclear

power became clear through utilities’ own experiences, utility boards across the country, and the

financial houses who fund them, stopped considering nuclear power a serious future option.

Orders for new plants that had already been advanced, were quietly withdrawn.

The nuclear industry simply failed to compete against other available options, whose risks and costs

were significantly lower.

[Argus]

The big reasons for the increase in new plant costs are stiff competition for the resources, commodities, and manufacturing capacity required to build plants. Key plant constuction materials like copper, concrete and steel are seeing anual double digit cost increases.

I think your data is dated, particularly the moodys quote, which made me snicker.

Commodities prices have been dropping like a rock for the last several years. The fact is that you can build a new natural gas plant fairly quickly. I'm pretty sure that if some utility decided tomorrow it was going to build a new nuclear plant anywhere in Canada, the US or Europe it could count in at least six or seven years of environmental studies, reports and hoops to jump through, if not longer. During that time, and the entire period of construction it would be subjected to the most intense protests, attacks and condemnation possible from the well-funded environment lobby, and it's just not worth the hassle. Easier and faster to build a gas plant.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure what nuclear power plants in the U.S. or other nations has to do with Tory wars on data / climate change, but the U.S. has more nuclear plants than any other nation...by far. About 50 plants have started operation in the past 20 years worldwide, and 60 more are planned or under construction.

Edited September 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

I think your data is dated, particularly the moodys quote, which made me snicker.

Commodities prices have been dropping like a rock for the last several years.

Steel is double what it was ten years ago, and so is copper. Everything I posted is relevant today.

The fact is that you can build a new natural gas plant fairly quickly. I'm pretty sure that if some utility decided tomorrow it was going to build a new nuclear plant anywhere in Canada, the US or Europe it could count in at least six or seven years of environmental studies, reports and hoops to jump through, if not longer. During that time, and the entire period of construction it would be subjected to the most intense protests, attacks and condemnation possible from the well-funded environment lobby, and it's just not worth the hassle. Easier and faster to build a gas plant.

Again the whole "environmentalists killed the nuclear industry" is just an urban legend. The nuclear industry in NA died because it simply cant compete in areas that are rich in coal and gas, and because of that nobody will invest any private money. In parts of the world that dont have coal or gas, they ARE building nuclear plants.

[Argus]

Steel is double what it was ten years ago, and so is copper. Everything I posted is relevant today.

Steel increased to 160 USD/MT on Thursday September 24 from 155 USD/MT in the previous trading day. Steel averaged 428.55 from 2008 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 1265 in June of 2008 and a record low of 125 in July of 2013.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steel

10 year Copper Chart

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=10y

Edited September 26, 2015 by Argus

[socialist]

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy.

2. Global pigouvian tax (say $15 per metric ton and increase it in real value at a rate of about 3% per year).

Kevin Page monetized his Harper Derangement into a book deal, speaking tour, and a professorship, have to tip the hat to that.

Edited September 26, 2015 by socialist

[eyeball]

I'm pretty sure that if some utility decided tomorrow it was going to build a new nuclear plant anywhere in Canada, the US or Europe it could count in at least six or seven years of environmental studies, reports and hoops to jump through, if not longer. During that time, and the entire period of construction it would be subjected to the most intense protests, attacks and condemnation possible from the well-funded environment lobby, and it's just not worth the hassle. Easier and faster to build a gas plant.

I'm pretty sure if that utility tried to get ahead of the mob and told the public and opened up everything to scrutiny and public dissemination, especially when lobbying government and political party officials, they might gain the public's trust enough to get through the approvals process in five or six years. The next ones after that should go smoother.

[Evening Star]

I don't get these strawman arguments about nuclear power. Over half of Ontario's electricity comes from nuclear power, although the province has been run by the Liberals for over a decade.

[Argus]

I don't get these strawman arguments about nuclear power. Over half of Ontario's electricity comes from nuclear power, although the province has been run by the Liberals for over a decade.

And how many new nuclear plants have they built -- in round numbers? 0

[WIP]

And how many new nuclear plants have they built -- in round numbers? 0

If nuclear is so clean and profitable, why doesn't this private enterprize we always hear about, step up and offer to build them? So far, even in the US, they only get built when the evil Government fronts all the money and assumes all the risks of liability....then private enterprize steps up to collect the profits!

[Argus]

If nuclear is so clean and profitable, why doesn't this private enterprize we always hear about, step up and offer to build them?

Because the capital commitment is immense, as is the time it takes for any kind of healthy return on investment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Besides, we all know that U.S. government loan guarantees for nuclear power plants are critical to the Tory War on Data in Canada. It has always been thus.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Nuclear power's record is a lot safer than most people think. Even one of its most infamous disasters has brought surprising benefits to the environment.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html

[ToadBrother]

And cost... Don't forget about the cost difference.

You mean cost that doesn't reflect the actual costs of using fossil fuels.

[eyeball]

Nuclear power's record is a lot safer than most people think. Even one of its most infamous disasters has brought surprising benefits to the environment.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html

The benefit in entirely due to human beings virtually vacating the region. There is nothing to suggest that radioactivity has anything to do with it at all.

In any case, I'll have to remember this story next time some chicken-hawk asks if I'm nutz for suggesting we stop throwing up dictators to stop the Russkies instead of nuclear bombs. If anything, they're probably already entertaining the idea nuclear war might not be so bad after all if Chernobyl is anything to go by.