Tag Archives: Solar

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs, some nuclear backers suggest changing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors. What will they suggest next? Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012, A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf. The new NRC head is maybe well-meaning, but it’s the same NRC that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down and the same NRC that’s ignoring cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF) was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership of nuclear plants. EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project. Who could the possible suitors be? Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when Constellation Energy pulled out of the project. Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010, Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S. utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2 billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year. EDF asked for the state’s help, but didn’t get the answer it wanted. Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011, EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →

Energy experts making excuses for fracking

Numerous eminent current and former regulators, governors, and legislators’ best advice for how to keep fracking from polluting our aquifers and drinking water: “strict regulation”. As Gandhi reputedly said about western civilization: that would be a good idea. But in Georgia and many other places, where the regulatory agency (GA PSC) and the legislature are pretty much captured by the utilities they pretend to regulate, how will we get that “strict regulation”?

This was at a Politico event, sponsored by American Wind Power, called Energy & the Presidency.

Join POLITICO for a lunch conversation with energy experts and policy leaders Energy & the Presidency panel as they discuss current energy legislation, the energy debates facing the nation, policy options and what’s ahead in the year to come. Speakers include: ClearView Energy Partners’ Kevin Book; former Administrator of the EPA and former Director of the White House Office on Climate Change, Carol Browner; Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.); former Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) and former Gov. Bill Ritter (Colo.).

When: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm ET

This event was in North Carolina, where the late John Blackburn, Ph.D. already reported two years ago that the whole state could be powered by wind, sun, existing hydro, landfill gas, and less natural gas than is already in use, why do we need fracking at all?

Georgia has similar real renewable energy potential, plus studies by Georgia Tech and Duke indicate that Georgia doesn’t need any additional total electric power anyway, if it gets on with energy efficiency. Add solar and wind instead of natural gas, and we can retire a lot of coal plants. With no need for fracking.

I have an idea: let’s elect Public Service Commissioners and legislators who are not beholden to the utilities they will regulate!

-jsq

New NRC head says agency is standing up for public health and safety

Sounds to me like the NRC is not telling its new chief everything. For example, what about Vogtle unit 1 shutting down right after it passed an NRC review? What about cancer in Shell Bluff, Georgia, near the reactors?

Mike M. Ahlers wrote for CNN 14 August 2012, New NRC chair vouches for agency’s independence, states goals

Allison Macfarlane said Tuesday she has confidence in the agency and its independence from the nation’s 104 commercial nuclear power plants.

“I have some strong initial impressions of the agency, and one is that I’ve been very impressed with the staff and their dedication to safety, and their willingness to stand up to industry when they believe a situation is not safe,” Macfarlane said in a wide-ranging discussion with reporters.

“So I’m actually quite assured that the agency is completing its mission of protecting public health and safety,” she said. “They take safety issues very seriously. They take their role as regulators very seriously and the public should be assure that they have the public’s best interests in mind.”

Macfarlane said she hopes to build public confidence in the agency by improving communication, increasing transparency and making NRC documents understandable. “Some of them are rather opaque,” she allowed.

She has said some slightly more impressive things back before she was appointed. Continue reading →

Wind second only to natural gas in 2011 added capacity

Looks like Southern Company (SO) bet on the wrong horse.

David Danielson wrote for DoE 14 August 2012, A Banner Year for the U.S. Wind Industry,

The report finds total U.S. wind power capacity grew to 47,000 megawatts by the end of 2011 and has since grown to 50,000 megawatts, enough to power 12 million homes annually — as many homes as in the entire state of California. And as wind energy capacity has grown, more and more wind turbines and components like towers, blades, gears, and generators are “Made in America.” Nearly 70 percent of all of the equipment installed at U.S. wind farms last year came from domestic manufacturers, doubling from 35 percent in 2005.

Why should SO worry? Wind only came in second in added capacity. Because of this:

In addition to strong gains in domestic wind manufacturing and capacity, the report finds that as wind technology improves, costs are coming down. Technological innovations are helping make longer and lighter wind turbine blades, while improving turbine performance and increasing the efficiency of power generation. At the same time, wind project capital and maintenance costs have continued to decline.

And wind doesn't even have Moore's Law going for it as much as solar does, plus solar is usable in more areas than wind. Add wind and solar and why do we need much natural gas? (Or any coal or nuclear?)

-jsq

Where would Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get enough land for 80 MW solar generation?

Plant Branch in Georgia Where will Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get the 2,200 acres it says it needs to build 80 MW of solar generation? Well, it’s supposed to be “adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.”, so let’s look there.

Plant Branch Location Map A brochure on Plant Branch by Georgia Power (undated, but last date mentioned is 1998, so I’m guessing 1999) says:

Located on 1,900 acres on Lake Sinclair in Putnam County between Eatonton and Milledgeville, Plant Branch was the first million-plus-kilowatt electric generating station to operate on the Georgia Power system. It is named for Harllee Branch Jr., former chairman of the board of Southern Company and president of Georgia Power. Construction on the plant began in 1961, and by the summer of 1969, Coal pouring onto pile four units were in operation. The 1,539,000 kilowatts generated by Plant Branch provides enough electrical power for 342,000 households.

And now Plant Branch will be among the first to close coal-generating units. According to Melissa Stiers for GPB News 12 July 2011, Georgia Power Closing Three Plants,

Two coal fired units at Plant Branch in Milledgeville will close in 2013. That’s a result of federal regulation tightening air pollution controls. The company has said it’s too costly to upgrade those units.

Plant Branch across Lake Sinclair As we know, Georgia Power’s parent The Southern Company claimed it was incompetent to deal with the new EPA regulations even though it had already announced the Plant Branch closures (amounting to about 770 MW), and later SO announced 4,000 MW of coal plant closures.

While the various news stories keep saying Plant Branch is in Milledgeville, actually, it’s on the other side of Lake Sinclair, closer to Eatonville, Plant Branch site in Putnam County qpublic map and in Putnam County. A quick glance at the Putnam County Tax Assessor database maps shows that the land parcel containing Plant Branch is 913.87 acres, much of which isn’t actually used by the plant. And Georgia Power owns a total of more than 3,000 acres adjacent to that site. So I’m guessing the 2,200 acres figure is simply around 3,100 total Georgia Power acres minus 913 acres for the present Plant Branch site.

Estimates for land needed for a megawatt of solar power generation range Continue reading →

Company to build 90 MW solar and become a utility

What to do if you can’t interest Georgia Power in building solar? Do it yourself, and do enough so you can be a utility yourself. That’s the loophole in the 1973 Electric Territorial Act that FPL and JEA use to burn coal at Plant Scherer in Georgia and export the power to Florida. Now Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. is using the loophole for a better purpose: building almost twice as much solar generation as Georgia Power’s meager 50 MW.

Georgia Solar Utilities Dave Williams wrote for the Atlanta Business Chronicle yesterday New Georgia utility pitches solar plant: A new utility is planning to build a $320 million solar power plant on 2,200 acres adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.

Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. initially approached Georgia Power, a unit of Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), with a proposal to build the plant and sell it to Georgia Power through a power-purchasing agreement.

Georgia Power is retiring two coal-fired units at Plant Branch, part of a move to reduce the Atlanta-based utility’s reliance on coal.

But when Georgia Power officials declined to take part in the project last May, Georgia Solar Utilities executives decided to build the plant on their own and operate it as a new utility independent of Georgia Power.

Once cost prohibitive, solar energy has become competitive with fossil fuels because of the rising costs of coal and tighter government regulation of coal emissions, said Robert Green, founder of Georgia Solar Utilities.

“When you don’t have to buy coal or worry about environmental hangovers, it overwhelms the costs of fossil fuels, Green said Thursday after presenting the proposal to the Georgia Public Service Commission’s Energy Committee.

Some say the PSC can’t approve such a utility because of that 1973 law. I suspect that if they don’t approve this proposal, the next one will be even harder to turn down, and the next one, as they become even more competitive.

How competitive?

Continue reading →

Phase 2 Solar Power for the Wisenbaker Building —Ron Jackson

Phase 2 after South GA Solar Power, LLC remediated the historic Wisenbaker Building is solar generation, according to Ron Jackson.

We wanted to … remediate some of the problems first to reduce the load, to reduce the energy consumption.

Phase 2 Solar Power for the Wisenbaker Building --Ron Jackson Once we’ve done that, phase 2 kicks in, which is the solar power application. If we’d done that first, we probably would have put on a 20KW system to handle this load. But because we’ve done the phase 1 project and reduced the energy load, now we only need an 8-10 KW system, so the prices have been reduced. Next year hopefully it will be a fully green, fully functioned solar power application.

Right in downtown Valdosta!

The historic Wisenbaker Building, 100 North Patterson Street, is at the corner of West Hill Avenue. It was purchased by Gino Fina in 2006, and is now used as Valdosta Shared Office Space.

Here’s the video.

Phase 2 Solar Power for the Wisenbaker Building –Ron Jackson
Pictures and video by John S. Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE), Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 5 May 2012.

-jsq

Green from the Grassroots —Elinor Ostrom

On the day she died, Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom published her last article, in Project Syndicate, 12 June 2012, Green from the Grassroots,

This grassroots diversity in “green policymaking” makes economic sense. “Sustainable cities” attract the creative, educated people who want to live in a pollution-free, modern urban environment that suits their lifestyles. This is where future growth lies. Like upgrading a mobile phone, when people see the benefits, they will discard old models in a flash.

Of course, true sustainability goes further than pollution control. City planners must look beyond municipal limits and analyze flows of resources — energy, food, water, and people — into and out of their cities.

Worldwide, we are seeing a heterogeneous collection of cities interacting in a way that could have far-reaching influence on how Earth's entire life-support system evolves. These cities are learning from one another, building on good ideas and jettisoning poorer ones. Los Angeles took decades to implement pollution controls, but other cities, like Beijing, converted rapidly when they saw the benefits. In the coming decades, we may see a global system of interconnected sustainable cities emerging. If successful, everyone will want to join the club.

And counties, and regions, and watersheds, of course. As Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio said, there is a "nexus between sustainability and job creation." We don't have to wait for San Antonio or Los Angeles or Beijing or Atlanta to lead the way: we can get on with it right here where we are.

-jsq

Industrial Authority has to be congratulated —Michael G. Noll

Received yesterday on WCTV on biomass site VLCIA v. Sterling Planet. -jsq

Wiregrass Activists for Clean Energy (WACE) have made it clear from the start that biomass plants have a number of issues: 1) biomass plants bear significant health risks; 2) biomass plants waste enormous amounts of water; 3) biomass plants are risky investments in an increasingly competitive energy sector; and 4) biomass plants contribute to global warming.

In the light of rising global temperatures, worsening drought conditions, and dropping prices for solar panels, an increasing number of people are understanding these simple truths.

The Industrial Authority has to be congratulated for the courage to admit that energy from biomass plants is indeed more expensive than energy from solar plants, and we have not even figured in the costs associated with the consequences of air pollution coming from biomass plants.

(For more information on biomass plants, here a testimony I recently gave: http://www.bredl.org/pdf3/120828_WACE-Comments-Docket_NO-E-100_SUB113.pdf)

Although this point has already been made earlier, note again that solar plants are much better alternatives, economically and environmentally: they do not pollute our air, they do not need any water, and a huge spill of solar energy is simply called a sunny day … of which we have plenty here in the south.

-Michael G. Noll

-jsq