In the Arctic Sea, where there has been very little economic, social, or military activity, borders are not clearly defined and tested by international law. That is changing swiftly, as Shell prepares to move significant personnel and drilling equipment to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas north of Alaska this summer for the first time. Other countries to are joining a “Race for the Arctic“ as countries and companies seek access to newly available oil and gas. As countries compete for these resources, the U.S. needs to become a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to define American exclusive rights.

Under customary maritime law, the U.S. has access to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) out to 200 nautical miles from shore. That means that the U.S. can allow, regulate, tax, or prohibit any economic activity in this area. The most obvious economic activities are offshore drilling and fishing. The EEZ is different from territorial waters in that the EEZ is considered international waters, but territorial waters — through which states must still allow ‘innocent passage’ of ships — are considered fully part of sovereign territory.

Under UNCLOS, the EEZ for resources on or under the seabed can be extended a further 150 nautical miles (for a total of 350 nautical miles from shore) if it can be proved that the continental shelf extends that far.

IISS' Map of the Overlapping Sovreignty Claims in the Arctic

In the Arctic, all the other littoral states — Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Iceland, and Russia — have put their claim for extended seabed EEZs into the UNCLOS secretariat for the purposes of claiming the seabed rights to the undiscovered resources, but because the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS, the U.S. has not submitted any claim. The map, provided in the IISS’ (my former employer) 2012 Military Balance, shows how some of those claims overlap. Because the U.S. has not ratified the Convention, American diplomats are not at the table when those territorial claims are arbitrated.

This past Wednesday, I attended a forum hosted by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Atlantic Council which brought together some of the nation’s most important business and national security leaders to call for a ratification of the Law of the Sea. Secretary of Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey, former Senators Lott, Warner, and Hagel, and former Director of National Intelligence Negroponte all expressed their strong support for passage of the treaty. Pew has founded a group called the American Sovereignty Campaign (www.ratifythetreatynow.org) to call for a ratification of the UNCLOS in the Senate. Not surprisingly, two of the most supportive Senators are Alaska’s Senators Begich and Murkowski.

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is a tool to expand and confirm American sovereignty without resorting to military force. The Arctic Ocean is the region in which American sovereignty is most in doubt. The Navy and Coast Guard can unilaterally protect and extend American sovereignty in that region, but joining the UNCLOS would be a better way to confirm that sovereignty in law.

However, I did manage to recently finish Peter Tertzakian’s A Thousand Barrels a Second : The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World. This one had been on my bookshelf for a while (as opposed to the growing stack of books I have been sent to review), but it has been pretty high on my list of books to read.

The book was written in 2006, and the author made what turned out to be some very accurate predictions about the volatility and higher prices ahead in the oil markets. (Here is an interview with Jon Stewart shortly after the book was published). His writing style is different from mine, but many of the themes he wrote about are the same themes I write about: Growth in developing countries, loss of spare production capacity — we even both talked about the transition from whale oil to crude oil in our respective books. However, he went into much greater detail on that topic, and I found that to be one of the most enjoyable sections in the book. The author shows that even in the days of whale oil, producers were trying to establish cartels to control prices.

One very interesting issue he writes about is the rate at which energy substitutions have taken place throughout history. Moving from wood to coal took 75 years, which was the fastest substitution in history. Coal to oil took 100 years (but of course coal never went away; it just lost market share to oil). The point is that a transition away from oil is likely going to take far longer than many people believe. There is no historical precedent that shows that these transitions can occur quickly.

The author also says that over the past 100 years, there has only been one new large-scale energy platform introduced: Nuclear power. He says that there have been eight large-scale platforms (although he does not define “large-scale”) in the history of energy: Wood, whale oil and animal fat, coal, oil, natural gas, water (hydropower), and uranium. He acknowledges that several renewable technologies could be added to the list, but argues that their lack of scalability will make it difficult for them to make a fast, large-scale contribution to the global energy mix.

He describes four phases that a society goes through as they undergo energy transitions: 1). Complain and pay up; 2). Conserve and increase efficiency; 3). Adopt alternative energy sources; and 4). Make societal, business, and lifestyle changes. When the book was written in 2006, he argued that the world was still solidly in the “complain and pay” stage. During this stage politicians will tend toward gridlock and finger-pointing, as pursuit of real solutions and a movement away from the status quo is politically risky. We are still very much in this phase, as evidenced by the political posturing over energy issues, but we have made some progress in Phases 2 and 3. Some might argue that we are making progress in Phase 4, but I think the sort of changes he is talking about are far greater than what we have seen to date. I expect the sort of change he is talking about might involve (as an example) an end to affordable commercial airline flights.

The core message of the book is one that is very close to my heart, and that is that we need a good dose of pragmatism. Yes, we always have to make trade-offs in our energy options, but these trade-offs need to be carefully considered. We can all name many negatives from our oil dependence, but then we generally take for granted the many positive impacts that oil has on our lives. Because of this, we may pursue impractical solutions that will be quickly tossed aside if they can’t fill the role that petroleum currently fills. The image of an oil-covered bird is very powerful, but it may push us into trade-offs that endanger far more that just birds.

Generally when I read a book about energy, I find myself making little notes on points of disagreement. I was about 90% finished with this book before I finally started to find some significant points of disagreement, and those were about some of the specific details of how the author feels like the future is going to play out. On this particular point, he envisioned himself in the year 2017, after we had gone through some very painful readjustments with respect to our oil consumption, and that he was purchasing one of the first commercially available hydrogen cell vehicles. I just don’t think that’s going to happen, and certainly not by 2017. But that’s a minor point, and one that does not detract from the strength of this book.

In summary, this was a really great book that doesn’t take political sides, and a book that has thus far stood the test of time. Many of the author’s predictions from 2006 have taken place or are in the process of taking place. If you want to have a better view of how the future is likely to unfold with respect to energy, I think this book does an excellent job of laying that out.

Link to Original Article: Book Review: A Thousand Barrels a Second

By Robert Rapier

• Japan’s decision to abandon nuclear power (which will contend for the top energy story of the year — regardless of how it plays out)
• ConocoPhillips’ successful methane hydrates drilling test in the Arctic, and whether that means that methane hydrates will soon be a viable energy option
• The likelihood that gasoline prices have indeed peaked (for now)

Link to Original Article: Nuclear Power in Japan, Methane Hydrates, and Gasoline Prices — R-Squared Energy TV Ep. 21

By Robert Rapier

I just wanted to take a quick moment to lament the loss of Senator Lugar to the Senate. He lost his Republican Primary election for the Indiana Senate seat last night by an astonishing 21 points. The issues of energy and environmental security, especially in how they affect America’s foreign policy, were central to his 36 years in the Senate. There were many other factors that helped bring him down — his age, the fact that he no longer lived in Indiana, and his votes on TARP and President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.

Senator Lugar played a unique role in American energy and environmental policy because his position has really marked the center of American politics on these issues. That means that he’s been willing to work with both sides to get things done, and it also means that his views have shifted as the country’s views have shifted.

When I worked in the Senate, I had the opportunity to work with his staff on the Foreign Relations Committee, and there were few people anywhere on the Hill who were more professional. They simply were interested in seeking the best solutions on important issues, regardless of whether that solution came from the right of the left. One of my proudest moments was working to introduce and pass legislation for a clean-energy bank — now operated through the World Bank — that helps to fund clean energy development around the world. This truly was bipartisan, introduced by Senators Lugar, Biden, Menendez, and Hagel (my boss at the time). I am afraid, however, that this election marks the end of such solution-oriented legislating for a long time.

Climate Change & Energy Security

On climate change policy, you can see by his votes how the issue has moved from something that both sides, including the ’08 Republican Party nominee, expressed concern about, to something that truly is toxic for most Republicans to even talk about. He lamented in his astonishing statement — which reads like Jerry McGuire’s late night manifesto — that some topics have become politically unmentionable, and especially: “Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change.” However, it can hardly be said that he was a leader on climate; instead, while expressing concerns, he followed the Republican Party’s move away from climate action. While he voted for the McCain/Lieberman amendments in ’03 and ’05 that would have created a declining cap on carbon, he voted against the ’08 Lieberman/Warner legislation, as well as signaling that he would have voted against the ’10 Kerry/Graham/Lieberman climate bill had it ever been brought to the floor.

On energy security issues, however, he can claim to have been a real leader. Since even the 1990’s, when gas prices were low and Americans didn’t worry about where the energy came from, he has worried about the national security implications of relying on imported oil. He is one of the few to whom this really is a strategic issue, not an issue which waxes and wanes in importance based on the price at the pump. He has consistently supported alternatives to oil, whether it is ethanol, electric cars, or next-generation biofuels while also pressing for more energy development and infrastructure here at home. One of the issues that he has been pushing over the last 6 months, as a way of differentiating himself, is the Keystone XL pipeline. He has strongly pushed for it, and has touted that as a major area of difference.

Senator Lugar defined the center of American energy politics. As the Republican Party continues to eat its own by purging the party of Moderates, I am afraid that there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for developing an actual national energy policy. He was one of the real statesmen, and he will be missed.

Normally, I would not take the time to respond to the Washington Times editorial, as they are notorious for being at the far edge of the spectrum on this issue, and far away from any scientific mainstream, but some of the assertions are so scurrilous that they require a response. They simply cannot stand without being challenged.

They write that the national-security threat of climate change “is a fight America can’t afford.” However, as I have discussed before, a changing climate does pose real threats to America’s national security. Rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, increasingly dangerous weather disasters, and melting polar ice caps could destabilize countries, and the U.S. military must be prepared to react to the conflicts that could result from these changes. There is a robust academic argument about the precise linkages between climate and conflict, but that is not where this editorial goes.

Instead, there are some serious assertions in the editorial that must be responded to because they are so far from reality. I will precisely go through them.

First, on polar ice caps, they state:

Not surprisingly, the polar ice caps have not melted in expected fashion. For example, Arctic sea ice in April averaged 5.69 million square miles, “the highest average ice extent for the month since 2001,” according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

They are right: the polar ice caps have not melted in “expected fashion” – they’ve melted much faster. To simply cherry-pick one data point — April’s ice extent — is unscrupulous at best. They could have just as truthfully have stated that Arctic sea ice in September averaged “The second lowest ice extent for the month on record.” The truth is that, although we see one month that has above-average levels of sea ice, the overall trend is down, and the recent trend — within the last 5 years — is way down. See more here at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Second, on the IPCC’s report on severe weather, they claim that the IPCC “published a special report backing away from its claim that severe weather events resulting from either human activity or natural occurrences are trending upward.” The IPCC did recently publish a “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.” If you read their summary for policymakers, they do state that it is the increasing exposure of people and infrastructure to damage that have caused the recent increase in damage from extreme weather — not climate change. Although they state that “A role for climate change has not been excluded.” However, on balance, the IPCC’s report specifically states that climate change “has led to heat waves, record high temperatures, and heavy precipitation. It is simply astonishing to me that they repeatedly cite reports and research organizations whose other work directly contradicts what they are trying to say.

Finally, they argue that solar micro-grids and algae fuel are “unaffordable energy boondoggles” while ignoring the fact that the military’s current energy usage puts American lives at risk in Afghanistan. The military knows that solar power at forward operating bases reduces the need for vulnerable diesel fuel convoys and we know that alternative fuels like algae-based biofuel hold the promise of reducing our strategic dependence on oil from our adversaries across the Middle East. These are not being done “to combat carbon dioxide – the harmless gas essential for all life on this planet” – but are instead being done strictly to ensure that the U.S. military is better able to fight and win our nation’s wars.

I do understand those who are skeptical of the science on climate change; it is important to always rigorously question science, especially when so much government policy is based on that science. However, can’t we agree that the content of this editorial are so far out of bounds? That this actually was written by a widely-read newspaper editorial board, and not in some blog is what worries me. In addition, the fact that they are opposing the study in the Department of Defense of how climate change could affect security — not the policy to fight it — is doubly crazy. Is this article simply too much?

Biofuels Design Cases

The presentation explored the question of whether the U.S. government is spending money on the right technology pathways. Costs were presented for biofuel produced from pyrolysis, algae, Fischer-Tropsch (FT), and methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) routes.

I want to share several slides from the presentation to give an idea of what the DOE thinks about the costs for producing biofuels via the various pathways. The first slide below shows the projected cost of production of biofuels via MTG, pyrolysis, and FT for the “Nth Biorefinery Plant” — which is defined as the projected fuel cost after a number of plants have been built and the learning curve has been mastered.

 Figure 1. DOE projections of costs for biofuel from MTG, pyrolysis, and FT routes.

This slide projects a future best case scenario of about $3.50/gallon for the MTG route, $2/gallon for the pyrolysis route, and $5/gallon for the FT route. So if that is for the Nth plant, where do costs currently stand?

 Figure 2: Projected cost reductions for biofuel from pyrolysis oil.

This slide shows that in 2009 they were estimating costs of production for biofuel based on pyrolysis of $7.68/gallon. By this year (2012) they projected the cost dropping to $4.55, and then over the next 5 years they project costs will fall to $2.32 (again, the Nth plant cost for pyrolysis was projected at $2.00/gallon). They project that the largest savings will come from the upgrading step.

So what do they say about fuel from algae?

 Figure 3: Baseline costs for algal fuel.

This slide shows the 2012 selling price for algal products in four categories: Triglycerides (TAG) from open ponds (OP) at $9.28/gallon and from photobioreactors (PBR) at $17.52/gallon, and then the finished diesel (which requires hydrotreating the TAG) at $10.66 from OPs and $19.89 from PBRs.

The following slide projects future algal fuel costs under a number of different scenarios:

 Figure 4: Projected future algal fuel costs.

In each case they assume various improvements over the base case, with the final case for both open ponds and photobioreactors being one in which a high value coproduct is produced.

So what are we to make of these slides? First, as I have said in the past, I don’t believe photobioreactors are the future of algal fuel production. Those artist renderings of futurist algae farms such as this one are pure fantasy in my opinion:

 Figure 5: Computer-generated futuristic PBR farm.

In the most optimistic case the DOE could only get the projected cost of the fuel down to $6.10. More conservative assumptions would project that the fuel derived from PBRs will still be more than $10/gallon. As algae expert John Benemann noted here in a guest essay, “The use of closed photobioreactors…is totally absurd.”

Open ponds show more promise, but algae has been grown in open ponds for many years. Some areas that are specific to fuel production might see some significant cost savings, but other areas have already had decades to work on lower costs (e.g., harvesting). I suspect that Target 1 for open ponds might be achievable ($5.45/gallon) but lower than that will be challenging.

The fermentation route that Solazyme utilizes was not covered, but it would be interesting to see how that stacks up. The cost of converting the TAG to diesel should be about the same (~$2.40/gallon), but I know that Solazyme believes that their productions costs will beat both the open ponds and PBR routes.

But I think the real story from this presentation is the DOE’s projections of the pyrolysis to fuel route. They clearly believe that this route can ultimately be competitive with petroleum. The technology currently exists to convert pyrolysis oil into transportation fuel, but it is fairly new and therefore should have room for some improvements. This is the type of route that KiOR is pursuing. A partnership between UOP Honeywell, Ensyn Corporation (those two formed a JV called Envergent) and Tesoro was awarded a DOE grant to build a demonstration facility based on pyrolysis at Tesoro’s refinery in Hawaii.

The overall ranking in terms of future costs would appear to be: pyrolysis < MTG < FT < OP algal << PBR algal.

Link to Original Article: Current and Projected Costs for Biofuels from Algae and Pyrolysis

By Robert Rapier

Two weeks ago, I spoke as a part of a lecture series by the Massachusetts-based Manomet Center about energy development and ecosystems in the Arctic. Manomet is a conservation sciences organization that was founded to study migratory shorebirds; I was paired in the lecture with Stephen Brown, one of Manomet’s foremost experts on Alaskan shorebirds. The event was very interesting because it allowed a frank and open discussion of the threats and opportunities in the Arctic. The discussion below is adapted from my presentation.

Long History of Arctic Energy Exploration

Since the 1920s, Americans have known that there were vast reserves of oil in the North Slope of Alaska, when the Navy was given the territory now known as the National Petroleum Reserve as reserve for oil production to supply the fleet as it transformed from coal to oil. The reserve was never tapped, however, because of new finds in more accessible areas like Texas, California, and Oklahoma.

In 1968, a vast reserve of oil, the largest single field in the U.S., was discovered in Prudhoe Bay. However, the oil field could not begin commercial production until there was a way to deliver the oil to markets in the Continental U.S. or around the world. First, an icebreaking oil tanker, the Manhattan was sent through the Northwest Passage to test the feasibility of such a commercial route. When that proved too difficult, it was decided that the only possible route to market for Alaska’s oil was a pipeline from the North Slope.

This was a contentious debate, as landowners and native people wrestled with the environmental impact of such a pipeline. However, with the onset of the first Arab oil crisis in 1973, Congress authorized the expedited building of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Completed in 1977 at a cost of $8 billion (about $32 billion in today’s dollars), the pipeline marked a significant infrastructure investment. It transports crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope, across 800 miles of tundra, rugged mountains and rivers to Valdez, North America’s northernmost ice-free port.

TAPS carries approximately 15 percent of the nation’s domestic oil production and has transported more than 15 billion barrels of crude oil in its lifetime. Importantly, it has a maximum daily capacity of 2.136 million barrels of oil, although it has never transported its full capacity.

In 2011, Alaska’s North Slope oil production was 562,000 barrels of oil per day. That means that the pipeline is only operating at about ¼ capacity. At its peak production in 1989, Prudhoe Bay was producing about 2 million barrels per day – almost at the TAPS capacity. I don’t know exactly why the field has seen a 71% drop in production over the last 22 years, but I would suspect that it can be attributed to a natural declining field.

ANWR: Trying to Find New Oil Production to Fill the Pipeline

The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is the largest protected wilderness in the United States and was created by Congress under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. However, unlike other Wilderness areas that are protected from development in perpetuity, under this act, a 1.5 million acre sector of ANWR, the so-called 1002 Area, was designated for study of its hydrocarbon reserves. The Act left it up to a later Congress to open the Area to exploration.

A 1998 report by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was between 5.7 billion barrels and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the 1002 Area. However, we simply cannot know the actual production potential of the area because exploration wells have never been drilled. The USGS estimates are based on the geologic formations of adjacent lands, not actual exploration within ANWR.

In 1989, Congress was preparing legislation that would open the 1002 Area of ANWR to oil exploration, and it was predicted to ‘sail through’. However, the Exxon Valdez disaster in March of that year quickly stopped consideration of the legislation. The return of Republicans to power in Congress after the 1994 election saw the issue return in Congress. President Clinton vetoed an effort to open ANWR to drilling in 1996, and the early years of the Bush Administration saw several close votes on opening the refuge to drilling. Ultimately, however, the environmentalists won the argument, and ANWR has remained closed.

By the time I was working on staff in the Senate, in 2006, the issue had become ritualized. Everyone knew how each Senator was going to vote on an annual vote, Senator Ted Stevens would get very angry, but the legislation would ultimately fail. Since the 2010 mid-term elections, House Republicans have included an opening of ANWR in their drilling bills, but the Democratic Senate has not even taken them up, and President Obama would veto them.

Offshore Drilling in Alaska’s North Slope

Since 2007, a warming Arctic sea has seen dramatic reductions in summer sea ice. This has allowed energy companies like Shell to contemplate how to extract some of the 22% of the world’s undiscovered energy resources that the US Geological Survey estimates are under the Arctic Sea.

Shell is preparing to send exploration ships to the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas this summer to explore for oil. They have received permission from the EPA and Department of Interior, and are awaiting permits from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. While these are expected to go through, we should expect to see some significant litigation between now and then. Shell plans to bring about 30 ships and over 500 people to handle the exploration operations. The U.S. Coast Guard, too, will operate a full-time presence in the Arctic this summer for the first time, with a Cutter on patrol at each of the drilling sites. There will be more people off that stretch of beachfront — over 1000 miles from the nearest deepwater port — than probably has ever been there.

I understand that the sea floor in this area is fairly shallow, so the technical problems of drilling at high depth that we all became familiar with during the Deepwater Horizon disaster will not be there. Instead, we will see entirely different threats, like surface ice and severe storms. Shell has experience operating in Russia’s Sea of Okhotsk, but this will remain an extreme environment.

If all goes well, Shell anticipates that the first production of oil will begin in less than ten years, and peak production will be about 1.7 million barrels of oil per day.

Blocking ANWR Production led to Offshore Drilling

Notably, that production figure for offshore oil will be just enough to bring the TAPS back up to full capacity. I believe that if exploration in ANWR had not been blocked, there would not be a push to drill offshore. With new oil pumping through the pipeline, there would not have been enough capacity to accommodate offshore drilling as well. However, as it is now, offshore drilling is the only way to increase capacity to meet the capacity limits of the pipeline. So long as this already existing infrastructure is not fully utilized, there will be pressure, both from oil companies and from Alaska’s politicians, to fill the pipeline.

If you are looking for another made-in-America electric car, this may fit your bill, although I honestly don’t know how much of it is made in America. Nissan has a factory in Tennessee that will be able to produce 150,000 Leafs a year.

The Society of Automotive Engineers recently declared that:

Barring an unforeseen breakthrough that significantly drops the cost of automotive batteries, fully electric cars and plug-in hybrid vehicles are likely to remain confined to a niche of under 10% of the market through 2025 and beyond.

Visionaries, these guys are not. The article also mentions that:

A conventional, gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine and transmission make up about 10% of the cost of a $30,000 car, or about $3,000

That’s right. Today’s almost unimaginably complex assemblies known as engines and transmissions, consisting of thousands of precision machined metal parts, presently cost four times less than the bags of powder that constitute the Leaf’s batteries. That’s the power of the economy of scale. It’s only a matter of time before the price of batteries plummet as well. Automotive engineers are not soothsayers, and don’t seem to like electric drive systems–too simple, elegant, little to tinker with, fix, or improve.

Honda just announced that they are building a recycling plant to process nickel-metal hydride batteries collected from hybrid cars. This is not the same technology used in electric cars but similar recycling will eventually exist for lithium ion batteries as well. The critique that there will not be enough rare earth metals for electric car batteries has just been dealt its death blow.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Citizens (UCS&C) recently released a study that came to the same conclusion as the first half-dozen studies on the same subject that proceeded their version; the carbon emissions associated with your electric car depend on your source of electricity. However, they also created a very easy to understand graphic to explain the concept to a public that does not know a kilo-watt from a tuna sandwich.

Another point of interest that came from that study is that nuclear power produces less GHG emissions than solar.

On the other hand, their press release made no mention of nuclear energy, which is the main reason electric cars have such low emissions.

My Leaf continues to hum along flawlessly. I ruined a tire in a pot hole last week. Called the number in my owner’s manual and got a free tow to a local dealer. The tire wasn’t cheap but the dealer also didn’t offer me any deals on oil changes or engine tune ups while they had me at their mercy. The intermittent problems with my charger have been fixed with a free upgrade as well.

Photo courtesy of mariordo59 via Flickr

The questions answered this week are:

1. Can you discuss the uses of ‘rare earth’ elements in the production of renewable energies (i.e., wind and solar)? Furthermore, can you comment on the supply of rare earth elements? I recently watched this video from Real Clear Energy. Is it accurate that China controls 97% of the current supplies? What implications does this have on growth of hybrid transportation, the wind and the solar industry in the USA?

2. I was watching your reports and was wondering your opinion about the feasibility of pyrolysis. I’ve seen a lot of companies advertising that they have take plastic or tires and produce 80+% and 45% pyrolysis oil respectively. Is that accurate? You also mention upgrading of pyrolysis oil, are there any companies out there who can do it on a commercially viable process? If so could you point me in the right direction?

Link to Original Article: Rare Earth Elements and Pyrolysis Oil — R-Squared Energy TV Ep. 20

By Robert Rapier

Senator Sanders may have good intentions, but what’s new? We don’t need any more roads to hell paved by those. He’s just another member of the generation that has been systematically misinformed by “the end justifies the means” anti-nuclear lobby and our sensationalist for profit lay media.

An earlier article on Grist recently (and inadvertently) demonstrated with a simple graph that the most optimistic estimates for renewable energy do not come close to meeting our energy needs, all cost issues aside.

Do government subsidies ever pay off? The poster child for government subsidies that have paid off royally would have to be those for nuclear energy. There are presently about 60 nuclear power plants under construction around the world. Just off the press:

Westinghouse Electric Company and Ameren Missouri have entered into an agreement to respond collaboratively to the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for developing and licensing the Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor (SMR).

Bernie and/or his co-writer said:

Whether you support nuclear energy or not, we should all be able to agree that with record debt, we cannot afford to continue to subsidize this mature industry and its multi-billion-dollar corporations. If the nuclear industry believes so fervently in its technology, then nuclear companies and Wall Street investors can put their money where the mouth is. Let them finance, insure, and pay for nuclear plants themselves.

I can’t think of a more promising technology to subsidize. With all of the new nuclear technology coming down the road, you can’t seriously call this a mature industry. Where’s the legislation to end government mandated consumption of food-based corn ethanol (moonshine) which may quietly be starving hundreds of thousands to death annually?

Nuclear may be expensive up front, but it certainly has proven to pay off over time. I’m a big fan of renewables, but they are going to need a lot of help from nuclear, and never mind that renewables receive even greater subsidies and are even more expensive than nuclear per unit energy. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.