The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

[mongers]

I just love how Greens constantly use Fukushima as an argument against building nuclear plants in Europe. Idiots or populists?

Ideologues, it's an article of faith for most of them. However some of 'us' realise all pragmatic solutions need to be tried.

Nuclear power is a prevalent technology with a huge amount of additional potential fuel supplies just lying around that needs to be dealt with. Why not continue to use it and make it part of a mix of energy sources to reduce pollution?

[Martinus]

I just love how Greens constantly use Fukushima as an argument against building nuclear plants in Europe. Idiots or populists?

Ideologues, it's an article of faith for most of them. However some of 'us' realise all pragmatic solutions need to be tried.

Nuclear power is a prevalent technology with a huge amount of additional potential fuel supplies just lying around that needs to be dealt with. Why not continue to use it and make it part of a mix of energy sources to reduce pollution?

At first, I read it "population", not "pollution". 

[Caliga]

I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels.  We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage.  After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? 

[The Minsky Moment]

no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.

If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.

This.
According to the EIA numbers the cost differential is about 50% and that is before you start talking about "clean coal" or CCS technologies which would drive those numbers apart a lot more.

But solar even now can be a useful adjunct.  Every few percent counts.

[Valmy]

no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.

If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.

Gas is the big deal right now.  We were using gas for most of our energy in Texas in the 70s but Congress passed a bunch of laws and made us build a bunch of coal plants (because coal is so cheap and economically superior it needed massive congressional intervention).  Now we are going back.

But the storage thing may not be as impossible as you think.  Or at least maybe Texas is going to be building some big battery arrays to better use its vast wind resources, we have been waiting on it until it became economical to do so and that time looks to be soon.  I mean we have a pretty sweet arrangement where our coastal winds blow during the day and the desert winds blow at night but there are those times when both blow at the same time and it would be nice to better use it.

As far as the morality of fossil fuels, I want to add that not using them drives the costs down and it was low fossil fuel prices that brought down the Soviet Union and which would bring down Putinstan and Wahhabistan.  Just saying.  On the other hand my family makes a nice bit of cash from oil and gas on our farmland in Oklahoma so...think of me and use fossil fuels.

[CountDeMoney]

But from the POV of an investor, that big capital hit up front is a killer.  And just as big is the very long lead time before completion.  That is lots of time with a big negative number carrying interest and lots of time before any revenue flows in.  It is the antithesis of the usual investment model for these kinds of projects where the goal is to get the revenue flow ASAP.

Practically what it means is you want nuclear you either need a state backed entity or some real carbon taxation.

The same argument can be made about our refinery capacity, which hasn't seen a single refinery capable of 6 digit barrel capacity in United States come online since the early 1970s.  Imagine what the fuel costs would be if we didn't have to ship it overseas and back.  It costs investment money to make long term money.  But no, energy politics has been translated out of the national security discussion, because national security does not translate into shareholder value.  The GOP barks about energy independence, but like so much other Big Business Bullshit they spout, it's just that: bullshit.

NATIONALIZE EXXON MOBIL NOW

[The Brain]

I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels.  We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage.  After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? 

Gaya.

[Gups]

EDF is having terrible trouble building a replacement nuclear power station in the UK  (despite  huge govt. support) - the EPR technology seems to be impossibly expensive and prone to delays in implementation. EDF can't get funders interested in the project.

[CountDeMoney]

EDF is having terrible trouble building a replacement nuclear power station in the UK  (despite  huge govt. support) - the EPR technology seems to be impossibly expensive and prone to delays in implementation. EDF can't get funders interested in the project.

We didn't help them:  they were becoming positioned to enter the NA market with the new reactor push, had bought into 50% of the company's nuke generation, and we took the carpet from under them by selling out to their biggest competitor.  A massive fuck over.  Yay for fossil fuels.

[crazy canuck]

CDM it is a lot simpler than that.   

Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period.  So as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built.  It would be burning money.

Add to that cost of project/construction delays because of protests and potential opposition from various levels of government and not building become even less attractive.

[Admiral Yi]

The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs.  In levelized kwh equivalent all in:

Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130

Do you know if the solar and wind figures incorporate the necessary backup fossil fuel generation?

Haven't read whole thread; sorry if already covered.

[The Brain]

The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs.  In levelized kwh equivalent all in:

Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130

Do you know if the solar and wind figures incorporate the necessary backup fossil fuel generation?

Haven't read whole thread; sorry if already covered.

You mean the necessary nuclear base power?

[Caliga]

I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels.  We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage.  After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? 

Gaya.

I see.  No worries, it's cool now.

[CountDeMoney]

Add to that cost of project/construction delays because of protests and potential opposition from various levels of government and not building become even less attractive.

Costs of protests?  Really?

[grumbler]

The same argument can be made about our refinery capacity, which hasn't seen a single refinery capable of 6 digit barrel capacity in United States come online since the early 1970s.  Imagine what the fuel costs would be if we didn't have to ship it overseas and back.  It costs investment money to make long term money.  But no, energy politics has been translated out of the national security discussion, because national security does not translate into shareholder value.  The GOP barks about energy independence, but like so much other Big Business Bullshit they spout, it's just that: bullshit.

So there have been refineries built, just not ones that meet some arbitrary standard, and so they are ignored?  What fuel gets shipped overseas and then returned?  What percentage of the costs of fuel in the US come from the costs of shipping fuel overseas and then back again?

Or is this just bullshit rhetoric, and the US has, in fact, plenty of refinery capacity and so hasn't needed to build any new ones except for boutique products?