Despite the Left’s Opposition to Fracking even the Environmental British are Joining In

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

One of the reasons the government tells us we must ‘invest’ in clean energy is to wean us off of costly foreign oil.  To give us energy independence.  And so we stop sending out money to nations in the world who don’t much care for us.  That’s why we must spend enormous amounts of tax dollars on things like solar and wind power.  Because we need them.  But because they are such poor business models they can’t operate without government subsidies.  So is there another option to give us that energy independence?  That doesn’t require government subsidies?  While even lowering our energy costs?  Yes there is.  And the British are now trying to play catch up to the United States (see The potential prize from fracking is huge by Michael Fallon posted 7/31/2013 on The Telegraph).

North, south, east and west, shale gas represents an exciting new potential resource for Britain that could contribute to our energy security, growth and jobs.

We only have to look across the Atlantic to see how it has reinvigorated the US economy: gas prices have halved, cutting costs for industry and consumers, and creating thousands of jobs and billions in new investment. Countries from India to Australia have looked on in envy at this boom – and are now joining in.

For its part, this Government is serious about shale. We are encouraging industry to find out how much is recoverable in all parts of the country. Given increasingly volatile international gas and oil prices, and our commitment to helping hard-pressed families with their bills, it would be irresponsible to ignore a new energy source right underneath our feet…

…residents understandably want reassurances that their water will not be contaminated. The facts are that around 2.5 million wells have now been fracked worldwide, more than 27,000 of them in the US in 2011. There is no evidence from America of fracking causing any groundwater contamination.

Other than in Hollywood movies.  And on television shows.  There it’s contaminating groundwater like there’s no tomorrow.  But with all that fracking going on in the United States the news is surprisingly barren of contaminated groundwater reports.  And you know they’d be leading all the news programs if there were.  Because the left hates fracking.  And the mainstream media leans left.  Way left.

That energy boom is a private boom.  It’s not because of the government.  It’s in spite of the government.  Who has launched a war on coal and oil.  Shutting down oil production on the Gulf of Mexico.  And on all federal lands.  Or making it very difficult for those who try.

Much of the global warming nonsense came from the University of East Anglia.  Making Britain near ground zero in the battle against global warming.  And here they are.  Wanting to frack to bring energy costs down for households.  Create jobs.  And reduce dependency on foreign oil.  Pity the United States government doesn’t care enough about the American people to do the same.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Food Scarcities and High Food Prices are Government-Made Crises

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The world’s population is growing.  And it’s threatening our food supplies.  Or so say the experts on population.  But what’s interesting is that the populations in the advanced economies of the world which are generally food exporters have fallen.  Apart from the United States these countries are having so few babies that they won’t be able to replace their parent’s generation.  So these countries will see a decline in population.  Yet the world’s population is growing.  So who’s growing the world’s population?   And threatening the world’s food supplies?

Primarily the less-advanced economies.   The food importers.  Like the countries of Africa.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And the Palestinian Territories.  Many of which have the lowest life expectancies.  And the highest child mortality rates.  So, the countries that can feed the world aren’t having enough babies to replace the current generation.  While the countries that have the highest fertility rates are also suffering from the shortest life expectancies due to those high child mortality rates.   So it’s hard to see where the food crisis is.

Once upon a time food was so scarce that famines were commonplace.  A lot of wars were fought to prevent famine.  One of the reasons Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union was for food.  To make Europe’s breadbasket, the Ukraine, a part of the Third Reich.  Today the advanced economies have so much food that they’re making gasoline out of it.  So if there is any food shortage it must be manmade.  And anything manmade can be unmade.  But until we do food prices will rise (see Food prices forecast to treble as world population soars by Steve Hawkes posted 7/21/2013 on The Telegraph).

Professor Tim Benton, head of Global Food Security working group, added there could be shortages in the UK in the future as the emerging middle class in south-east Asia sparks a revolution in “food flows” such as the trade in grain and soya around the world…

The shock forecast came as the chief executive of Tesco, Philip Clarke, warned the era of cheap food was over because of the forecast surge in demand.

In an interview over the weekend, the supermarket chief said: “Over the long run I think food prices and the proportion of income spent on food may well be going up…”

Food inflation in the UK has been running around 4 per cent for much of the year, and is among the highest in the EU after poor harvests last year and the rising cost of feed.

Here’s a thought.  If food is becoming so scarce why don’t stop using it for energy?  Let’s use fossil fuels that we can’t eat for energy.  And use food for food.  By mandating that we add ethanol to gasoline we diverted corn from the food chain already suffering from a depleted corn crop thanks to Midwest droughts.  Raising corn prices.  And meat, poultry and dairy prices.  As cows and chicken eat corn.  So if we stop artificially raising the price of corn feed we stop raising the price of everything downstream of corn in the food chain.  Crazy talk, I know.  But sometimes you just have to think outside of the box.

And here’s another thought.  Let’s do everything we can to bring energy costs down.  Let’s drill for more oil.  Let’s build that Keystone XL pipeline.  Let’s frack like there’s no tomorrow.  Because high fuel prices cause high food prices.  Everything we grow and raise has to travel great distances before landing on our kitchen tables.  By tractor, by truck, by train by ship.  Means of conveyance with internal combustion engines that burn a petroleum product.  From the farm to the silo to the grain elevator to the rail terminal to the mill to the food processing plant to the wholesale distributor to the grocery store.  Every mile of every trip from the farm to our kitchen table burns a petroleum product.  Every mile we burn fuel bringing food to our tables adds to the price tag in the grocery store.  Higher fuel costs even reduce what families can spend in those grocery stores.  For the higher gas prices are the greater amount of their paycheck go into their gas tanks.  Leaving less to buy food with.

And speaking of energy let’s dig up that coal and use it for what it’s best for.  Burning.  To produce steam.  To spin turbines.  That spin electric generators.  And let’s end the war on coal.  And make it less costly to generate electric power.  Because when food isn’t moving it’s using electric power.  For electric power runs our grain elevators, our mills, our food processing plants, our wholesale distributors and our grocery stores.

There are a lot of manmade causes making food scarcer and more costly.  If we care about feeding the world we should focus on the manmade causes.  For we can do something about those.  Unlike a drought.  But petroleum and coal can even lessen the impact of the occasional drought.  We can ship food from areas not suffering from drought to areas suffering from drought.  And we can use the electric power generated from burning coal to store food surpluses in refrigerated warehouses.

The only food crisis we have is manmade.  Or, rather, government-made.  Where government officials take more and more control of the private economy to fight the myth of manmade global warming.  Whose solution to save the planet is a simple one.  Save the planet.  Kill the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labor and Energy Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2013

Economics 101

If you want to Destroy an Industry and Kill Jobs all you have to do is Raise the Cost of Labor

What happened to American manufacturing?  The Industrial Revolution swept through the United States and made America an industrial superpower.  By the beginning of the 20th century the United States became the world’s number one economic power.  Immigrants poured into this country for those manufacturing jobs.  Even though some of these jobs may have come out of a Dickens novel.  Because being able to eat had it all over starving to death.  And in America, with a good factory job, you could put food on your family’s table.

Most of those manufacturing jobs are gone now.  Why?  What happened to the once booming textile industry?  The once booming steel industry?  The once booming automotive industry?  Unions happened to them.  That’s what.  These jobs were so horrible and unfit for humans that unions stepped in and organized them.  But the jobs never got better.  Based on the ever more generous union contracts they kept demanding.  Increasing the cost of labor more and more.  Which chased the textile industry out of the country.  And much of the steel and automotive industries as well.

Is there anything we can learn from this?  Yes.  If you want to destroy an industry, if you want to kill jobs, if you want to damage the economy, all you have to do is raise the cost of labor.  The largest cost to most businesses.  Which is why many businesses have been replacing people with machines.  Advanced machines.  Computer-controlled machines.  Robots.  Because they can work 24/7.  They’re never late.  Never hung over.  Never out sick.  They don’t take lunch.  And they will work as fast as possible without ever complaining.  This is why businesses like machines.  For they let them lower their costs.  Making them competitive.  So they can sell at prices lower than their competitors.  Allowing them to remain in business.

Uncompetitive American Manufacturers go to Emerging Economies where they can be Competitive

Labor is a big cost of business.  Especially in an advanced economy.  With a high standard of living.  Where people own houses and cars.  Where those houses have central heat, air conditioning, televisions, sound systems, kitchen appliances, washers and dryers, etc.  These things cost money.  Requiring paychecks that can afford these things.  As well as pay for clothes, groceries, gasoline, utilities, etc.  Common things in an advanced economies.  But not all that common in an emerging economy.  Where factory workers aren’t accustomed to those things yet.  And don’t demand paychecks that can pay for those things.  Yet.

Still, people in developing economies flock to the new factories.  For even though they are paid far less than their counterparts in advanced economies these factory jobs are often the highest paying jobs in their countries.  And those who have these jobs have a higher standard of living than those who don’t.  Even when the occasional factory burns to the ground or collapses killing everyone inside.  As sad as that is.  But if you want to eat and provide for your family these factories often offer the best opportunity.

So this is where American manufacturing jobs go to.  Where labor costs are lower.  Allowing business to stay competitive.  Because if they can’t be competitive no one will buy what they are selling.  And without any revenue they won’t be able to pay their suppliers.  Their employees.  Or their energy costs.  Another large cost of business.  Especially for manufacturers.

Unions and Regulatory Costs haven’t made Emerging Economies Uncompetitive Yet

A lot of houses today come with a 200-amp electric service.  Assuming a house uses about 100 amps on average that comes to 24,000 watts (100 amps X 240 volts).  Now consider a large manufacturing plant.  Like an automotive assembly plant.  That can have anywhere around 8 double-ended unit substations.  Which are pieces of electrical distribution equipment to feed all of the electrical loads inside the plant.  Each substation has two 13,800 volt 3-phase primary electrical services.  If you’re looking at one you will see the following from left to right.  A 600-amp, 15,000 volt switch, a transformer to step down the 13,800 voltage to 480 voltage, a 480-volt main switch, a bunch of 480-volt switches to feed the electrical loads in the plant, a ‘tie’ switch, another bunch of 480-volt switches, another 480-volt main switch another transformer and another 600-amp switch.

The key to a double-ended unit substation are the two 480-volt main switches and the tie switch.  Which normally distributes the connected electric load over the two primary services.  With both 480-volt main switches closed.  And the tie switch open.  If one service fails because a car knocks down a cable pole these switches will sense the loss of that service.  The 480-volt switch on the side of the failed service will open.  And the tie switch will close.  Feeding both sides of the unit substation on the one live primary service.  So each primary service carries half of the connected load.  Or one primary service carries the full connected load.  Assuming each unit substation uses 600 amps on average (2 services at 300 amps or 1 service at X 600 amps) that comes to approximately 13,194,070 watts (600 amps X 13,800 volts X √3 X .92 PF).  Where we multiply by the square-root of 3 because it is three phase.  And assume a 0.92 power factor.  If a plant has 8 unit substations that comes to 105,552,562 watts.  Which equals approximately 4,398 houses with a 200 amp service.  Now to further our crude mathematical approximations let’s take a typical electric bill for a house.  Say $175 on average per month.  If we multiply this by 4,398 that comes to a monthly electric bill for this manufacturer of about $769,654.  Or $9,235,849 per year.

So here is another way to destroy an industry, kill jobs and damage the economy.  By increasing the cost of electric power.  Which is already a very large cost of business.  And ‘going green’ will make it even more costly.  As the Obama administration wants to do.  With their war on coal.  The cheapest source of electric power we have.  By increasing regulations on coal-fired power plants.  Even implementing some kind of a carbon tax.  To punish these carbon emitters.  And to subsidize far more costly green energies.  Such as solar.  And wind.  Going from the least costly to the most costly electric power will greatly increase a business’ electric utility costs.  Easily adding 15%.  30%.  40%.  Or more.  A 40% increase in our example would increase the electric utility cost by $3,694,340 each year.  If a plant has 1,200 workers that’s like adding another $3,000 per worker.  And we’ve seen what higher labor costs have done to companies like General Motors.  Chrysler.  And the textile industry.  By the time you add up all of these new regulatory costs (Obamacare, green energy, etc.) businesses will be so uncompetitive that they will have to follow the textile industry.  Out of the country.  To a country that will let them be competitive.  Such as an emerging economy.  Where unions and regulatory costs haven’t made them uncompetitive.  Yet.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Newly Found Oil Reserves may break the Cycle of Oppression due to Poverty and Corruption in East Africa

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2012

Week in Review

East Africa is plagued by poverty, political corruption, lack of infrastructure, poor health conditions, AIDS epidemics, high infant mortality rates and everything else that goes with impoverished, corrupt countries.  Somalia is home to pirates that are the scourge of the high seas.  Ethiopia’s recurring famines are well known.  Uganda had Idi Amin.  Who terrorized his people with murder, rape and torture.  South Sudan came into being after a bloody civil war.  Where tribal civil wars continue within the new South Sudan.  As they do throughout much east Africa.  Because there are no advanced economies to support a prosperous middle class.  Just a ruling elite terrorizing the impoverished masses who survive on subsistence farming.  But that may all be changing (see Eastern El Dorado? posted 4/7/2012 on The Economist).

IN ENERGY terms, east Africa has long been the continent’s poor cousin. Until last year it was thought to have no more than 6 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, compared with 60 billion in west Africa and even more in the north. Since a third of the region’s imports are oil-related, it has been especially vulnerable to oil shocks. The World Bank says that, after poor governance, high energy costs are the biggest drag on east Africa’s economy.

All that may be about to change. Kenya, the region’s biggest economy, was sent into delirium on March 26th by the announcement of a big oil strike in its wild north. A British oil firm, Tullow, now compares prospects in the Turkana region and across the border in Ethiopia to Britain’s bonanza from the North Sea. More wells will now be drilled across Kenya, which also holds out hopes for offshore exploration blocs.

President Obama continually tries to tell the American people that we have the smallest oil reserves in the world yet we consume the lion’s share of the world’s oil production.  But that’s not true.  There’s a lot of oil out there.  But you have to drill first to find it.  And until you do you can’t prove these reserves.  So no one counts them.  Including our president.  But it doesn’t stop anyone from looking for oil and natural gas.  If they are not forbidden to do so.  Like they are in America wherever the government has a say in the matter.  People once thought east Africa had no energy.  But it didn’t stop them.  Who believe in the policy of ‘drill baby drill’.  And in ‘drill and ye shall find’.  Which they did.  And they found.  Oil and gas all over that once thought barren land.  Because they just kept drilling, baby.

Kenya’s find raised less joy in Uganda, where oil was first struck in 2006…

South Sudan, for years the largest oil producer in the region and locked in an oil dispute with Sudan, now wants to send crude out through Kenya on a pipeline to a proposed new port in Lamu (see map). Such a channel could also serve Ethiopia, which shares Kenya’s joy about their joint oil prospects. But their winnings pale next to those farther south. Tanzania has done well out of gold, earning record receipts of $2.1 billion last year, a 33% increase on 2010. It will do even better from gas. The past month has seen the discovery of enormous gasfields in Tanzanian offshore waters. That of Britain’s BG Group is big, Another, by Norway’s Statoil, is bigger. Statoil’s recent gas find alone is estimated to hold almost a billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).

Happily, Tanzania’s gasfield extends south to Mozambique, where Italy’s Eni last month unveiled a find of 1.3 billion boe, matching similar finds by an American firm, Andarko. With plans to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, Mozambique could be a big exporter within a decade. At least the vast and impoverished south of Tanzania and north of Mozambique will be opened up to much-needed investment.

Oil and natural gas everywhere.  Finally a chance for these impoverished lands to develop a middle class.  Who can develop a rule of law.  And government of the people by the people for the people.  Like in all Western countries.  Where the quality of life and life expectancy is higher than in these impoverished east African countries.  Which they can have, too.  If they harness their energy resources.  Create jobs.  And provide the energy a modern economy requires.

Yet the region is not just excited about fossil fuels; a parallel push towards alternative energy is under way. Several east African countries are keen to realise the Rift Valley’s geothermal prospects. One of the world’s largest wind farms is being built in Kenya not far from the new-found oil in Turkana. Its backers say it will produce 300MW, three times the total output of Rwanda.

That is a drop in the bucket for Ethiopia. Its rivers, plunging from well-watered highlands into deep canyons, have hydropower potential. Meles Zenawi, the prime minister, has ordered the construction of a series of dams at a total cost of over $8 billion. The jewel is the $4.7 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile. This should generate 5,250MW when finished, increasing electricity production in the country fivefold, providing a surplus for export and allowing Ethiopia to open up as a manufacturer.

Wind farms.  Well, when you have no energy that 300 mega watts will be a lot.  But when they build that dam which will produce 5,250 mega watts they can shut down those novelty wind mills.  And put that land to better use.  Perhaps building better homes for that budding middle class.  Businesses.  And schools.  For that dam will be able to modernize their infrastructure.  And bring electricity, and the modern conveniences we all take for granted, into their homes.  Including cable TV.  The Internet.  And smart phones.  Things few subsistence farmers enjoy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Energy Drives both Food Prices and the Economy. And Politics.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2011

The Left Promotes and Attacks Electrical Power

The Left wants to get rid of the internal combustion engine and make all cars green.  Plug-ins.  Cars with batteries that charge by plugging them into electrical outlets.  They say it will break our dependence on foreign oil.  And stimulate the economy with new green technology.  For the same reason they want to dot the landscape with high-speed electric trains.  They want to make everything electric.  Because electric motors don’t pollute.

At the same time there is an all out assault on electrical generation in this country.  The nuclear power industry (the closest to a ‘green’ useful source of electricity we have) has been stalled since 1979 thanks to The China Syndrome and Three Mile IslandHydroelectric dams (another ‘green’ source of useful electricity) kill fish and alter the ecosystem.  So we can’t build them anymore.  With two down they’re turning their sights onto fossil fuels.  And they’re locked and loaded (see E.P.A. Proposes New Emission Standards for Power Plants by John Broder and John Collins Rudolf posted 3/16/2011 on The New York Times).

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other toxins from coal-burning power plants on Wednesday, a rule that could lead to the early closing of dozens of generating stations and is certain to be challenged by the utility industry and Republicans in Congress…

She estimated the total annual cost of compliance at about $10 billion, in line with some industry estimates (although some are much higher), and the health and environmental benefits at more than $100 billion a year. She said that households could expect to see their electric bills rise by $3 to $4 a month when the regulation is fully in force after 2015.

With the country struggling to come out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression they want to raise the cost of energy?  For what?  Health and environmental benefits they pull out of the air (there are no ledgers anywhere totaling these costs)?  To offset one of the highest regulatory costs to come down the pike in history?  This is insanity.  One has to ask do they want to push the nation into a depression?  Or are they that ignorant in things economic?

She said that installing and maintaining smokestack scrubbers and other control technology would create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 permanent utility sector jobs.

Okay, we increase the cost of electricity forever but we get a few temporary construction jobs.  Construction jobs aside, if you do the math, each of those new permanent jobs will end up costing us over $1 million each year.  In addition to their wages and benefits.  All paid for by the electrical consumer.  The fact that they talk about this as a good thing shows their utter ignorance of things economic.  And contempt for the consumer.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the proposed rule would lead to higher electricity prices and significant job losses.

“In addition, electric system reliability could be compromised by coal retirements and new environmental construction projects caused by this proposed rule and other E.P.A. regulations,” said Aric Newhouse, the group’s vice president for government relations. “Stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen.”

Manufacturers use a lot of electricity.  The more they have to pay for it the less they can spend elsewhere.  The new utility costs will always be there.  To stay competitive in the market, they will have to offset that permanent increase with cuts in their operating costs.  Translation?  Layoffs.  Or they simply will not hire new people.  Instead they will make capital investments to increase their productivity.  And use fewer people.  This is how they do things when costs go up.  Either that or they will send manufacturing operations out of the country.

What Happens in Vegas isn’t much these Days

Economic activity is driven by disposable income.  That’s the money you have left after paying the things you have to pay for just to subsist.  Food.  Mortgage.  Gasoline.  Property taxes.  Those kind of things.  Once we pay these, we can splurge on economic stimulation with what’s left over.  Dinners out.  Movies.  Vacations.  And gambling (see The Penny Slot Economic Indicator by Douglas French posted 3/16/2011 on Ludwig von Mises Institute).

Those at the Fed and in the financial press are telling us that the economy is turning around. Corporate America is ginning up profits so prosperity on main street can’t be far away…

However, if gaming trends in Nevada are any indication the middle class is hurting. Tourism and gaming peaked in 2007, with middle America making the trek to the gambling city to sit down and play a little blackjack (or 21). Latest figures have blackjack revenue down 31 percent from 2007, the Las Vegas Sun reports.

Last year was the first time baccarat, a game favored by Chinese high-rollers, generated more revenue than blackjack. But the $1.2 billion in baccarat revenue pales next to the $2 billion that penny slot machines generated…

So Las Vegas is limping along dependent on high rollers from China and low rollers playing penny slots. “This is why Vegas got hammered,” Anthony Curtis, publisher of Las Vegas Advisor says. “It needs the middle market.”

Casinos worked in Las Vegas because people went to Las Vegas to lose their money.  It’s a destination city.  All the other cities who opened casinos to cure their budgetary woes saw no magic.  The middle class just spent their money at the casinos instead of at the movies or the restaurants.  And by taking staycations.  We spent the same amount of money in the community.  We just spent it at different locations.

The recession may be over according to Washington, but it’s not over for the middle class.  Because they haven’t returned to vacationing in Las Vegas.  Why?  They don’t have as much money as they used to have.  And prices are going up.  A double whammy.  They have less to spend and subsistence costs are on the rise.

If Energy Costs Rise Food Costs Rise

In the summer of 2010 the Obama administration was touting their summer of recovery.  Declaring that their stimulus spending had ended the recession.  They were a bit premature.  Unemployment is still close to 9%.  Despite all of their quantitative easing.  They printed a lot of money.  Didn’t help.  Worse, on top of stubborn high unemployment, prices are going up on almost everything (see Wholesale prices up 1.6 pct. on steep rise in food by the Associated Press posted 3/16/2011 on Yahoo! Finance).

Wholesale prices jumped last month by the most in nearly two years due to higher energy costs and the steepest rise in food prices in 36 years. Excluding those volatile categories, inflation was tame…

Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.

Separately, the Commerce Department said home construction plunged to a seasonally adjusted 479,000 homes last month, down 22.5 percent from the previous month. It was lowest level since April 2009, and the second-lowest on records dating back more than a half-century…

Food costs, meanwhile, are rising. Bad weather in the past year has damaged crops in Australia, Russia, and South America. Demand for corn for ethanol use has also contributed to the increase.

Prices rose 1 percent for apparel, the most in 21 years. Costs also increased for cars, jewelry, and consumer plastics.

Some would love to see $4/gallon gasoline again.  It would push people into electric cars and mass transportation.  But there’s a downside.  A big one.  Higher energy costs make everything more expensive.  Even our vegetables.  Because those vegetable don’t appear by magic in the grocery store.  They travel long ways on trucks that burn diesel fuel to get to the grocery store.

Food and energy are tied at the hip.  If energy costs rise food costs rise.  And when you siphon some food off to make low-energy ethanol that no one wants that just increases food costs more.  We should use food for food.  And oil for fuel.  It’s more cost efficient.  And consumers will have more money left over to stimulate the economy with.

The Left Makes a Very Poor Argument Against Nuclear Power

And speaking of energy, nuclear energy is in the news these days in a big way.  But not in a good way.  Japan has some reactors that were hit with a one-two punch of earthquake and tsunami.  The tsunami took out the cooling systems.  So there’s a little trepidation over these plants right now.  And absolute glee as anti-nuclear people exploit this for all it’s worth.  They’re saying, “See!  That’s what could happen in America right now.  And in Europe.  We need to stop all nuclear power.”  I’m paraphrasing, of course.  But you get the gist.  Why, some are even playing loose with facts.  Even lying.  And some are writing top 10 lists why nuclear power is bad and why solar and wind are good (see Too Cheap to Meter: The Top 10 Myths of Nuclear Power by Michael Rose posted 3/15/2011 on The Huffington Post).

The best way to generate new power for the long term is not to build nukes but to invest in large scale solar and wind, coupled with natural gas as a transition in the short term.

The problem has been coordinating the power produced when the wind blows and the sun shines, distributing the power and storage. There are solutions to all of these. “You need to link up the disparate sources to compensate for when the wind is blowing and the sun isn’t shining,”

Coordinating the wind and the sun?  Really?  That should be our energy policy?  And how will that work during a major blackout?  Like the Northeast Blackout of 2003?  Can solar power really run all our air conditioning systems during the dog days of summer?  Our fossil fuel-fired plants can’t always do that.  Can you imagine a hot summer without those high capacity plants?  The inevitable blackouts won’t be rolling.  They’ll simply be scheduled daily during air conditioning weather.

The nuclear industry has asked for loan guarantees from the Federal government because the banks looked at the risk and took a pass. With the loan guarantees in hand the companies can get financing and if they default, or walk away from the projects (which is what happened before) the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. “It’s the same as if you defaulted on your mortgage and the Federal government had to step in to pay the banks back,” said Hirsch.

We saw above how new regulations are going to cost the coal-fired plant operators.  The new regulations will probably force some plants to shut down.  This is the fear of regulation.  Uncertainty.  If you change the rules midway through the game there’s a good chance you’re going to end up losing in the end.  Power plants are costly.  They are difficult to build because of the regulatory hoops you have to jump through.  It is a very high-risk game.  And nowhere are the risks and regulatory hoops greater than nuclear power.  These plants take even longer to build.  Are far more costly because of the regulatory compliance costs.  And have by far the greatest uncertainty because of the length of time from drawing board to operating on line because of these regulatory hurdles.  This is why banks don’t want to invest.  Because the government can change the rules and prevent a plant from ever going on line, leaving the bank to eat the construction costs.

It’s true that building the reactors does create jobs, but these disappear when the reactor is complete. And there are staff positions for running the reactors, providing maintenance and security but not enough to warrant the high costs and risks…

Ironically some fear that building new nukes will chase jobs away because electric rates will have to dramatically increase to pay them off. “No state ever created a net increase in jobs by raising electric rates to commercial and industrial customers. Such a policy drives jobs out of many businesses to create relatively few permanent jobs at the new reactor,” said Bradford.

Funny.  The same arguments work for other federal stimulus spending.  Those short-term construction jobs are good when they’re trying to pass a stimulus bill.  But it’s not good if it will stimulate nuclear power.  And they say here that increasing the cost of electricity will kill jobs.  Meanwhile, increasing the cost of electricity by adding new regulations for coal-fired plants will increase jobs.  Costs are funny that way.  Sometimes they’re bad.  Sometimes they’re good.  Sometimes they’re rooted in reality.  Other times, in fantasy.

France is pointed to as demonstrable proof that nuclear power can be affordable and safe. While it’s true France gets about 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and that it has avoided a large scale disaster but we don’t know very much about their accident record since its industry is nationalized and run behind a veil of secrecy…

It also adds to the costs of the producing nuclear power which is one reason French electric rates are 20% above U.S. rates despite subsidies, according to Bradford.

So, yes, France has energy independence.  And they haven’t had a nuclear disaster.  But that doesn’t mean anything.  They could.  Just because they didn’t doesn’t mean they can’t have a China syndrome next week.  Or tomorrow.  So we should proceed as if they will.  Despite their safety record.  And the cost?  Interesting.  Because the source they cite paints a little different picture.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country’s nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

In mid 2010 a regular energy review of France by the International Energy Agency urged the country increasingly to take a strategic role as provider of low-cost, low-carbon base-load power for the whole of Europe rather than to concentrate on the energy independence which had driven policy since 1973.

Energy independence?  Low fuel costs?  Almost the cheapest electricity in Europe?  Extremely low CO2 emissions?  And the International Energy Agency wants them to be the provider of “low-cost, low-carbon base-load power for the whole of Europe…”  I don’t know.  These sound like good things to me.  Talk about being a bit disingenuous.  And by a bit I mean a lot.  Clearly they are cherry-picking some facts to forward an agenda.  Speaking of which, back to the HuffPo.

All civilian nuclear programs create spent fuel that can be reprocessed into weapons grade plutonium. This is what Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan have done.

It doesn’t take much. At first you needed a chunk of plutonium about the size of a softball now it’s down to the size of a golf ball. “If a country has done its engineering, it can take about a week to go to a bomb,” said Gillinsky. “Safeguard inspections are too late.”

And here we come to why we use the energy we use.  Because it’s concentrated.  A little bit of nuclear fuel goes a long way.  Just like our fossil fuels.  That’s why our cars run on gasoline.  Because it’s easy to store and it’s highly concentrated.  With a small tank of fuel you can drive a very long way.  While carrying your whole family.  And a lot of your stuff.  That’s why we don’t drive electric cars.  You can’t do any of this in a battery-electric car.  The battery takes up too much space.  And you just can’t go very far on a charge.

Solar farms and wind farms are not concentrated sources of energy.  The very term we use to describe these generating ‘plants’ tells us this.  You need so many of them that we call them ‘farms’.  Not ‘plants’.  And even with a large footprint their electricity output won’t come close to what the power plants using concentrated-fuels can produce.  A couple of reactors on a small site can power a large city.  It would take a very large plantation of solar panels and windmills to produce the same amount of electricity.  And they will only produce when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.  Our concentrated fuel-fired power plant will be there 24/7, day or night, rain or shine.

Will the Great Recession turn into the Great Depression II?

Never before has our energy policy been in such a mess.  The children have taken control of policy.  They’re promoting fanciful solar panels and windmills no doubt while dreaming of unicorns and sugar plum fairies.  They don’t understand energy.  Or economics. 

Energy costs.  Construction costs.  Fuel costs are recurring.  While construction costs are one-time.  Therefore, the best economic policy would be to minimize fuel costs.  And coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear do just that.  You get huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel.  Especially nuclear.

Yes, sunshine and wind are free.  And you can’t minimize fuel costs more than free (except with nuclear that can use some nuclear waste to produce more fuel).  But the infrastructure cost to make solar and wind provide meaningful amounts of energy are staggering.  A nuclear plant can sit on a small footprint out of the way.  While solar and wind farms will take acres of land.  Or water (for offshore wind generation). 

While they play with energy and economic policies, consumer costs rise everywhere.  And will continue to do so.  As a direct consequence of their policies.  Consumers pay more.  And the greatest recession since the Great Depression drags on.  Perhaps turning recession into depression.  Could the Great Depression II be around the corner?  I hope not.  But one can’t rule it out with the current administration.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,