I am not familiar with SMUD. Could you be more specific, so I can look into it? Rather small coops can feasibly build and maintain backup turbine plants. That is not true for a big nuke. So keep the coops small, the back up fossil local, and buy most of your power from investor owned providers.
I will say coop governance is necessary. My sense is the problem becomes more severe as the size of the coop grows. There have been cases where big coops have become fiefdoms for their management, not that that does not happen in big corporations. But a coop has a form of control over its members that a corporation does not have over its shareholders.
This is where there is a role for government, enforcing transparency, outlawing excess equity build, prosecuting kickbacks and the like, mandating fair and reqular elections.. But this role must be sharply defined.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District operated the Rancho Seco plant. They had a 5 person board which included two anti- nukes. All authorizations above $10,000 had to be approved by the board. Their management really struggled to keep the plant functioning properly. Mike Derivan had a lot more experience with their operators me and said he would have expected them to have an accident if any BW plant did.
Thanks. If Rancho Seco, was poorly run, --- the lousy capacity factor certainly suggests it was --- and allowed to keep running, it's an indictment of the Gold Standard. UCert inspectors will care less who owns the plant. If it's not up to standard, it gets cancelled.
Other coops have owned shares in nuke plants. As of 2007, they owned 3GW spread over 15 plants. Coop ownership need not translate into poor operation.
Having said this, coops have a control over its members that can be unhealthy. A coop member can't simply sell his "share" if he's unhappy with management. Activist shareholders can't buy their way into changing the management. So in just about all cases, it's probably best to limit the role of coops to local distribution and backup, purchasing outside power when it's cheaper including the CO2 fee. I'll get these thoughts into the next version.
It had highly competent people hamstrung by an anti nuke board. They were not allowed to do what they had to do to keep,the plant reliable and running.
Not saying they weren't competent. Simply saying i f the plant is not up to standard for whatever reason it will get canceled under UCert.
Problems like these don't suddenly appear. Based on my observation of Class inspectors in the tanker business, the UCert inspector will know exactly what's going on. He will tell the plant's management that unless things change he's going to have to pull the plant's insurance. Plant management will then take that to the board. give them the facts of life, and if the Board does not respond properly, mgmt should resign.
Remember the plant chooses and pays the Certification society. The UCert inspector has to balance things. If he is unreasonably strict, the plant can switch Certification Societies, and he loses a customer. But if he does not enforce the standards, he jeopardizes his whole career. He wants to see the plant succeed, but it has to be on his Society's terms. When a plant starts to fall behind, the result is a series of increasingly strong warnings. If the plant does not respond for whatever reason, the society pulls the certification, and the insurance is cancelled.
Accomplish #4 and the other three will matter a lot less. Nobody has the job of making the electric power system worse. Political interests can push some political priorities, but economics mostly trump everything else.
Ultimately, if your primary interest is the generation mix, the ownership of the wires matters less. You might have a look at the resiliency payments for coal and nuclear plants floated during the Trump administration.
Just read your entire plan. I find your proposal for overhauling nuclear regulation quite interesting. I am a bit skeptical that we can get nuclear down to 3 cents/kWh, but I would be happy if it happens.
In the short-term, I think natural gas is far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear in North America, nuclear might be better in the long term, particularly if it actually gets that cheap. But my guess is that would take at least a decade.
The result of a carbon tax would clearly be more expensive energy that has a negative impact on economic growth and the standard of living of the poor and the working class who pay a higher percentage of their income for energy.
Since I believe the goal should be affordable energy (not more expensive energy), I would be much more supportive of your plan if it did not include $500 billion in carbon taxes. And I think most voters and politicians would react int the same way.
And politically, it would make it almost impossible to implement. It is much easier to pass nuclear regulatory reform than raise taxes or overhaul the tax system.
I agree with the subsidy elimination, but I do not see why you regard the carbon tax as essential. Are you using the money exclusively for constructing nuclear power plants, perhaps? Otherwise, I do not see the connection between raising taxes and your other proposals. If nuclear becomes as cheap as you say, then nuclear plus electrification of transportation will have the same long-term outcome. Why add on all this additional cost?
As a compromise, why not a have much smaller carbon tax that goes into a fund that can only be used for the construction of nuclear plants?
If your main concern is equity, then for should welcome a Fee and Dividend tax, which will both make the wealthy pay for their profligate use of our atmosphere and on net transfer wealth to the poor.
The CO2 tax is definitely not to pay for nuclear. The REPOWER program gets rid of ALL subsidies. But it does play an important role in making low CO2 sources cheaper to the coops than their own gas sourced power, while REPOWER pushes the cost of nuclear down, which will take a while given the current NRC-based mess.
Fine, it is your proposal. You can propose whatever you want, but a $500 billion carbon tax is a dealbreaker for me and likely many other people.
For whatever it is worth, my main goal with energy policy is to:
1) Create an energy system that is abundant, affordable, and secure. This builds a solid foundation for long-term widely-shared economic growth for both wealthy and developing nations. A carbon tax raises energy costs.
2) Mitigate the negative side-effects of that progress on the natural environment. This includes carbon emissions, air pollution, water pollution, wild habitat destruction, extinctions, and human health concerns. Carbon is just one of those negative side-effects.
I believe that a large carbon tax, even if offset, will have the same result as it did in Europe: economic stagnation. This will mean that there is less money to construct nuclear power stations, so it undermines your entire proposal.
Jack, I will have to read the other two works cited here but provisionally this looks like a solid suggestion. I also suggested a similar approach of eliminating subsidies and imposing a carbon tax.
Human material progress, all of the advancement that made life possible, require energy.
Energy is what powers civilizations, our collective social supercomputer. There is so much we can do with energy abundance.
Look at SMUD as an example of what happens when a local coop controls the plant budget. Check with Mike derivan.
Lou
Lou,
I am not familiar with SMUD. Could you be more specific, so I can look into it? Rather small coops can feasibly build and maintain backup turbine plants. That is not true for a big nuke. So keep the coops small, the back up fossil local, and buy most of your power from investor owned providers.
I will say coop governance is necessary. My sense is the problem becomes more severe as the size of the coop grows. There have been cases where big coops have become fiefdoms for their management, not that that does not happen in big corporations. But a coop has a form of control over its members that a corporation does not have over its shareholders.
This is where there is a role for government, enforcing transparency, outlawing excess equity build, prosecuting kickbacks and the like, mandating fair and reqular elections.. But this role must be sharply defined.
SMUD was the utility that ran Rancho Seco.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District operated the Rancho Seco plant. They had a 5 person board which included two anti- nukes. All authorizations above $10,000 had to be approved by the board. Their management really struggled to keep the plant functioning properly. Mike Derivan had a lot more experience with their operators me and said he would have expected them to have an accident if any BW plant did.
Lou
Lou, Ruth,
Thanks. If Rancho Seco, was poorly run, --- the lousy capacity factor certainly suggests it was --- and allowed to keep running, it's an indictment of the Gold Standard. UCert inspectors will care less who owns the plant. If it's not up to standard, it gets cancelled.
Other coops have owned shares in nuke plants. As of 2007, they owned 3GW spread over 15 plants. Coop ownership need not translate into poor operation.
Having said this, coops have a control over its members that can be unhealthy. A coop member can't simply sell his "share" if he's unhappy with management. Activist shareholders can't buy their way into changing the management. So in just about all cases, it's probably best to limit the role of coops to local distribution and backup, purchasing outside power when it's cheaper including the CO2 fee. I'll get these thoughts into the next version.
It had highly competent people hamstrung by an anti nuke board. They were not allowed to do what they had to do to keep,the plant reliable and running.
Sayonara
Lou
Not saying they weren't competent. Simply saying i f the plant is not up to standard for whatever reason it will get canceled under UCert.
Problems like these don't suddenly appear. Based on my observation of Class inspectors in the tanker business, the UCert inspector will know exactly what's going on. He will tell the plant's management that unless things change he's going to have to pull the plant's insurance. Plant management will then take that to the board. give them the facts of life, and if the Board does not respond properly, mgmt should resign.
Ok. Got it. Thanks. I am just concerned that rational tech issues can be resolved in this open structure.
Remember the plant chooses and pays the Certification society. The UCert inspector has to balance things. If he is unreasonably strict, the plant can switch Certification Societies, and he loses a customer. But if he does not enforce the standards, he jeopardizes his whole career. He wants to see the plant succeed, but it has to be on his Society's terms. When a plant starts to fall behind, the result is a series of increasingly strong warnings. If the plant does not respond for whatever reason, the society pulls the certification, and the insurance is cancelled.
Accomplish #4 and the other three will matter a lot less. Nobody has the job of making the electric power system worse. Political interests can push some political priorities, but economics mostly trump everything else.
Ultimately, if your primary interest is the generation mix, the ownership of the wires matters less. You might have a look at the resiliency payments for coal and nuclear plants floated during the Trump administration.
Not endorsing, just highlighting:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353067-trump-proposes-higher-payments-for-coal-nuclear-power/amp/
Just read your entire plan. I find your proposal for overhauling nuclear regulation quite interesting. I am a bit skeptical that we can get nuclear down to 3 cents/kWh, but I would be happy if it happens.
In the short-term, I think natural gas is far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear in North America, nuclear might be better in the long term, particularly if it actually gets that cheap. But my guess is that would take at least a decade.
Here is my plan:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
I am not a big fan of a carbon tax for many reasons:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-a-carbon-tax-will-not-work
Getting rid of that would dramatically reduce the costs of your plan.
I think these plans should be loaded into the new open source policy website: https://www.policiesforpeople.com
Overhauling energy infrastructure is key to a more sustainable and resilient future.
Michael,
In a strict sense, the CO2 tax is not a cost.
It's a transfer payment. If the descision is made
to keep federal revenues constant, other taxes
can be reduced by the carbon tax revenues.
Or the tax can be rebated directly
as in Hansen's Fee and Dividend proposal.
The cost of the REPOWER program is the increase
in the pre-fee cost of electricity
required to obtain whatever reduction in CO2 emissions we end up with.
The fee combined with the elimination of subsidies and mandates
will push the system toward the least cost means
of achieving that reduction.
The fee and subsidy elimination are essential parts of the plan.
Well, but you can say that about any tax.
The result of a carbon tax would clearly be more expensive energy that has a negative impact on economic growth and the standard of living of the poor and the working class who pay a higher percentage of their income for energy.
Since I believe the goal should be affordable energy (not more expensive energy), I would be much more supportive of your plan if it did not include $500 billion in carbon taxes. And I think most voters and politicians would react int the same way.
And politically, it would make it almost impossible to implement. It is much easier to pass nuclear regulatory reform than raise taxes or overhaul the tax system.
I agree with the subsidy elimination, but I do not see why you regard the carbon tax as essential. Are you using the money exclusively for constructing nuclear power plants, perhaps? Otherwise, I do not see the connection between raising taxes and your other proposals. If nuclear becomes as cheap as you say, then nuclear plus electrification of transportation will have the same long-term outcome. Why add on all this additional cost?
As a compromise, why not a have much smaller carbon tax that goes into a fund that can only be used for the construction of nuclear plants?
Michael,
If your main concern is equity, then for should welcome a Fee and Dividend tax, which will both make the wealthy pay for their profligate use of our atmosphere and on net transfer wealth to the poor.
The CO2 tax is definitely not to pay for nuclear. The REPOWER program gets rid of ALL subsidies. But it does play an important role in making low CO2 sources cheaper to the coops than their own gas sourced power, while REPOWER pushes the cost of nuclear down, which will take a while given the current NRC-based mess.
Fine, it is your proposal. You can propose whatever you want, but a $500 billion carbon tax is a dealbreaker for me and likely many other people.
For whatever it is worth, my main goal with energy policy is to:
1) Create an energy system that is abundant, affordable, and secure. This builds a solid foundation for long-term widely-shared economic growth for both wealthy and developing nations. A carbon tax raises energy costs.
2) Mitigate the negative side-effects of that progress on the natural environment. This includes carbon emissions, air pollution, water pollution, wild habitat destruction, extinctions, and human health concerns. Carbon is just one of those negative side-effects.
I believe that a large carbon tax, even if offset, will have the same result as it did in Europe: economic stagnation. This will mean that there is less money to construct nuclear power stations, so it undermines your entire proposal.
Jack, I will have to read the other two works cited here but provisionally this looks like a solid suggestion. I also suggested a similar approach of eliminating subsidies and imposing a carbon tax.
Human material progress, all of the advancement that made life possible, require energy.
Energy is what powers civilizations, our collective social supercomputer. There is so much we can do with energy abundance.