Nuclear vs Coal: Coal is winning...

Round up on Nuclear vs Coal and the state of the industry

Rod Adams over at Atomic Insightsposted a link to a story from two days ago on CNBC, the US's most popular financial cable network. The article gives a brief, surface-like, and very neutral overview of the state of the industry, focusing on gas, nuclear and coal and their near term to long term development.

I want to examine parts of this article and comment on it:

From the article on CNBC:

For an unregulated energy provider like NRG Energy, federal incentives were a primary driver in plans to move forward with two new nuclear units in Texas, says Crane.
The incentives were also important to UniStar, a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and French electricity group EDF.

This is, of course, something we all know about. The rate of filings with the NRC has increased, and is expected to increase over the next 2 years...beginning in December.

UniStar plans to submit the second half of its application for a new reactor in Maryland by March of 2008. CEO George Vanderheyden says the company is also considering an application for a new reactor in New York.

In all, 21 new reactor license applications for a total of 32 units are expected between now and 2009, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

More than half the proposals are for the southern part of the country. The Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a request in October to build two units in Alabama; Virginia-based Dominion received early site plan approval for a unit northwest of Richmond, Va. and South Carolina Electric and Gas, a unit of SCANA, is expected to submit a request for two units in December.

"Whether we go ahead with one or two units is still up in the air," says spokesman Robert Yanity.

Decisions on the first set of applications are expected by the middle of 2011, according to NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

The NRC will hold hearings, and generate more paperwork for each plant than there was for the massive Justice Dept. case against AT&T in the 1970s. It will also be during this period that politicians, Democrats and Republicans, will have to state their opinion(s) in order to influence (or hide) from these important, political decisions the NRC will be making.

Construction – which takes three to four years – can begin after that, putting the first new nuclear unit in operation by mid 2014 at the earliest.

There are currently 104 licensed nuclear power reactors, generating 20% of the all US electricity.

Nuclear generating capacity in the US is projected to increase to 112.6 gigawatts in 2030, from 100 gigawatts in 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration’s 2007 annual energy outlook. The increase includes 12.5 gigawatts of newly-built capacity, or roughly 12 units, the EIA said.

This sounds really good, yes? For those of us on the Left who see this as progressive, and only advancement against the forces of fossil hydrocarbon deaths, what possibly is bad about this? Read on...

As the nuclear power industry eyes a new generation of plants, other technologies are hardly standing still.  Coal-based generation is projected to dip from today’s 50% to 49% in 2020, but the decline will be short-lived. By 2030, coal is expected to account for 57% of total production in 2030, according to the federal government’s energy outlook, as new technologies, like carbon capture and sequestration are incorporated to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.

So here you have it. The EIA sees an increase in deadly coal use by 2030 and an actual decrease in nuclear energy as a percentage of overall electrical energy generation...even if every NPP gets built that is expected to file a COL with the NRC.

This is the result, in no small way, of over regulations and, more importantly, of the anti-nuclear movements intent on delaying the building of NPPs over the last 3 decades. A true movement in favor on atomic power needs to be organized to combat these legions of darkness that is ever pushing us into more coal-generated deaths and ever increasing amounts of carbon emissions.

•  Tips, if any

  by davidwalters on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:08:27 AM PDT

  •  Amory Lovins: coal advocate

    Terrific diary quoting Lovins's own words:
    Lovins has been shilling for coal combustion for 31 years.

    by Plan9 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:22:17 PM PDT

•  Syphilis vs. Gonorrhea

  Syphilis is winning!

  by greenskeeper on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:11:22 AM PDT

  •  Yep. Better just to go to

    Energize America, developed here on DK by a massive group effort, to find real choices, rather than false forced-choice silliness.

    by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

    •  EA is pie in the sky

      we don't have time for untested technology.  The coal plants need to be shut down yesterday.

      by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:25:06 AM PDT

      •  I'll inform everyone here that they are

        all to replace their scientific knowledge and informed opinions based on your say-so.

        by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:31:11 AM PDT

  •  Thought to be fair...

    ...and to continue your analogy, syphylis IS worse...

    by Cat Servant on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:17:37 AM PDT

    •  Just curious

      Do you know this from experience? ;-)

      by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

      •  ????? n/t

        by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:28:44 AM PDT

      •  No.

        But I know that pre-antibiotics syphylis was a death sentence and ghonorrea was not.  Similary, I know that smallpox is worse than ringworm, though I haven't had either of those.

        Sheesh.

        by Cat Servant on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:21:14 PM PDT

•  Crack vs heroin

  dog shit vs cat shit

  the difference is marginal

  by gaspare on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

  •  the difference is huge

    with nuclear you have the risk that small pockets of the earth will become uninhabitable.

    With coal you have the certinty that the whole planet will become uninhabitable.  Coal fired power plants are the #1 source of greenhouse emissions.  All coal plants must be replaced ASAP if there is going to be life on earth that isn't under domes.

    by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:23:15 AM PDT

    •  not enough uranium to produce replacement

      wind won't do it either, only solar will be able to be the biggest supplier of affordable energy

      by gaspare on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:25:47 AM PDT

      •  look up thorium reactors

        and if you green peace pseudo environmental activist types didn't keep protesting nuclear reactors, we would be able to RECYCLE that waste. There is more than enough to go around.

        and solar is currently unable to provide enough energy, even if we got around the difficult production, expense, disposal of toxic materials, and that whole night time thing, it still wouldn't be enough. Its a good supplementary source, but not yet good enough for primary power supply for an industrialized western nation.

        by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:31:06 AM PDT

        •  Cinton did it! Oh, and Greenpeace is now

          responsible for all the problems and failings of the nuclear industry, apparently. I'll alert the media. /snark.

          by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:33:36 AM PDT

          •  as someone who lives

            near a reactor that was finished but could not operate because of all the protests, and instead netted us a bunch of shiny new fossil fuel plants, yeah, screw green peace.

            and what failings of the nuclear industry. so far we have Chernobyl, an unstable old style reactor that killed a few hundred, and Three mile Island, which killed... nobody. Oh, dont forget, modern reactors are thousands of times safer than the already relatively safe second generation reactors, and some modern reactors cannot go critical. EVER.

            now lets compare this to oil spills, black lung, cave ins, the impending extinction of our species, and compare that with the risks associated with either nuclear power, OR the risk with waiting for renewable sources to be able to power our society.  

            by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:43:41 AM PDT

            •  Replacement for Three Mile Island 2: deadly coal

              There were no deaths or illnesses as a result of an average estimated exposure to people in the Harrisburg area of 1 millirem per capita during the week of the accident.

              But coal combustion has replaced TMI-2.  So now local residents are getting an increase in radiation exposure from the coal waste being pumped into the environment. So over the past 27 years people have been receiving an increased radiation dose of 1-4 millirem per year.

              But that's not what is causing deaths and illnesses from electricity generation.  The people in the area are inhaling more fine particulates and those up the rate of lung and heart disease.

              No wonder the heads of environmental departments at Rockefeller University, Harvard, and Stanford favor nuclear power.

              Blocking nuclear plants helps Big Coal big time. Imagine the despair in the coal industry when Texas decided to cut back on coal-fired plants and when two applications for new nuclear plants in Texas were filed.

              Whenever nuclear-powered electricity is shut down, flowers do not grow.  Instead, more fossil fuels are burned, mostly coal.  This has been observed over and over again.

              Wind farms and solar arrays, being weak and intermittent in energy production, make .02 percent of the world's electricity.  I support them and have hopes that they will be able to do much more.  But their promise will not be fulfilled for many decades.  They need better means of energy storage.  They always require backup (usually from fossil fuel combustion) and cannot make baseload (steady, 24/7) energy.  That only comes at present from fossil fuel combustion, hydro, and nuclear.  Geothermal can provide a small amount of baseload.  

              People prefer accelerated emissions of greenhouse gases to nuclear power.  That's what it gets down to.

              by Plan9 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:13:53 AM PDT

          •  Ever wonder why nuclar power rocks in France

            but sucks here?

            The US nuclear fuel industry is just as bad as the oil companies.  In both cases they fight any efforts to increase efficiency and safety standards which might harm profits.  Because of the "all nuclear is bad" mindset most leftists don't differentiate nuclear power from the nuclear power industry. Republicans aren't crazy about nuclear because the profit margin is smaller than with coal. This leaves nuclear power with basically no defenders despite the fact that the potential advantages over coal are huge.

            by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:48:02 AM PDT

            •  The nuclear power industry sleeps with big coal

              The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry spokesman and lobbyist, represents utilities with nuclear plants. Those utilities also operate coal-fired plants.

              by Plan9 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:28:53 AM PDT

              •  given the choice

                between living with corruption or death, ill choose life

                by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:42:54 AM PDT

                •  Yes. We just can't expect NEI

                  to contrast and compare nuclear and coal.

                  In the case of NEI it's not corruption, it's just an industry organization representing the wishes of its constitutents. Everybody knows that those utilities rely on various energy resources, and fossil fuels outstrip any other kind.

                  Because of obsolete information, superstition, and deliberate misrepresentation keeping people who most need to know the real facts about nuclear power in the dark, we environmentalists who support it must do a better job of educating people. We can't hope industry will.

                  I have been recommending a new book, Power to Save the World, to my colleagues who are uncertain about nuclear power or are on the fence. It's an interesting read, makes a lot of important points, clears up a lot of myths. Just the contrast between the visit to a coal-fired plant and to a nuclear plant is worth the price of the book. It should be in every school library.

                  by Plan9 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:22:45 AM PDT

        •  Note: not "you" specifically

          you in the general sense

          by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:34:27 AM PDT

      •  with reclimation it can last quite a while

        The Regan administration pushed to shut down breeder reactor programs worldwide citing nuclear proliferation concerns.  The fact that at the time the US was one of the worlds largest exporters of reactor fuel and reclamation programs

        So yes, there is proven technology which can extend the supply  of uranium dramatically and reduce the amount of wast product produced.  The profit motive keeps it from being used in the US.

        There is no existing solar power technology which can meet the growing global power needs without a huge spike in cost.  The cost would be felt not just in power bills but also in the prices of consumer goods and commodities.

        Certainly a post-nuclear future where all power is from renewable sources is desirable and obtainable.  The abandonment of fossil fuels and the move to purely renewable power sources need to be seen as different goals on different timeliness, however.

        by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:41:10 AM PDT

        •  correction

          that should read:
          The fact that at the time the US was one of the worlds largest exporters of reactor fuel and reclamation programs put a dent on our bottom line.

          by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:55:25 AM PDT

      •  Plenty of uranium

        Uranium is a ubiquitous element in the earths crust that we have barely started looking for.  The main reason why the Peak Oil theory is compelling is that we've discovered very little new oil over the last several decades despite massive effort and expense.  Thus, it is plausible (perhaps likely) that very little (easily recoverable) oil is left that hasn't been discovered.

        The uranium situation is vastly different.  The amount of effort we've spent so far on its discovery is orders of magnitude lower than that spent on oil or gas, the reason being that we almost immediately found all that we needed after only a small effort decades ago.  Uranium contains a million times as much energy as oil, gas, or coal.  Its discovery cost (in dollars to find per unit of useful energy) is 300 times lower than oil/gas.

        Back in the 1920's, when we had spent a similar amount of effort looking for oil (as we have for uranium today), the official reserves were ~1% of what we have subsequently discovered.  Now that the uranium price has increased, people are finally out exploring again and we are hearing about new veins being dicovered every week.  It seems clear that for uranium, we are near the beginning of the discovery curve (as we were for oil in the ~1920s), as opposed to near the end of the discovery curve (as we are for oil today).

        In addition to all this, there is the fact that, unlike fossil fuel plants where the fuel cost is most of the power cost, the raw uranium cost is only a few percent of nuclear power's final cost.  Thus, the ore cost could go up a factor of 10 before seriously impacting nuclear's competitiveness.  Such an increase in allowable ore cost increases the recoverable reserves by orders of magnitude.  Finally, breeder reactors would increase the amount of energy produced per unit of uranium ore by a factor of over 60.  This will result in an effectively infinite fuel supply.

        I talk about this more at:

        http://www.americanenergyindependenc...

        and a uranium expert talks about it at:

        http://216.94.150.122/...

        The bottom line is that even with a once-through fuel cycle and even with dramatically higher nuclear power use, our supply of uranium ore (even high-grade ore) will last for a century or more.  This is more than enough time to develop limitless sources of energy such as breeder reactors, fusion, various renewable sources, or some combination of all of these.

        The bottom line is that long-term uranium supply is not an issue.  Nobody in the industry (including those who are about to decide to build 60-100 year nuclear plants) have expressed or shown any concern at all about it.

        by JimHopf on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:15:37 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but ...

      uninhabitable by whom?

      Man has exploded thousands of nuclear weapons around the globe. That is unfortunate, but the areas where these weapons were detonated are not exactly uninhabitable. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.

      Chernobyl, the worst-ever nuclear accident and a tragedy to be sure, is now a wildlife haven. Freed from the influence of humans, animals are thriving there.

      That raises a question in my mind: which is worse for the environment -- a nuclear accident or suburban sprawl?

      by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

      •  Ah the "Thriving Wildlife" meme

        debunked here.

        The Chernobyl exclusion zone has been mythologized as a sort of wildlife garden of eden with storks, bears, birds, wolfs, pigs etc.. taking over in the absence of man. However it turns out the reports are anecdotal, there have been no formal scientific studies - until now. According to this study of birds, both the number of species and abundance of individuals declined with increasing radiation levels. For example, the most contaminated sites had about two-thirds fewer birds than those with normal levels of radiation. Chernobyl is far from a wildlife paradise, "This was a big surprise to us," biologist Dr. Mousseau of the University of South Carolina said. "We had no idea of the impact."

        And for a real scientific study finding problems in Chernobyl, see Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl The abstract is worth quoting in full. Highlights are mine.

        Ever since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, that contaminated vast areas in surrounding countries with radiation, abnormalities and birth defects have been reported in human populations. Recently, several studies suggested that the elevated frequency of such abnormalities can be attributed to poverty and stress in affected human populations. Here, we present long-term results for a free-living population of barn swallows, Hirundo rustica, demonstrating the presence of 11 morphological abnormalities in populations around Chernobyl, but much less frequently in an uncontaminated Ukrainian control population and three more distant control populations. The presence of these abnormalities in barn swallows is associated with reduced viability. These findings demonstrate a link between morphological abnormalities and radiation in an animal population that cannot be attributed to poverty and stress. The most parsimonious hypothesis for abnormalities in animal and human populations alike is that the effects are caused by the same underlying cause, viz. radiation derived from the Chernobyl accident.

        by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:40:04 AM PDT

        •  Where would you rather live

          Near Chernobyl or on Venus?

          If we don't eliminate fossil fuels ASAP the earth is going to turn into venus.

          Look.  I'm a former Earth Firster and still consider myself an environmentalist.  I was active in efforts to prevent the TVA from finishing construction of the Watt's Bar nuclear facility. Times have changed.  Where we once thought nuclear was a bigger environmental threat than coal we now know we were wrong.  We were wrong.  Why can't people get that?  We were wrong!

          by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:53:46 AM PDT

        •  Oh the swallows! Oh the humanity!

          Oh the poor birds that are killed by radiation!

          Oh the poor birds that are killed by wind turbines!

          Oh the poor birds that are killed by house cats!

          Big freak'n deal!

          It doesn't matter whether the exclusion zone is a "paradise." My point is that it is not uninhabitable. Unless you can provide evidence that no animals or even evidence that very few animals live there, then I think that I can safely say that "uninhabitable" does not exactly describe this place -- at least, not for animals.

          There are many parts of the zone have radiation levels that are below background levels where many people live quite happily in other parts of the world. The people who live in the area have been helped, not by "swallow studies," but by people (mostly French experts) coming in and assisting them to get control of their lives and realizing that the risks are not as great as they have been told by government organizations and by idiot environmentalist groups, who are looking for little more than freak-show pictures.

          But bury your head in the sand and stick to your "swallow studies" if you want. It's mighty weak evidence.

          by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:53:48 AM PDT

    •  When I was 12...

      ...a student passed me a petition in my jr. high homeroom.  It was a student petition against building nuclear power plants (this was California in 1972 and even preteens were caught up in the spirit of the times).  Although I considered myself an environmentalist even then and everyone else in the class signed it, I refused to sign it.  When asked why, I replied, "If nuclear plants are banned, then coal plants will be instead.  I'm an asthmatic, and coal smoke can kill me."  The other students never bothered me about it again.

      by Neon Vincent on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:49:26 AM PDT

    •  Not even small pockets

      It is doubtful that the worst-conceivalbe event at a Western reactor or repository would render any significant land area uninhabitable (if any area at all).

      The maximum possible release from a Western plant accident/event is much lower than that which occurred at Chernobyl.  Thus, it is unlikely that any land area would have radiation levels outside the range of natural background levels seen on earth.  No studies have ever shown a measurable increase in cancer or other diseases from radiation levels within the natural range.

      This is also true for repositories as well.  Even the most conservative, unrealistic analyses show that the maximum conceivale leakage from Yucca Mtn. would not result in anyone (not a single person) getting an annual dose rate outside the range of natural background levels.

      Even the Chernobyl zone is not uninhabitable, by any reasonable definition, despite a release level that is orders of magnitude greater than what any Western plant could produce.  Both people and animals live there right now.  Some places on earth, where large numbers of people live, have natural background radaition levels that are higher than those seen around Chernobyl today.  There isn't even any clear evidence of a statistically significant increase in cancer rate as a result of living in these regions.  In any event, at worst it is a small increase in long-term cancer risk, which is not "uninhabitalbe" by any definition.  And once again, the release from any modern reactor event would be orders of magnitude smaller.

      by JimHopf on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:30:42 PM PDT

  •  You've got to be kidding

    Coal plants kill ~25,000 people every year while nuclear plants have no measurable health impact (i.e., ~0 deaths per year).  On top of that, coal plants are the leading single cause (~40%) of global warming, while nuclear plants do not contribute to global warming.  Even a worst-case meltdown event would have far less impact (and kill far less people) than the ANNUAL impact of coal plants.

    What's marginal, actually, is the difference in external costs (environmental impacts and health risks) between nuclear and renewable sources.  For both, the external costs are small to negligible.  Scientific external cost studies (e.g., www.externe/info.) all show this.

    by JimHopf on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:53:23 PM PDT

•  Recent studies show nuclear risks are overstated

  I've been meaning to diary this:

  http://www.spiegel.de/...

  It was on ./ a few days ago

  by VelvetElvis on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:15:38 AM PDT

  •  That was an interesting piece

    I was surprised at some of the results of the studies of plutonium bomb-factory workers.

    Thanks for sharing.

    by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:20:55 AM PDT

  •  Oh ... and

    Please do write a diary about it.

    by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:22:16 AM PDT

  •  Wow! Wild exaggeration isn't true!

    The horrors....are much less extensive than believed.

    They go on to list every puffed up piece of silly statistics already debunked. And conclude that, yes, people have died, but not in the hundreds of thousands, only the tens of thousands.

    It's an interesting spin. Except for the already reality based. They do not say that radiation isn't dangerous, just that several sources of radioactive  contamination have not proved as deadly as wildly rumoured, according to official, always true, always credible, always honest and aboveboard and completely unbiased findings elsewhere. Who would have thought?

    by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:26:53 AM PDT

    •  Huh?

      Of course radiation is dangerous. So is caffeine, but it doesn't stop me from having a cup of coffee every morning. It is the dose that counts.

      The point of that article is that low-levels of radiation are less dangerous than commonly thought, and it cites studies of real people that have come to these conclusions from looking at the data.

      Geez ... and you claim to have a PhD?!! With that level of education, I would have thought that you could grasp these types of concepts, but I guess they didn't cover that in basket-weaving class.

      by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:37:31 AM PDT

      •  Of course dose counts. That is the whole point

        of the article, and what I emphasized in my post. When exaggerated claims are made for radiation's effects, then other findings can be claimed to be "less than expected." The question is, expected by whom? For the reality-based community, who already have read many of the studies cited in the article, much  of this news is recycled and imbalanced.

        The same article could have been written that the effects were "greater than expected" from someone with a pro-nuclear bias. I have run across several posters here who maintain, for instance, that there are almost no illnesses or deaths attributable to radiation,(and who in fact have touted radiation's health effects) and therefore the findings cited would be higher than "expected" for them.

        And I appreciate your comments about my competence. Thanks.

        by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:51:09 AM PDT

        •  You are welcome

          I call 'em like I see 'em.

          Sure, some of the stuff is old information, but the "SOUL" project and its findings are relative new (at least, I had not heard of them). That was the main thrust of the article. The rest was just for background.

          Can you supply any information that these results are "old news"?

          And I seriously doubt that anyone would be surprised that the effects were greater than expected. We're talking about people who used to work in a bomb-making factory, who are dealing with significant amounts of plutonium, manipulating it by hand, without any shielding. Even then, with this level of exposure, the study finds that this is only half as dangerous as smoking cigarettes (2/3 of lung cancer attributed to cigarettes, leaving 1/3 contributed to weapons production).

          This is rehashed stuff? Really?

          And please, how is it imbalanced? Care to provide some "balance"?

          by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:08:20 AM PDT

•  read some diaries

  by NNader, if you get through the angry rant part, they are incredibly informative.

  and for those claiming false choice, realise that the only viable alternative to coal, and by viable, i mean we can start building them en mass now as opposed to waiting another 40 years for solar and wind and tidal and geothermal to be brought up to scratch.

  by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:26:10 AM PDT

  •  Hahahaha. n/t

    by means are the ends on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:27:44 AM PDT

•  How 'bout neither?

  The amount of the sun's energy that reaches the surface of the Earth every hour is greater than the total amount of energy that the world's human population uses in a year.  Throw in the wind produced by that solar energy and tidal current energy produced by the wind and the moon and WOW!  No need for either coal or nuclear.  We just have to tweak or technologies.

  by rf7777 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

  •  we dont have time for that

    we dont have time to develop new technologies anymore.
    what you are talking about would take upwards of 20 years of R&D, and even then we may just find out that wind and solar are just not viable for long term base load energy production.

    but please realize that without nuclear power, those 20 years will be just 20 more years of burning fossil fuels.

    by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:48:13 AM PDT

    •  Have you seen figures

      on how long it take to design and build a nuclear power facility?

      by rf7777 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:52:17 AM PDT

      •  5-10 years

        which is why we should have done this during the Carter adminstration. as of now, if we went carbon neutral Tomorrow, humanity would still go extinct in the next 100 years.

        by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:55:38 AM PDT

        •  oh and one more thing

          if we got behind this, i mean if the entire government threw everything they had at this, and worked toward gearing our entire economy around the construction of nuclear plants and using them to replace fossil fuels, we could probably do it in half the time.

          by Dude1701 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:57:17 AM PDT

•  The EIA Energy Outlook has been a joke for years

  The shortcomings of the 2007 version you cited have been mentioned here before, such as this diary in May by A Siegel.

  The only value I can see in the EIA International Energy Outlooks is to browse the archive, going back a few years and seeing how wrong the predictions were.

  by retrograde on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:58:38 AM PDT

  •  Yep, you are kind of right

    The EIA forecasts have been inaccurate in the past, especially if you are prone to nitpicking.

    Hey, predicting the future is a difficult job. Care to give an example where you have done any better? ;-)

    Care to provide an example where Greenpeace, Amory Lovins, Ralph Nader (and the list goes on and on) have done better?

    The EIA is simply doing a modeling exercise. If you read carefully what they say, this is clear. Their results are simply consequences of the assumptions that go into the model. (Think about this the next time you predict global doom and gloom based on a climate model, a GCM.) The real value of the EIA reports does not come from taking the "predictions" that the report gives as what is going to happen, but rather from looking at the sensitivity studies that they run to see the effects that various factors have on future energy costs, demands, and supplies.

    by bryfry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:19:19 AM PDT

    •  My point is raising this is

      because the EIA is the ONLY group that seriously (sespite flaws) shows the REAL possibility of increased world-wide coal use...which is the fastest growing form of base load (or any) power thanks not hust to China, but the US and a host of other countries that decided to delay or cancel NPP construction. This just brings it home more even if it's 6 months old.

      The problem is COAL and without a plan to get rid of it...which only nuclear can do...then it's all idle speculation anyway.

      David

      by davidwalters on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

    •  EIA projections

      I just read a post by Rod Adams on another Daily Kos diary (Clean Coal - Dirty Hands) where he discussed EIA projections back in the 1970s.  There, they predicted that virtually all new baseload plants would be nuclear and that coal would be phased out by ~2000.  Needless to say, this didn't happen.

      The pattern here seems clear.  All the EIA does is extrapolate current trends and/or analyze the result of continuing current policies.  They are completely unable to predict/accept coming change, even if the writing is on the wall and everyone can see it.  Their 1970s predictions were just extrapolations of the nuclear boom that was occurring at that time.  Today, their projections are, again, just extrapolations of current trends, that seem unable to conceive of or accept change.  They take the current trend/curve, and just draw a straight-line extrapolation, and are blind to the obvious curve in the line that is just ahead.

      I am heartened by what Rod pointed out because I see just how wrong they can be, and I now know how much credence/weight to give the fact that the EIA does not project significant future nuclear growth.  They were spectacularly wrong in the past (in one direction) and now they are going to be spectacularly wrong again (in the other direction).

      The fact that they do not recognize the fact that CO2 limits are more likely than not is particularly odd.  One would expect that they would at least do an analysis that assumes CO2 constraints.  They may have, in fact, done so, but this is not presented as the main, official projections.  We have reached the point where the CO2-constrained projection deserves, at a minimum, to be given equal weight to the non-constrained projections.  At a minimum, they should produce two official projections, one assuming CO2 constraints and one that does not, and they should both be given equal billing as the "official" projection.

      CO2 limits will be passed, CCS will not be competative, and coal capacity in 2025/2030 will be lower than it is today.  Why is it so hard to imagine coal suffering a reversal similar to what happened to nuclear, especially given that the reversal is so much more justified.

      by JimHopf on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:46:29 PM PDT