For those who advocate nuclear power, it is important to recognize the economics. Based on the most recent analysis I have seen from Duke University, electricity from a new nuclear power plant is now more expensive than solar power, and would take a minimum of ten years to build. Regardless of how you feel about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation issues, or fears of melt-downs, solar is cheaper than nukes. No one will build a nuke without massive federal subsidies and market guarantees, because every financial analyst who does the math says the same thing, it is too expensive.
Jim Kotcon
Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com 1/28/2011 10:38 AM >>>
So here's a debate I got into last night: would you prefer natural gas or nuclear?
From what I gather, if fugitive emissions were captured and all the
best technology put in place, gas would be twice as clean as coal? It's just that that's currently not the case. I'm with Frank on the support for regulation.
*Nicole
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Frank Young fyoung@mountain.net wrote:
Solution: capture the would be fugitive emissions of methane! And
after
all, once captured, those too are marketable.
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com *To:* James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com
;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee McCarty lesleemac1@frontier.com ;
Nicole
Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com ; ec@osenergy.org ; Mary@yahoo.com *Sent:* Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells
greater
thanpreviously reported.
Makes one wondr about all the media stories that contain the
seemingly
obligatory reference that "natural gas is much cleaner than coal."
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
*From:* James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu *To:* dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee
McCarty <
lesleemac1@frontier.com>; Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com *Sent:* Thu, January 27, 2011 12:26:24 PM *Subject:* [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater
than
previously reported.
The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the story
may
be a couple months old by now. It suggests that methane emissions
from
Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously estimated.
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas
as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
More available at:
http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doub...
The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) was apparently released in November and is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf
In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to
the
emissions factors. Those referencing "unconventional wells"
represent
some changes that are truly astronomical. If each Marcellus well is,
in
fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they
hydro-frack,
then that makes them significant sources of emissions.
Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at the site below:
http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-g...
I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game changer for the natural gas industry. It certainly changes the game
on
the Wetzel air permit appeal.
Jim Kotcon
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec