The U.S. federal Government owns 75% of our nation's electric power lines. In other words, American's own these power lines as U.S. Assets. We elect officials to administrate these Assets.
The U.S. Federal Government produces approximately 10% of our nation's electricity. This means that our U.S. Federal Government, may, and has the right to produce portions of electricity of the other 65% of our nation's electric energy to protect government rates, and ours, since they have an electric cost as well that we all must pay for. Further, this would protect against competitive market increases on our own electric power lines. If not, this is like you competing with yourself to raise your rates. Foolish. Communist, socialist, state run? Not hardly, we elect our officials with the intent to administrate our electric generation and transmission assets, and to provide electricity and energy for all our citizens in terms of cost, availability, and efficiencies. This includes testifying, to approve rates, tariffs, schedules, under laws of corporate and public governance. We do not have millions of generators competing with each other to always raise your rates, (a better rate of return for them) because they can generate electricity. Our rates are based on "Avoided Fuel" and "Avoided Energy", (attractive fuel supply or out-sourced offset cost) and all other additional Utility Cost, (...unless of course, you can beat current utility costs, bringing rates down to consumers and passing those savings on to their/your rate payers and shareholders... ) otherwise, examined by testimony in front of Utility Districts and/or Public Utility Commissions for audit, and sometimes prosecuted, unlike a novel patent, to protect rate payers and investors against abuse and fraud. ENRON learned this lesson the hard way against the banks that financed them and the employees that trusted them. It'll be difficult to fool those banks twice.
Here are a few examples of government electric power generation that produced energy and electricity to support, supply, build, and furnish industrial regional energy growth economies, owned by U.S. citizens. And until deregulation, these public/government utilities were restricted from selling their/our energy and electricity at fair market rates. In other words, these government utilities subsidized the electricity generated and wheeled that electricity to publicly traded utility companies, that didn't have to invest in electric power facilities that generated this electricity, (While the laws then prohibited fair market rates to be paid to our federally owned utilities, restricted from fair market rates that would have provided a fair return on our investments, crippling our revenues.) while passing more attractive returns on our investments, and revenues, onto the pubicly traded companies, and, which generated wonderful revenues to pass on to their shareholders, which in turn said, thank you. It's no wonder that ENRON purchased PGE, as one example, prior to deregulation, hedging the attractivness of the government generated electricity, and energy cost(s), against a non-competitive electric supplier that can't compete with market returns, that made this investment "difficult to pass up." Worse, when ENRON failed they took the pension fund that was supposed to be invested for their PGE employees, many of whom worked for decades to save, and washed their investment away by financial creditor defaults. Leaving PGE's employees to start all over again to rebuild their savings for their families. Who lost? Rate payers and employees.
Whom has also lost and paid the price for many years as the hedging financial attractivness, that had once swormed around them grew? Homely Uncle Sam, in a sharp suit. It's very difficult to sell energy and electricity to a utility company that is broke.
You are the real catalyst of our future energy reliance. Even on rainy days, and when the wind doesn't blow.
We have about 1/4 century to place our future energy infrastructure on the ground.
One loses approximately 10% of the energy and electricity on electric power transmission lines, per 100 miles, transmitting the energy and electricity, do to voltage drop - line resistance.
Relying on private load shift management concerning Wind, Solar, or any form of energy, in terms of liabilities and "national energy security reliability," is out of the question. And in terms of "Fixed & Firm" baseload capacity, one may wish to study up, a bit.
You can't recycle nuclear-waste-fuel in the private sector, it doesn't matter who you are. So unless a person becomes a government, not to worry. Government's are the only entities that are legally allowed to recycle nuclear waste, that is, for the 189 countries that participate at this time. (Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1977, and later amendments and ratifications.) This does not restrict the government(s) from selling the recycled nuclear waste converted to electricity and energy at bulk market rates to their/our customers.
"35 years of cost effective recoverable oil remaining."
"If the U.S. had to rely solely on its own known oil reserves for its supply, without oil imports, the U.S. would run out in seven years at our current consumptive use rate." Dr. Ron Nielsen estimates "three years" depending on complexities. OPEC has about 492 years of remaining oil if they don't sell their oil. 40 years, if they do.
Our Federal Government owns its own unused nuclear waste fuel if recycled. Do you think this nuclear waste fuel will be utilized, or just piled up? We hope it will, or we'll be much more foolish than those whom created this waste. Our U.S. Federal Government has, as known or unknown, nuclear waste fuel from storage accessibility of 3,000 years waiting to be utilized. This would assist with earning future revenues, and technology transfers, that are completely underutilized, and, without additional taxes. And in fact, offer a more attractive return on investment for U.S. Electric Utility Companies. U.S. electric utility companies are always operating with the best possible return on their investments.
Utilities future capital reserve margins are internally supposed to be governed as such, when appropriate corporate governance is applied. Their future capital reserve margins are assessed to examine their fuel cost(s), generation, displacement, replacement, retirement of facilities, ongoing environmental effects and decommissioning, all operational expenses, including employee and executive compensation, and, a return on shareholders equity... Electric utility companies Can Not compete with free fuel. Nor, can they compete with generators that do not need to provide a return on shareholders equity. Huge cost savings at-load, especially concerning the utility's costs of on-site(s) storage of nuclear waste, and their future transport disposition of, and at, stock-piles.
Electric utility companies can, and do, purchase electricity early, to provide for sources that can, and will, generate electricity more financially attractive than they can produce internally, concerning, [future], standard or negotiated power sales agreement(s), contract(s) underwriting. In other words, they can, and do, pay Early, providing capital to construct generating facilities that provide a better return on investment into the future for generated electricity, long-term. Again, in other words, the Federal Government could be paid early, (Early Levelised payments) to generate electricity into the future, providing the U.S. Federal Government with capital to construct additional "Firm & Fixed Baseload Capacity", while saving the electric utilities future capital operational expenses.
A brand new market expansion is suppose to be built and prepared to provide for additional electricity to service the electric recharge capability for future electric vehicles needed for transportation. This is very important involving the transfer of consumed btu heat values, burned, and derived from fossil fuels, transferred to clean burning nuclear waste. Some claim that existing electric generation can provide enough electricity for battery electric vehicles. That would violate the laws of physics. One can not just simply remove the btu heat value currently combusted in passenger vehicles and expect zero net btu energy to replace it, be it coal, gas, biofuels, nuclear, etc.... If that were so, we wouldn't have needed fossil burning fuels for the last few decades, would we? Both, IGCC, a cleaner gas and coal burning technology, [confused, and, misnamed as clean coal] which can and will provide future transitional revenues from our future consumptive use demand growth, and, Advanced Liquid Metal Reactors, which are considered cutting edge, will assist now, or later, as alternatives are somewhat more dim. These do provide direct cost advantages when you include future waste removals and reductions, if that matters beyond short sighted return on investments, get and go, returns. Everyone wants to reduce our CO2 atmospheric concentrations and these would most definitely assist with this. Nuclear recycling will also assist with reducing nuclear waste production by 99 times our current nuclear facilities production, making its way into storage, postponing immediate storage at-repository costs, while advancing in-country fuel supply reserves to meet future demand, growth, and jobs. Otherwise, current and future nuclear waste storage will not generate revenues, the waste will simply continue to pile up.
Fusion, sure, in about 100 years when the nuclear waste stockpiles have been reduced, if fusion is ever needed within the next few centuries, or during the next 3,000 years. Nuclear fusion development is designed to produce an additional method of energy and electricity, and no one can argue with this. We can also grow forests to produce charcoal to be utilized as a water filtration media, or not, GAC (Granular Activated Carbon), and then burn it in power plants, and, start harvesting trees for fuel much cheaper than coal mining and gas extractions. Why heck, matter of fact we could produce fuel from 1,400 organics in non-cost effective ways, and just about make everybody angry. But seriously, it's not about creating more fuel than we already have available, this is about utilizing our waste that is stock piled, and with current technology, utilizing it. (Fusion - Hydrogen to Helium: reaction or detonation; has been achieved decades ago, and produces a temperature of approximately 100 million degrees kelvin, and, shock~waves.) However, the current and future nuclear waste without recycling would still remain an undesirable condition, and an exponential future troublesome burden.
Nuclear recycling in affect, would provide attractive future power sales contract agreements, with an insured guarantee rate of return, (Avoided Fuel and Avoided Energy Cost Rate that customers already pay.) to provide for future capital growth and a return on the [so] invested energy dollars financed and underwritten with a more attractive return on investment... The energy, of course, may be sold at a slight bulk market discount to accomplish even more interest by the provisioning electric generator's, at market, and offset, attractively, against their operating costs. This, without having to provide a return on shareholders equity, federal and state workers aren't direct shareholders which is a huge cost savings, and, if not, so be it. Don't expect the utilities to ever consider the federal government's right to earn revenues from our federally owned nuclear waste stockpile assets. Generally utilities see any other generator or utility as a competitor. However, with a slight and fair adjustment, investment banks can assist the utilities and our government when new nuclear waste fuels become available for real energy growth. This would also hold down rates for consumers, utilities, and our federal and state governments, they have an electric bill too... Investment bankers will not usually mention these type of proposed financial advancements regarding negotiating future electric technology transfers, and the risk obligations, outside of their competitive electric generation source markets, although they have the expertise. Now you know.
Wind & Solar
Wind and PV (photovoltaic) solar are not firm and fixed baseload electric capacity in terms of national reliability and security electric generation, nor, will they probably ever meet this demand without massive unit over building. Simply, neither are considered without, first, investing in large electric storage additional capacity of non-generating storage units. Electric battery or molten salt storage does not generate any additional electric energy, they just simply store the electricity or thermal energy requiring additional solar, and or, PV-thermal, array or windmill, area which must be added for storage bank electric conversions for later use. And when further undesirable conditions such as no wind, night, and bad weather days occur, the planned electric generation units are non-generating assessed "gross" liabilities...
To make matters worse: The U.S. has an area of 3,794,620 sq miles, and 6.76% is water, or, 256,481 sq miles. Leaving 2,264,076,800 land acres. To replace our current national electric generation of 4,125,060,000 annual megawatt hours generated, (11,301,534 megawatt hours per day, or, 470,897 megawatts generated per hour, averaged) would require more than 2,825,382 acres of PV solar, per hour at-load. This is before additional storage capacity, any efficiency losses, voltage drop, and under ideal weather conditions. BP Solar's PV per-megawatt installed cost in 2001, before land and other capital costs, such as borrowing the money, was $6 million per-installed-megawatt. This would require, at least, an $8.4 trillion USD investment for the PV solar panels, interconnection, and their expertise before any land and other associated costs. Also, if you consume the 8 +/- hours of generated solar electric energy you would have no electricity to store. This, of course, would require you to build 3 times the solar collection land surface area, for the other 16 hours of the day into storage batteries. At minimum, to replace U.S. averaged megawatt hour generated production, at-load, would require 1,412,691 megawatts per-hour of concentrated generated solar electricity during daylight hours, and at-peak, under "ideal sunny conditions!", of which two thirds would be going into storage batteries. Additionally, this would also require 8,476,146 acres of U.S. land surface, or, 1 acre of every 267 U.S. land acres (2.39 acres of every land square mile) for solar collection in terms of replacing the 2010 U.S. annual electric generation. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/tablees1.pdf
Most photovoltaic arrays require about 5 to 6 acres per megawatt. (Some claim as little as 4.5 acres, and, probably so.) California is utilizing approximately 10 acres per-installed solar megawatt. Electric storage acres are also not included in the above mentioned land area demand, at-load, for such electric and energy delivery transmitted, and interconnections. And, since one losses approximately 10% of the electricity per-one-hundred miles (if not HVDC) transmitting electric energy do to voltage drop, line resistance, you can imagine the additional solar collection required to shore-up voltage drop enhancements, and for providing the additional future electric vehicle and industrial electric capacity infrastructure. If we generate 6 hours per-day of peak solar electric power, (Within 3 hours, before and after, of peak generation, and, while consuming all the available solar electric generation) at the same rate we're drawing this energy down, as mentioned above, we would have no additional electricity to store. (The financial officer's duh factor.) We must provide for the additional 18 hours of available solar electric collection of needed electricity which must be generated, and, storage to meet our 24/7 electric consumptive use demand requirements, without load service interruption. This may also explain why Manhattan, New York, with 63,000 people living within each square mile, do not rely on wind or PV solar placed on their skyscrapers to light their buildings as well, and lift their elevators. Many others have said that if you can not convince Wall Street... well you get the picture. (And under their ideal weather conditions.)
There does seem to be promise with utilizing molten salt as a heat medium storage system, as has been demonstrated to perform more closely with standard coal and gas fired combustion unit efficiencies. There are currently planned and under construction such approved power island, block, developments and demonstration. This is an excellent demonstration and development power generation facility of this most important thermal solar innovation at work now. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/22/first-large-scale-247-solar-plant-to-be-constructed-in-u-s/
"Wikipedia" "The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. New studies show that calcium nitrate could be included in the salts mixture to reduce costs and with technical benefits. The salt melts at 220 °C (430 °F) and is kept liquid at 290 °C (550 °F) in an insulated storage tank. The uniqueness of this solar system is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. Normally tanks are well insulated and can store energy for up to a week. As an example of their size, tanks that provide enough thermal storage to power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 9 m (30 ft) tall and 24 m (80 ft) in diameter."
Electricity and energy is sold and dispatched in order of cost, from cheapest to more expensive, and it that order. Intending to conserve energy comes with a cost to utilities and rate payers assessed across many years of an additional capacity electric generation investment. Simply, utilities invest in generation and future generation with an expected cost to generate their, and your, needed electric demand. If their assessment and investment is accurate their revenue and capital growth will be productive. If extreme electric conservation efforts are utilized by customers the effected utilities earn less revenue. In other words, devaluing the investment which has been placed to provide electricity for its customers. Such is the case in the Northwest United States in the mid 1970's. Three nuclear power plants were closed early because of an oil embargo which caused their customers to conserve more electricity than they normally would have. These utilities were off in their future, over projections, of electric demand growth by 93% while the three nuclear power plants were under construction. However, the cost of closing these facilities and the payments for those investments continued for many years devaluing their energy investments. It's no wonder when gasoline prices are high, that families attempting to save money, begin reducing their electric bill because they can't control their cost for gasoline. Accurate assessments of future demand along with the most efficient long term operational analysis, regarding the return on the electric and energy investment, conservatively, will always be the right approach while protecting rate payers and utilities.
Competing intermittent energy alternatives should not be confused with the eccentricity of wealthy private generators that can produce electricity on a large scale when available, with the rate payers consuming public energy to meet their consumptive use demand. Privately, most alternatives consume public electricity when their intermittent alternative is operating at a non-generating output. Lucky for them, they have an alternative, whereby, others have invested collectively by paying their rates to provide electric power for them and their neighbors.