The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has given DTE Electric (DTE) the license it needs in order to build Fermi 3. They plan to build this new nuclear reactor on the shore of Lake Erie adjacent to Fermi 2.
The Sierra Club along with the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3, Beyond Nuclear and other anti-nuclear groups, was opposed to this license. We delayed its issuance by more than 3 years. There are still open objections which should have been resolved before the NRC issued the license, but that part of the process is finished for practical purposes.
We're still opposed to Fermi 3. The grounds on which we continue to fight have now shifted to Michigan state government. In particular, DTE will need the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to issue a "Certificate of Need" for "Construction Work in Progress." Once they have it, DTE can put an extra charge on the electric bill of every customer to cover the cost of building the reactor.
That cost is already estimated to be in the range of $7 billion to $15 billion. That would translate to an average cost of thousands of dollars (over a decade or more) on every electric bill in the DTE service area. Customers would be forced to pay for many years before a single watt of electricity is generated. DTE could make a profit on construction even if the reactor is never finished and never generates any electricity.
You may have heard that DTE does not actually plan to build Fermi 3. Don't believe it for a minute. If you were not planning to build something, would you spend $100 million developing the plans?
$100 million is DTE's number, not something made up for effect. They have already applied to the MPSC for "compensation" for $100 million to be added to their rate base.
We need to convince our state officials, both the elected ones and the appointed ones, that Fermi 3 is a bad idea. The facts are on our side. There are better - faster, cheaper, cleaner and safer - ways to generate electrical power in Michigan. If $7 billion to $15 billion were spent on solar and wind generation plus conservation and efficiency measures, we the people of Michigan would be much better off.
To start with, new electricity would start coming on-line in the first year, not in 10 years or 15 years or never. The new electricity would come with no danger of a meltdown. There would be no spent fuel and other radioactive waste to dispose of. There would be nothing spent on fuel that comes from far out of state. Finally, there would more jobs installing and servicing solar panels and wind turbines than there would be in reactor construction.
The problem, from DTE's point of view, is there would be less opportunity for them to profit, and definitely no guaranteed profit. The question is, what is the priority for our state government? Is it the people of the state, or DTE shareholders? That's the question we should put to the governor, our state legislators, and the members of the MPSC.
DTE did not ask for our permission to spend $100 million planning to build Fermi 3. We should not be forced to compensate them for it. We should certainly not be forced to pay for construction of an obsolete, dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear reactor when so many better alternatives are available.
We don't have DTE's paid lobbyists on our side. We do have the ability to write letters - to the editor, to legislators and to the MPSC. We do have the ability to talk to our state elected officials - in Lansing and in their districts. We have the ability to bring up this issue to city councils and county commissions, even if all they can do is pass a resolution. We can certainly hold our own educational meetings to make the public aware.
We had better do all of these things, and more. Act now or pay later.
Showing posts with label Fermi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fermi. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
DTE's Nuclear Con Game
Written by Jeff Alson; posted by Art Myatt
Jeff Alson is an environmental engineer who has promoted sustainable transportation policies at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Ann Arbor since 1978. He is also a member of the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 (www.athf3.org) The views presented are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA.
One of the best kept secrets in southeastern Michigan is that DTE Energy customers will almost certainly be required to pay over $100 million in expenses for wasted planning for a Fermi 3 nuclear power plant. While Fermi 3 is unneeded, unaffordable, and probably unlikely to be built and therefore to ever generate any electricity, ratepayers will likely have to reimburse DTE for its poor judgment due to what I call the Nuclear Con Game (By “con,” I do not mean to imply illegality; rather, that rules which appear to be impartial unfairly tilt the playing field to favor utilities at the expense of ratepayers).
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 1 is that, if history is any guide, Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC)-approved utility expenditures are reimbursed whether they actually result in useful electricity or not. The PSC approved DTE expenditures for Fermi 3 planning in 2008 (stunning given that DTE’s two previous nuclear plants were spectacular failures - Fermi 1 partially melted down in 1966 and Fermi 2 cost much more than originally estimated). A December 19 filing by DTE states that these paperwork expenditures will soon exceed $100 million and asks the PSC to include them in the rate base.
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 2 practically guarantees utility profit on every PSC-approved capital expenditure (perversely, the more a utility spends, even on cost overruns, the more it may profit). So DTE ratepayers must not only cover the $100 million, but possibly millions more in profits, rewarding DTE for its poor decision making.
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 3 is continuing to give the benefit of the doubt to nuclear utilities like DTE, even though reactors completed in the 1980s and 1990s were routinely over budget, and continuing to place the burden of proof on those of us who point out that the nuclear emperor has no clothes. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, it is insane to ever expect a nuclear power plant to be built on budget.
Independent experts agree that we do not need electricity from Fermi 3. Even if electricity supply were an issue, conservation, wind, and solar are cheaper, can be brought online more quickly, yield lower life-cycle carbon emissions, and do not entail the risk of an industry-wide shutdown that would be likely after a major nuclear accident in the U.S.
If built, Fermi 3 would be the largest nuclear reactor in the U.S. and would cost at least $10 billion and almost certainly more given the history of massive nuclear cost overruns. I believe it would be the largest investment on a single project in Michigan history and would take capital away from infrastructure we truly need. For perspective, building Fermi 3 would cost at least 10 times the one billion dollars that nearly everyone agrees we need to repair our roads.
There are many other reasons to oppose nuclear power: the low-but-not-zero probability of a catastrophic accident, the health risks associated with routine radiation releases, and the lack of any long-term, high-level nuclear waste solution. But, however you view these safety and health risks, the nuclear option is simply unnecessary and uneconomic.
Yet, DTE is the only utility in the entire Midwest charging its ratepayers for nuclear plant planning. Why is DTE wasting our money?
The most plausible explanation is that DTE wants to up the ante in the Nuclear Con Game by trying to convince the PSC to approve the use of “construction work in progress” to build Fermi 3. This extreme form of corporate welfare would permit DTE to charge ratepayers in advance for the $10 billion or more needed to build Fermi 3. DTE could place all of the financial risk on its customers and would likely make a profit even if the plant turns out to be a nuclear white elephant.
In this scenario, every DTE customer, over the course of many years, would pay thousands of dollars to build Fermi 3, whether it ever successfully operates or not. This is one of the most important financial decisions affecting families in southeastern Michigan, yet most are completely unaware as so little is known about the project by its customers. DTE’s website makes only brief mention of Fermi 3, does not appear to have been updated since 2008, and also appears to make no mention of the $100 million spending to date or the billions that may be spent in the future.
If you want to influence your family’s financial future and prefer that your ratepayer dollars go toward conservation, wind, and solar rather than Fermi 3, then you should let DTE and the PSC know that it is time to come clean with ratepayers and shut down the Nuclear Con Game.
= = =
This article was originally published at Bridge - News and Analysis from the Center for Michigan and is republished here by permission of the author.
Jeff Alson is an environmental engineer who has promoted sustainable transportation policies at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Ann Arbor since 1978. He is also a member of the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 (www.athf3.org) The views presented are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA.
One of the best kept secrets in southeastern Michigan is that DTE Energy customers will almost certainly be required to pay over $100 million in expenses for wasted planning for a Fermi 3 nuclear power plant. While Fermi 3 is unneeded, unaffordable, and probably unlikely to be built and therefore to ever generate any electricity, ratepayers will likely have to reimburse DTE for its poor judgment due to what I call the Nuclear Con Game (By “con,” I do not mean to imply illegality; rather, that rules which appear to be impartial unfairly tilt the playing field to favor utilities at the expense of ratepayers).
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 1 is that, if history is any guide, Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC)-approved utility expenditures are reimbursed whether they actually result in useful electricity or not. The PSC approved DTE expenditures for Fermi 3 planning in 2008 (stunning given that DTE’s two previous nuclear plants were spectacular failures - Fermi 1 partially melted down in 1966 and Fermi 2 cost much more than originally estimated). A December 19 filing by DTE states that these paperwork expenditures will soon exceed $100 million and asks the PSC to include them in the rate base.
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 2 practically guarantees utility profit on every PSC-approved capital expenditure (perversely, the more a utility spends, even on cost overruns, the more it may profit). So DTE ratepayers must not only cover the $100 million, but possibly millions more in profits, rewarding DTE for its poor decision making.
Nuclear Con Game Rule No. 3 is continuing to give the benefit of the doubt to nuclear utilities like DTE, even though reactors completed in the 1980s and 1990s were routinely over budget, and continuing to place the burden of proof on those of us who point out that the nuclear emperor has no clothes. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, it is insane to ever expect a nuclear power plant to be built on budget.
Independent experts agree that we do not need electricity from Fermi 3. Even if electricity supply were an issue, conservation, wind, and solar are cheaper, can be brought online more quickly, yield lower life-cycle carbon emissions, and do not entail the risk of an industry-wide shutdown that would be likely after a major nuclear accident in the U.S.
If built, Fermi 3 would be the largest nuclear reactor in the U.S. and would cost at least $10 billion and almost certainly more given the history of massive nuclear cost overruns. I believe it would be the largest investment on a single project in Michigan history and would take capital away from infrastructure we truly need. For perspective, building Fermi 3 would cost at least 10 times the one billion dollars that nearly everyone agrees we need to repair our roads.
There are many other reasons to oppose nuclear power: the low-but-not-zero probability of a catastrophic accident, the health risks associated with routine radiation releases, and the lack of any long-term, high-level nuclear waste solution. But, however you view these safety and health risks, the nuclear option is simply unnecessary and uneconomic.
Yet, DTE is the only utility in the entire Midwest charging its ratepayers for nuclear plant planning. Why is DTE wasting our money?
The most plausible explanation is that DTE wants to up the ante in the Nuclear Con Game by trying to convince the PSC to approve the use of “construction work in progress” to build Fermi 3. This extreme form of corporate welfare would permit DTE to charge ratepayers in advance for the $10 billion or more needed to build Fermi 3. DTE could place all of the financial risk on its customers and would likely make a profit even if the plant turns out to be a nuclear white elephant.
In this scenario, every DTE customer, over the course of many years, would pay thousands of dollars to build Fermi 3, whether it ever successfully operates or not. This is one of the most important financial decisions affecting families in southeastern Michigan, yet most are completely unaware as so little is known about the project by its customers. DTE’s website makes only brief mention of Fermi 3, does not appear to have been updated since 2008, and also appears to make no mention of the $100 million spending to date or the billions that may be spent in the future.
If you want to influence your family’s financial future and prefer that your ratepayer dollars go toward conservation, wind, and solar rather than Fermi 3, then you should let DTE and the PSC know that it is time to come clean with ratepayers and shut down the Nuclear Con Game.
= = =
This article was originally published at Bridge - News and Analysis from the Center for Michigan and is republished here by permission of the author.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
We Need the Energy
Is nuclear power a good idea? Well, that depends.
Utility companies operating nuclear power plants make the basic argument, "We need the energy." "We" in this context means "our society," or "our economy," or just "we, the people who use electricity." We need the energy.
Picture yourself coming home from work at the end of the day. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. Whichever gender you are, you may be tired from a full day of work, but still need energy to deal with ordinary household stuff - getting something to eat, fixing a leaky faucet, making sure the children do their homework, and so forth.
Well, here's a solution. Take a hit of cocaine. That will give you the energy to deal with a whole list of household items. Cocaine will actually work - in the short term.
In order to think it's a good idea, you have to ignore the long-term effects, and just focus on the short-term benefits. You need the energy; take cocaine. Don't think about consequences for next month or next year. Don't worry about making a habit of it, just get through the day.
That's exactly the sense in which nuclear power is cocaine for the electrical grid. Sure, there's the possibility of a meltdown, causing the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people - or millions, depending on which way the wind blows. Sure, there's no known solution for what to do with "spent fuel" and other highly radioactive waste. Maybe we can put off dealing with it for a century or so longer. (That's the actual summary of current nuclear industry recommendations for their toxic waste.)
Get energy now. Ignore long-term consequences. Pretend that someone will figure something out, so you don't have to worry about it now. Just get the damned energy you "need." if you actually accept all the consequences, maybe you'll figure out you don't really "need" energy that comes with all the risk of disaster.
The nuclear industry and their political servants will argue endlessly that "we need the energy." Well, do we? Do you accept that idea, or not? That's the fundamental question you have to answer for yourself.
Art Myatt
Utility companies operating nuclear power plants make the basic argument, "We need the energy." "We" in this context means "our society," or "our economy," or just "we, the people who use electricity." We need the energy.
Picture yourself coming home from work at the end of the day. Man or woman, it doesn't matter. Whichever gender you are, you may be tired from a full day of work, but still need energy to deal with ordinary household stuff - getting something to eat, fixing a leaky faucet, making sure the children do their homework, and so forth.
Well, here's a solution. Take a hit of cocaine. That will give you the energy to deal with a whole list of household items. Cocaine will actually work - in the short term.
In order to think it's a good idea, you have to ignore the long-term effects, and just focus on the short-term benefits. You need the energy; take cocaine. Don't think about consequences for next month or next year. Don't worry about making a habit of it, just get through the day.
That's exactly the sense in which nuclear power is cocaine for the electrical grid. Sure, there's the possibility of a meltdown, causing the permanent evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people - or millions, depending on which way the wind blows. Sure, there's no known solution for what to do with "spent fuel" and other highly radioactive waste. Maybe we can put off dealing with it for a century or so longer. (That's the actual summary of current nuclear industry recommendations for their toxic waste.)
Get energy now. Ignore long-term consequences. Pretend that someone will figure something out, so you don't have to worry about it now. Just get the damned energy you "need." if you actually accept all the consequences, maybe you'll figure out you don't really "need" energy that comes with all the risk of disaster.
The nuclear industry and their political servants will argue endlessly that "we need the energy." Well, do we? Do you accept that idea, or not? That's the fundamental question you have to answer for yourself.
Art Myatt
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Costs and Choices - Fermi 3
DTE Energy, formerly known as the Detroit Edison Electric Company, wants to build a new nuclear power plant, Fermi 3, next to Fermi 2 and the ruins of Fermi 1. The design of Fermi 3 is for approximately 1.55 billion watts of electrical energy output. It sounds like a lot of energy, and it is reasonable to wonder what this might cost.
DTE estimated in their 2008 application for an operating license for Fermi 3, that the construction cost would be $3,500 - 4,500 per kilowatt of electrical output, or $3.50 - 4.50 per watt. Applied to the design for 1.55 billion watts of electrical output, that would be a range of ~5.5 to 7 billion dollars. We can take this as a low estimate in 2008 dollars.
From the Wikipedia article "Economics of nuclear power plants": "In Canada, cost overruns for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, largely due to delays and policy changes, are often cited by opponents of new reactors. Construction started in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 Billion 1993-adjusted CAD, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion." In round figures, this would mean that taking DTE's original estimate and doubling it to $14 billion would be closer to a real figure.
From a Physicians for Social Responsibility 2008 report, "Nuclear Power Plant
Construction Costs": "... total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW ..." Applied to the 1.55 billion watts for Fermi 3, a range of 8.5 to 12.5 billion dollars results. it is not clear if this includes the costs of financing construction, which would be paid after the plant starts operating.
A 2010 article from Greentech Media ("How Much Does Nuclear Cost? $6,000 a Kilowatt or More") discusses a cost of $6,000 per kilowatt and points to a study showing the "all-in" costs, including the costs of financing, would be in the $10-12.50 per watt range. That puts the high estimate for Fermi 3 over $19 billion.
The estimates above are from the period of 2008-2010. There's been a bit of inflation since then. There's also been a horrendous multi-reactor meltdown at Fukushima since then, which reasonably ought to result at least in additional safety requirements, which would raise the cost.
We have a range of estimates from a low of 5.5 billion 2008 dollars to over 19 billion dollars. Doubling DTE's upper figure of $7 billion 2008 dollars and allowing a bit for inflation since 2008 would result in a rough estimate of $15 billion. $15 billion, which this article uses, is a very approximate but reasonable figure to work with for the purpose of comparing building Fermi 3 to an alternative use for the money.
This is public money we are talking about, not (at least not yet) DTE's money. DTE expects to pay for construction through a combination of federally guaranteed loans and electrical rate hikes approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Whether it comes from federal taxes or rate hikes, that's our money, and we should decide how it will be spent.
The installed cost of solar panels for large-scale projects is now around $3.00 per rated watt. This is again a rough figure, with variations according to the scale of the project, local permitting costs, labor costs, etc., etc.
With solar panels, we can expect electrical power output equivalent to 4-6 hours of rated wattage per day in most US locations. That would be compared to an average 21-22 hours output per day for a nuclear reactor. In other words, the average daily power output from a nuclear reactor rated for 1 megawatt would be 4-6 times the power output of a solar farm rated for 1 megawatt, depending on the location of the solar farm.
I've worked up a table showing one possibility for spending $15 billion over 12 years on large-scale solar panel installations:
I've assumed a steady but not spectacular drop in installed solar panel costs per watt from $3.00 to $2.45 over the period. This is a conservative estimate, in contrast to a "target" of $1.00 per watt (Google SunShot Initiative) which might prove to be unrealistic. I've also used the 4.23 hours per day annual average output factor provided by the national Renewable Energy Lab's PV Watts calculator (http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php) for the Detroit area.
The result? $15 billion could give us just over 5.5 billion watts (rated) of solar electricity. In terms of power, with the conservative assumptions used, the annual average watt-hours from the new solar installations would be a bit over 2/3 of the average annual watt-hours from Fermi 3.
Now, if the assumptions were changed in favor of faster improvements in solar panel efficiency and a more rapid lowering of installation costs, the expected annual power output would increase. 5.5 billion watts of peak power is pretty near the minimum that should be expected from a program to spend $15 billion installing solar panels in Michigan. But even with this minimal expectation, the solar project is well worth doing.
It's important to note that solar panels provide peak demand watts, more valuable than middle of the night "baseload" watts. A nuclear plant needs to run night and day, regardless of demand. In other words, building Fermi 3 would increase the need for "dispatchable on-demand" electricity to cover peak periods. Solar panels would reduce this need, and indeed would reduce the need for baseload power.
It's also important to note that installing solar panels adds to the supply of electricity gradually over time, rather than adding nothing for the first ten years followed by the sudden introduction of new generating capacity. If more or less electricity is needed in a particular location than was imagined at the outset, adjustments can be made with solar construction planning. The nuclear reactor can't make that kind of adjustment.
There are also other advantages of numerous solar farms distributed over the service area, compared to a centralized nuclear reactor. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year. (See http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3)
Proper planning to site solar farms near demand for peak power would mean less transmission losses. No new high-voltage "transition corridor" leading away from the reactor would be needed. With the sources of power close to peak demand, even lower-voltage distribution line power losses could be cut.
And of course, the fuel cost for solar panels is absolutely zero. We do not have to pay the sun to shine.
The nuclear fuel for Fermi 3 would cost about $100 million per year. $100 million is a bare minimum cost, to which could be added $300 million or more if we attempt to account for the cost of disposal of spent fuel. This added amount is really impossible to quantify, because we still do not know a satisfactory method to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. It's an unsolved problem for future generations. Neither the problem nor the cost exists for solar panels.
There will be some failures in any extensive installation of solar panels. These will be distributed failures; distributed over time and space, fixable on a regular maintenance schedule. A nuclear reactor failure is a centralized failure. At a minimum it is a crisis, even if it only means the electrical output is shut off for a month or two.
And then there is the spectacular failure - the meltdown. A meltdown at Fermi 3 could also cause a meltdown at Fermi 2, and a Fermi 2 meltdown could cascade into the same at Fermi 3. Constructing Fermi 3 next to Fermi 2 makes a meltdown at Fermi 2 more likely, and it makes a meltdown at Fermi 3 more likely as well.
One or both reactors melting down could cause the permanent evacuation of a million or more people while also ruining Lake Erie, Niagra Falls and Lake Ontario with radioactive contamination. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, we may have to write off Toledo or Detroit or both. The events at Fukushima prove conclusively that such a result is possible and that assurances of safety coming from the nuclear industry are worthless.
This is the main (and sane) reason spending our money on solar panels rather than a nuclear reactor makes so much sense. If we need the electricity, we can get it without nuclear fission. The disaster of uncontrolled fission that a nuclear reactor makes possible is not possible with solar power.
If a meltdown in Monroe, Michigan happens, all the fine cost analysis of solar versus nuclear will be meaningless. There will be nobody left in the radioactive contaminated zone to enjoy the benefits of any type of electricity.
That's our real choice. Make the possibility of a Fermi 2 disaster more extensive and more likely, or pursue the alternative. Eliminating the possibility of the Fermi 2 disaster means closing Fermi 2 in addition to never building Fermi 3. Put that way, the right choice is obvious.
Art Myatt
DTE estimated in their 2008 application for an operating license for Fermi 3, that the construction cost would be $3,500 - 4,500 per kilowatt of electrical output, or $3.50 - 4.50 per watt. Applied to the design for 1.55 billion watts of electrical output, that would be a range of ~5.5 to 7 billion dollars. We can take this as a low estimate in 2008 dollars.
From the Wikipedia article "Economics of nuclear power plants": "In Canada, cost overruns for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, largely due to delays and policy changes, are often cited by opponents of new reactors. Construction started in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 Billion 1993-adjusted CAD, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion." In round figures, this would mean that taking DTE's original estimate and doubling it to $14 billion would be closer to a real figure.
From a Physicians for Social Responsibility 2008 report, "Nuclear Power Plant
Construction Costs": "... total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW ..." Applied to the 1.55 billion watts for Fermi 3, a range of 8.5 to 12.5 billion dollars results. it is not clear if this includes the costs of financing construction, which would be paid after the plant starts operating.
A 2010 article from Greentech Media ("How Much Does Nuclear Cost? $6,000 a Kilowatt or More") discusses a cost of $6,000 per kilowatt and points to a study showing the "all-in" costs, including the costs of financing, would be in the $10-12.50 per watt range. That puts the high estimate for Fermi 3 over $19 billion.
The estimates above are from the period of 2008-2010. There's been a bit of inflation since then. There's also been a horrendous multi-reactor meltdown at Fukushima since then, which reasonably ought to result at least in additional safety requirements, which would raise the cost.
We have a range of estimates from a low of 5.5 billion 2008 dollars to over 19 billion dollars. Doubling DTE's upper figure of $7 billion 2008 dollars and allowing a bit for inflation since 2008 would result in a rough estimate of $15 billion. $15 billion, which this article uses, is a very approximate but reasonable figure to work with for the purpose of comparing building Fermi 3 to an alternative use for the money.
This is public money we are talking about, not (at least not yet) DTE's money. DTE expects to pay for construction through a combination of federally guaranteed loans and electrical rate hikes approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Whether it comes from federal taxes or rate hikes, that's our money, and we should decide how it will be spent.
The installed cost of solar panels for large-scale projects is now around $3.00 per rated watt. This is again a rough figure, with variations according to the scale of the project, local permitting costs, labor costs, etc., etc.
With solar panels, we can expect electrical power output equivalent to 4-6 hours of rated wattage per day in most US locations. That would be compared to an average 21-22 hours output per day for a nuclear reactor. In other words, the average daily power output from a nuclear reactor rated for 1 megawatt would be 4-6 times the power output of a solar farm rated for 1 megawatt, depending on the location of the solar farm.
I've worked up a table showing one possibility for spending $15 billion over 12 years on large-scale solar panel installations:
| installed | installed | B watt-hrs | B watt-hrs | B-watt-hrs | ||
| year | $ (B) | $/watt | B watts | per day (new) | per day (cum) | per yr, (cum) |
| solar | solar | solar | solar | solar | solar | |
| 1 | 1 | 3.00 | 0.333 | 1.410 | 1.410 | 514.650 |
| 2 | 1 | 2.95 | 0.339 | 1.434 | 2.844 | 1038.023 |
| 3 | 1.1 | 2.90 | 0.379 | 1.604 | 4.448 | 1623.659 |
| 4 | 1.1 | 2.85 | 0.386 | 1.633 | 6.081 | 2219.570 |
| 5 | 1.2 | 2.80 | 0.429 | 1.813 | 7.894 | 2881.262 |
| 6 | 1.2 | 2.75 | 0.436 | 1.846 | 9.740 | 3554.986 |
| 7 | 1.3 | 2.70 | 0.481 | 2.037 | 11.776 | 4298.369 |
| 8 | 1.3 | 2.65 | 0.491 | 2.075 | 13.851 | 5055.779 |
| 9 | 1.4 | 2.60 | 0.538 | 2.278 | 16.129 | 5887.137 |
| 10 | 1.4 | 2.55 | 0.549 | 2.322 | 18.451 | 6734.795 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 2.50 | 0.600 | 2.538 | 20.989 | 7661.165 |
| 12 | 1.5 | 2.45 | 0.612 | 2.590 | 23.579 | 8606.441 |
| 15.000 | 5.574 | 23.579 | 8606.441 | |||
| B$ total | B watts | B watt-hrs | B watt-hrs | |||
| total | per day total | per yr total | ||||
| 15.000 | 1.55 | Equivalent for nuclear | 12220.200 | |||
| B$ total | B watts | B watt-hrs | ||||
| total | per yr total | |||||
| . | “B” is used to mean “Billion.” | “(cum)” is used to mean “cumulative.” |
I've assumed a steady but not spectacular drop in installed solar panel costs per watt from $3.00 to $2.45 over the period. This is a conservative estimate, in contrast to a "target" of $1.00 per watt (Google SunShot Initiative) which might prove to be unrealistic. I've also used the 4.23 hours per day annual average output factor provided by the national Renewable Energy Lab's PV Watts calculator (http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php) for the Detroit area.
The result? $15 billion could give us just over 5.5 billion watts (rated) of solar electricity. In terms of power, with the conservative assumptions used, the annual average watt-hours from the new solar installations would be a bit over 2/3 of the average annual watt-hours from Fermi 3.
Now, if the assumptions were changed in favor of faster improvements in solar panel efficiency and a more rapid lowering of installation costs, the expected annual power output would increase. 5.5 billion watts of peak power is pretty near the minimum that should be expected from a program to spend $15 billion installing solar panels in Michigan. But even with this minimal expectation, the solar project is well worth doing.
It's important to note that solar panels provide peak demand watts, more valuable than middle of the night "baseload" watts. A nuclear plant needs to run night and day, regardless of demand. In other words, building Fermi 3 would increase the need for "dispatchable on-demand" electricity to cover peak periods. Solar panels would reduce this need, and indeed would reduce the need for baseload power.
It's also important to note that installing solar panels adds to the supply of electricity gradually over time, rather than adding nothing for the first ten years followed by the sudden introduction of new generating capacity. If more or less electricity is needed in a particular location than was imagined at the outset, adjustments can be made with solar construction planning. The nuclear reactor can't make that kind of adjustment.
There are also other advantages of numerous solar farms distributed over the service area, compared to a centralized nuclear reactor. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year. (See http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3)
Proper planning to site solar farms near demand for peak power would mean less transmission losses. No new high-voltage "transition corridor" leading away from the reactor would be needed. With the sources of power close to peak demand, even lower-voltage distribution line power losses could be cut.
And of course, the fuel cost for solar panels is absolutely zero. We do not have to pay the sun to shine.
The nuclear fuel for Fermi 3 would cost about $100 million per year. $100 million is a bare minimum cost, to which could be added $300 million or more if we attempt to account for the cost of disposal of spent fuel. This added amount is really impossible to quantify, because we still do not know a satisfactory method to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. It's an unsolved problem for future generations. Neither the problem nor the cost exists for solar panels.
There will be some failures in any extensive installation of solar panels. These will be distributed failures; distributed over time and space, fixable on a regular maintenance schedule. A nuclear reactor failure is a centralized failure. At a minimum it is a crisis, even if it only means the electrical output is shut off for a month or two.
And then there is the spectacular failure - the meltdown. A meltdown at Fermi 3 could also cause a meltdown at Fermi 2, and a Fermi 2 meltdown could cascade into the same at Fermi 3. Constructing Fermi 3 next to Fermi 2 makes a meltdown at Fermi 2 more likely, and it makes a meltdown at Fermi 3 more likely as well.
One or both reactors melting down could cause the permanent evacuation of a million or more people while also ruining Lake Erie, Niagra Falls and Lake Ontario with radioactive contamination. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, we may have to write off Toledo or Detroit or both. The events at Fukushima prove conclusively that such a result is possible and that assurances of safety coming from the nuclear industry are worthless.
This is the main (and sane) reason spending our money on solar panels rather than a nuclear reactor makes so much sense. If we need the electricity, we can get it without nuclear fission. The disaster of uncontrolled fission that a nuclear reactor makes possible is not possible with solar power.
If a meltdown in Monroe, Michigan happens, all the fine cost analysis of solar versus nuclear will be meaningless. There will be nobody left in the radioactive contaminated zone to enjoy the benefits of any type of electricity.
That's our real choice. Make the possibility of a Fermi 2 disaster more extensive and more likely, or pursue the alternative. Eliminating the possibility of the Fermi 2 disaster means closing Fermi 2 in addition to never building Fermi 3. Put that way, the right choice is obvious.
Art Myatt
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Open Letter to the Michigan Public Service Commission
In January of 2007, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued a report with the title "Michigan's 21st Century Electric Energy Plan." This report is still (in January 2015) available on their website at http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/capacity/energyplan/index.htm. In it, they predict that demand for grid electricity in Michigan should grow at an average rate of 1.3% per year from 2006 through 2025.
If in fact demand had grown as predicted, in 2013, it would have been for approximately 123,000 Million KW-hr total for the year. In reality, demand for 2013 was around 104,000 Million KW-hr, less than the total for 2007. Actual demand for 2013 was short of predicted demand by roughly 19,000 Million KW-hr. From 2007 through 2013, demand did not grow at all. In fact, it declined, though not in a smooth fashion.
The actual pattern of Michigan's electrical demand from 2000 through 2007 was a growth trend, though not a smooth one. Some years were down; some, up. If the numbers are plotted on a graph, the trend for this period is clearly up. The MPSC prediction of continued growth was simply a projection of the recent trend into the near future. However, the financial crisis of 2008 broke a lot of trends, including that for Michigan's electrical demand.
In 2008, demand dipped. Then in 2009, when the entire year was affected by the recession, demand dipped sharply, by an additional 7«%. Since then, demand recovered to a level between the 2007 peak and the 2009 low point. For 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (the last year for which we have data), it has been essentially flat, at 104,000 Million KW-hr plus or minus 1%. If the current flat trend is the new normal, the gap between expected demand (according to the 2007 plan) and actual demand will grow larger and larger.
In the year following the MPSC study, DTE Energy proposed to build Fermi 3, a new nuclear reactor to be located adjacent to their existing Fermi 2 reactor. Their original schedule called for Fermi 3 to be producing power by 2025. In their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), they relied on the 2007 MPSC projection for future electrical demand. They said that, by 2025, the generating capacity of Fermi 3 would be needed to meet that demand.
Gross divergence between actual demand and MPSC projected demand was pointed out in public comments on the Draft EIS. In the final EIS, it was admitted that the MPSC study was not an accurate prediction. However, DTE Energy argued that the general idea of increased demand was still valid because demand could still reasonably be expected to increase in the region. This supposed validation is just nonsense.
We have data, supplied by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA), not just for the region but for the entire United States. Demand for electricity in the entire country followed the same pattern as described for Michigan. There was a trend of growth from 2000 through 2007; a decline in 2008, a sharp dip for 2009, a recovery to less than the 2007 peak in 2010, and flat plus or minus 1% of the average value through 2013. The sharp decline for 2009 was a bit more than 4% for the country as a whole, not so severe as Michigan's 7-1/2% decline.
At a utilization factor of 90% (meaning it would run at full output 90% of the time), Fermi 3 would have an annual output of about 12,000 Million KW-hr. Recall that actual demand for 2013 was already 19,000 Million KW-hr less than the projected demand , and that discrepancy is likely to be much larger by 2025.
It is clear that the capacity of Fermi 3 is not - repeat, not - actually needed to meet foreseeable electrical demand in Michigan. Regardless, DTE Energy will soon be applying to the MPSC for a "Certificate of Need" for Fermi 3.
If this Certificate of Need is granted, then DTE Energy will be able to significantly raise the rates for electricity for everyone in the DTE service area. They will then be allowed to charge for "Construction Work in Progress" for as long as it might take to build the un-needed Fermi 3 reactor. This increase is expected to amount to $5,000 - $10,000 per household in the next ten years, and more if construction takes longer.
If this amount of money were instead spent on solar panels over the same ten years, every household in the service area could have several thousand watts of solar panels installed. There would be tens of thousands more local jobs in installation. There would be no danger from handling Fermi 3's radioactive fuel rods, new or spent. There would be no danger of a meltdown - at least from an unbuilt Fermi 3. (Fermi 2 could still have a meltdown.)
Even with safety considerations put completely aside, there is no need - as DTE Energy and the MPSC defined need - to build Fermi 3. At the very least, the MPSC should deny a Certificate of Need until it comes up with a new and more realistic plan for Michigan's 21st Century electricity. The best case would be if DTE Energy never gets a Certificate of Need for Fermi 3.
[Permission is hereby granted to anyone to republish this open letter, so long as it is republished in its entirety, including this notice, and the source is credited.]
Art Myatt
If in fact demand had grown as predicted, in 2013, it would have been for approximately 123,000 Million KW-hr total for the year. In reality, demand for 2013 was around 104,000 Million KW-hr, less than the total for 2007. Actual demand for 2013 was short of predicted demand by roughly 19,000 Million KW-hr. From 2007 through 2013, demand did not grow at all. In fact, it declined, though not in a smooth fashion.
The actual pattern of Michigan's electrical demand from 2000 through 2007 was a growth trend, though not a smooth one. Some years were down; some, up. If the numbers are plotted on a graph, the trend for this period is clearly up. The MPSC prediction of continued growth was simply a projection of the recent trend into the near future. However, the financial crisis of 2008 broke a lot of trends, including that for Michigan's electrical demand.
In 2008, demand dipped. Then in 2009, when the entire year was affected by the recession, demand dipped sharply, by an additional 7«%. Since then, demand recovered to a level between the 2007 peak and the 2009 low point. For 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (the last year for which we have data), it has been essentially flat, at 104,000 Million KW-hr plus or minus 1%. If the current flat trend is the new normal, the gap between expected demand (according to the 2007 plan) and actual demand will grow larger and larger.
In the year following the MPSC study, DTE Energy proposed to build Fermi 3, a new nuclear reactor to be located adjacent to their existing Fermi 2 reactor. Their original schedule called for Fermi 3 to be producing power by 2025. In their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), they relied on the 2007 MPSC projection for future electrical demand. They said that, by 2025, the generating capacity of Fermi 3 would be needed to meet that demand.
Gross divergence between actual demand and MPSC projected demand was pointed out in public comments on the Draft EIS. In the final EIS, it was admitted that the MPSC study was not an accurate prediction. However, DTE Energy argued that the general idea of increased demand was still valid because demand could still reasonably be expected to increase in the region. This supposed validation is just nonsense.
We have data, supplied by the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA), not just for the region but for the entire United States. Demand for electricity in the entire country followed the same pattern as described for Michigan. There was a trend of growth from 2000 through 2007; a decline in 2008, a sharp dip for 2009, a recovery to less than the 2007 peak in 2010, and flat plus or minus 1% of the average value through 2013. The sharp decline for 2009 was a bit more than 4% for the country as a whole, not so severe as Michigan's 7-1/2% decline.
At a utilization factor of 90% (meaning it would run at full output 90% of the time), Fermi 3 would have an annual output of about 12,000 Million KW-hr. Recall that actual demand for 2013 was already 19,000 Million KW-hr less than the projected demand , and that discrepancy is likely to be much larger by 2025.
It is clear that the capacity of Fermi 3 is not - repeat, not - actually needed to meet foreseeable electrical demand in Michigan. Regardless, DTE Energy will soon be applying to the MPSC for a "Certificate of Need" for Fermi 3.
If this Certificate of Need is granted, then DTE Energy will be able to significantly raise the rates for electricity for everyone in the DTE service area. They will then be allowed to charge for "Construction Work in Progress" for as long as it might take to build the un-needed Fermi 3 reactor. This increase is expected to amount to $5,000 - $10,000 per household in the next ten years, and more if construction takes longer.
If this amount of money were instead spent on solar panels over the same ten years, every household in the service area could have several thousand watts of solar panels installed. There would be tens of thousands more local jobs in installation. There would be no danger from handling Fermi 3's radioactive fuel rods, new or spent. There would be no danger of a meltdown - at least from an unbuilt Fermi 3. (Fermi 2 could still have a meltdown.)
Even with safety considerations put completely aside, there is no need - as DTE Energy and the MPSC defined need - to build Fermi 3. At the very least, the MPSC should deny a Certificate of Need until it comes up with a new and more realistic plan for Michigan's 21st Century electricity. The best case would be if DTE Energy never gets a Certificate of Need for Fermi 3.
[Permission is hereby granted to anyone to republish this open letter, so long as it is republished in its entirety, including this notice, and the source is credited.]
Art Myatt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)