Category Archives: funny

Georgia Power and The Southern Companies Make A Huge Mistake – Nuclear power is expensive

Posted on by
Reply

I feel sorry for the electric customers in Georgia. While everyone else in the nation is busy implementing the new Carbonless Economy or going green; Georgia Power is going (pick a color, say) BLACK. With estimated cost ranges of 4 – 8 billion $$, are they, what (?), shocked they got no bids. You can see the future in your little 8 Ball…Let’s see, cost overruns, construction delays, and by the time it comes to fuel it – no uranium. Alberta just banned the mining of it. Australia is on its way to doing the same. Australia has seen the future and it is Hot Rocks. Drilling down to the Earth’s core. Not putting hot rocks in a reactor.

 http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/05/05/daily56.html?ana=from_rss

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Georgia Power nuclear proposal rolls along

Atlanta Business Chronicle

eorgia Power reported Wednesday it has garnered no bids from its 2016-2017 base load capacity request for proposals.

Two weeks ago, it signed an engineering, procurement and construction contract with Westinghouse Electric Co. and The Shaw Group Inc.‘s Power Group. At that time, Georgia Power said it would submit a nuclear self-build option for consideration. Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) rules require market bids to be compared with self-build proposals, but no market bids were received, Georgia Power said.

Georgia Power, a unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), said the self-build nuclear proposal will be reviewed by the Georgia PSC’s independent evaluator before the company submits a final recommendation to the Georgia PSC on Aug. 1 for approval. A final certification decision is expected in March 2009.

If certified by the Georgia PSC and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the two Westinghouse AP1000 units, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each, would be built at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site near Waynesboro, Ga., and would be placed in service in 2016 and 2017.

“Demand for electricity continues to grow in the Southeast and in Georgia,” said Mike Garrett, Georgia Power president and CEO. “While we will continue to increase our emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, we must also add large-scale base load generation to meet growing energy needs. While nuclear power plants cost more to build, they now have lower fuel and operating costs than fossil fuel plants. Nuclear energy would add needed diversity to Georgia Power’s fuel mix at a time when fossil fuel prices are increasing significantly.”


:}

Once you decide to be bad, I guess you might as well be very bad:

:}

http://www.cleanenergy.org/takeAction/detail.cfm?ID=65

WHY THE GEORGIA PSC SHOULD REQUIRE GEORGIA POWER TO PUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AS A TOP PRIORITY:

  • Energy efficiency and renewable energy protect against increasing fossil fuel and natural gas prices
  • Hedge against energy supply shortages and disruptions
  • Avoid a growing dependence on natural gas
  • Reduce harmful air pollution and excessive water usage
  • Create local energy markets and increase employment
  • Avoid the high costs of building new conventional electric supplies.

Our Energy Security and Reliability is at Stake.

Currently, most of the energy used to power our homes and businesses comes from outside Georgia and the Southeast. There are no petroleum, natural gas, or uranium mines and reserves in the Southeast. According to the Energy Information Administration, Georgia’s electric power sector spent approximately $1.5 billion buying out of state coal and natural gas in 2003.(1)

Businesses and the Public Pay the Heavy Price.

Georgia and its utilities lag behind much of the country in investments in energy efficiency.  There is a lot of wasted energy that all utility customers must pay for when the utility builds more transmission lines and power plants than are necessary.  As fuel costs increase, consumers pay even more for this wasted energy.

Air Quality and Human Health Suffer.

Our current energy supply causes a great deal of damage to our health. Here are a few examples of the effects:

  • Soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxides are created from fossil fuel plants and engines.  These can harm children’s lung development and lead to asthma attacks, heart attacks and stroke.
  • Coal fired power plants release air-borne mercury that ends up in lakes, rivers and streams.  Neurological damage is linked with eating mercury-laden fish.
  • Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is produced at all nuclear reactors, acts like water in the body and can pass across the placenta to affect a developing fetus.

Water for Coal and Nuclear Plants Competes with Cities, Businesses and Farms.

Coal and nuclear power plants are heavy water users.  In 2001 nuclear Plant Vogtle used approximately 64 million gallons of water a day from the Savannah River and only returned 21 million gallons per day.  Coal plant Scherer withdrew 59 million gallons of water a day from Lake Juliette (2).  These and other fossil fuel and nuclear plants compete with local industries—from the carpet industries of Dalton to the peach growers in Tifton—for much needed water.  The burden that our energy system places on the state’s water supplies will become even more severe if Georgia Power’s proposed plans for new power plants are carried out.

GEORGIA’S UTILITY REVIEW PROCESS:

Georgia law requires that Georgia Power submit an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) every three years for approval. The PSC is charged to review the company’s plan and to approve it or require revisions.

The centerpiece of the Georgia Power plan:

  • Build new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta which would divert massive amounts of water away from the Savannah River, competing with other needs, as well as create more radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of safely; 
  • Expand and upgrade its transmission lines to support several new power plants and increased electricity demand;
  • Build a new gas pipeline through properties from Union City to Smyrna.

The secondary part of the plan includes:

  • Minimal energy efficiency measures through “pilot programs” with limited investment;
  • Develop only about 200 MW of new renewable energy that amounts to less than 1% of Georgia Power’s current energy capacity (most of the company’s “green power” is currently landfill gas).

To view Georgia Power’s proposed plan and responses by independent experts, go to http://www.psc.state.ga.us/ (enter #24505 in the docket search box, and view documents filed on Jan. 31, 2007 by the company and documents filed by other parties on May 4 and May 7). 

Weird Bird Friday – Thanks Harry

Posted on by
Reply

My Friend Harry Haynes likes Weird Bird Friday and he sent this obviously photoshopped image. Its funny so TGI(WB)F.

 duckattack.jpeg

:}

As always dedicated to Susan Kay and John Martin who blog about all things Denver and are listed in our Blogroll. It is a widely kept secret that they are expert Flautists who entertain small poor children in Boulder on the weekends. Way to go!

:}

Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

Posted on by
Reply

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

  
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

Why The Petroleum Industry Continues To Lie To The Public

Posted on by
Reply

I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything! Bart Simpson 

Spokesmen like Sykuta want to act like they are the experts and they know it all. So when they shovel a bunch of BS the public is supposed to go, “OH ok”.  Accepting the BS as if it were the truth. Notice he is not talking about oil prices, he is talking about gasoline prices. The real shocker in this piece is how quickly tosses oil off.

** The biggest factor in gasoline prices, almost 58 percent, is the cost of crude oil. Crude oil prices are skyrocketing, but only recently at inflation adjusted highs. There are several reasons:

—  Domestic demand, especially for diesel.
—  Red-hot worldwide demand, especially in China and India.
—  The historically low value of the U.S. dollar.
—  Civil/political strife in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran.

These factors have tightened worldwide supply significantly. Continued economic growth, which is directly tied to increased energy use, exerts further upward pressure on crude oil prices. Like it or not, local prices are directly tied to the world market and can’t be controlled by U.S. companies.  Exxon controls a miniscule .62 percent of worldwide reserves, and BP accounts for only 3.42 percent of oil production.

:}

So the first thing to say is he is going to make the falacious arguement that oil is only a small part of the gasoline prices, but then sites gasoline usage as a part of the problem…eg. increased domestic diesel usage what isn’t diesel gasoline? GOD

His second arguement is that The Petroleum Companies don’t own the oil we just buy it. Yah and you pay WHATEVER the sellers ask, no matter what and then pass the costs to us. What would happen to the oil market if one time just one time you guys said, “Thats too much. Sell it to someone else.” Instead they are clamboring for more 130$$ oil to be pumped into the ground in a salt dome in Louisiana (better know as the Strategic Reserve).

However his arguement essentially is if wasn’t for all the things that happen after we get a barrel of oil then prices would be cheaper. If you buy his original premise that oil is only 58% of the price of gas…then gas should go for under 2$$ a gallon. Think about how silly that is. Let’s see, when oil was 60$$ a barrel gas prices were 2$$ a gallon and now that oil is at 128$$ a barrel it’s 4$$. But the huge increase in oil prices which is largely due to speculaters in the Futures Market (or if you believe Peak Oil – because we are running out of oil) has nothing to do with it. Get real.

Ok, so what about increase in demand for domestic diesel. Everyone know that increases in price decreases consumption. This is true of truck drivers as well. They are slowing down and taking more direct routes. So we have to mark this one as UNTRUE.

 The “red hot” India and China Markets? Look, when a 1/4 of the world’s oil is tied up in the futures market everyone is fighting over oil but it has no direct relationship to India’s or China’s increase in imports. Even the Saudia’s who are known liars have said repeatedly that there is enough oil on the market. That oil isn’t making being made into gasoline. Add to that the fact that the refineries are reportedly running at 85% capacity. So we mark this one as UNTRUE. 

Next up the Weakened Dollar. Well well well, and who is responsible for that? Dare we say the Geniuses on Wall Street many of whom are oil company Executives. So much so that, again the Saudies and Dubai had to step in and supply billions of dollars in liquidity. And it still wasn’t enough. Top that off with the debt from a war started by an Oilman over Oil and  what exactly do they expect? Mark this one as UNTRUE.

Finally there is the world famous “unstable producers”. Whose fault is that? Oil companies cut deals with Dictators to get oil and they are suprised when “instabilities” occur. NO WAY.

More later:
:}

Weird Bird Friday – Another fallen angel

Posted on by
Reply

Yet another bird gone bad: TGI(WB)F!

angel2.bmp

This as always dedicated to John Martin and Susan Kay of the Denver area who for years have collected antique muscle cars and have a collection rivaling  Jay Leno’s….though they drive their cars in competition unlike the wuss that Leno has become.

Weird Bird Friday – This is an intriquing idea

Posted on by
Reply

Todays Darker Side celebrates the fallen weird bird. My friend Harry Haynes wrote me to say that he had seen his guardian angel and he was excited. I said what are you talking about. He sent this back. All I can say is TGI(WB)F.!

angel.bmp

http://www.commentfarm.com/viewcomment.aspx?id=37d6d8d2-34c7-44cb-9ab1-ae1f2d1f02d1

allpoetry.com/contest/2357268

http://www.avatarcorner.com/avatar-drinking-angel-9050.htm

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

Posted on by
2

People who tout Nukes as the Future take for granted that there is fuel out there.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421123231.htm

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study.

    In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel’s environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say. “These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”
 

Don’t believe me? What about the guys and gals at MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080201furber-warf-plotkin.php

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

The following article on “The Future of Nuclear Power” by Robert D. Furber, James C. Warf, and Sheldon C. Plotkin, scientists with a long history of addressing this issue, seeks to lay bare the realities of nuclear power. Although much more difficult to read than the typical MR article, we encourage all of our readers to study it closely. Its conclusion?: “any building of new [nuclear] plants would be a serious mistake….the future of nuclear power, as we know it, is very poor at best.”

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth, generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.—Ed.

:}
:}

Weird Bird Friday! I believe I feel Arty today

Posted on by
Reply

TGI(WB)F!

The Work of Michael D. Smith, actually intitled:

The Strange Birds Are Back:

http://www.uptownwebs.com/images/13inWow%20Look%20at%20the%20Strange%20birds.jpg

artbird3.jpg

This as always dedicated to Sir John Martin and the loyal Susan Kay. Most people don’t know that John was knighted by the Queen for his efforts to elevate higher education higher. He has worked for years with Brigham Young University to develop curricula for a modern Mormanism such as Poligamy and How to Hide It, My Young Son My Lover, and the counter intuitive, My Son My Accuser (or it was just a bad dream defense). As I said Susan is Loyal. For their Blog please see the bottom of the CES’ Blogroll, not because we don’t like them but because they were the first one we ever added and we would love to have them at the top…I am such a bad blogger I don’t know how to do it…sigh.

Amerin and Commonwealth Edison’s Energy Conservation Programs – soooo 1980’s

Posted on by
Reply

I know that this post is about 2 months 2 late. But when these programs were announced, I eh yaaaaawned. Why is it that Illinois is mired in the past? These programs were all the rage in the 1980’s. Most intelligent utilities established them in the 1990’s. OH never mind…

February 22, 2008 Business section, the State Journal Register:

http://www.sj-r.com

Utilities offering incentives to cut power usage


 

By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

That old refrigerator could be worth $35 this summer. Provided it was made prior to 1993.

A refrigerator-recycling program is among a laundry list of consumer incentives that will

be offered in Illinois starting June 1 to encourage reduced power usage. The state’s two

 largest utilities, Ameren and ComEd, both were required to submit the plans as part of a

 $1 billion rate-relief package approved by legislators and the gover­nor last year.

Ameren customers will pay on average another 36 cents a month to cover the cost of the

 programs, according to the utility.

“The idea is to reduce usage during the periods of peak demand,” said Beth Bosch of the

Illinois Com­merce Commission, which just approved energy-savings programs for both

Ameren and ComEd in Chicago.

Last year’s rate-relief plan resulted after power bills for some consumers doubled and

tripled with the lifting of a 10-year freeze on rates Jan. 1, 2007. The freeze was part of a 1997

utility reform bill intend­ed to encourage more compe­tition in Illinois power mar­kets.

As part of the rate-relief package, the utilities were re­quired to devise incentive programs

for reducing cus­tomer use.

The 13 energy-saving meas­ures in the Ameren program range from refrigerator recy­cling

to a voluntary initiative that would allow the utility to remotely switch off residential central-air

units for a few minutes during peak demand.

Large industrial customers have long had the option of interruptible service.

Florida was among the early states to set up volun­tary interruption-of-service programs

for residential elec­tric customers, said David Ko-lata, executive director of the Citizens Utility

Board, a Chicago-based consumer ad­vocacy group.

CUB also played a key role in devising last year’s rate-re­lief plan.

“The way these programs work, is when prices get real­ly high, you cycle the air con­ditioner

off for 15 minutes (each hour). The consumer usually gets paid $20 to $30 a year so the utility

 has that op­tion,” Kolata said.

He called the energy-sav­ing programs a “good start,” but said CUB also remains concerned

that utilities are largely responsible for imple­menting the programs.

Ameren spokesman Leigh Morris said details still must be worked out, including for the

refrigerator recycling. He added that the voluntary in­terruption of service likely would attract

only a small percentage of customers.

“All of these programs are aimed at reducing usage without sacrificing comfort,” Morris said.

Ameren has set a goal of reducing electricity demand equal to the usage of 7,700 single-family

homes in the first year, 23,300 homes in the second year and 46,700 in the third. The utility

just filed a similar energy-savings pro­gram for natural gas cus­tomers, which still must be approved

 by the ICC.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.
:}

CES is underwhelmed.
:}