Robert McCullough writes third antinuclear op-ed piece this month

 

Photo Columbia Nuclear Power Station via Tri-City Herald

Here we go again. First McCullough gets an op-ed in the SeattleTimes. Next, he posted essentially the same thing in an op-ed in the Oregonian, which was rebutted by the operator of the nuclear power station, and now, the Oregonian gives him yet another op-ed, where, for the most part, he repeats the same rebutted arguments for a third time.

We should all cross our fingers that McCullough does not get hired by an anti-airliner organization (in addition to the antinuclear organization that already commissioned him) to tell airlines how to run their business. Think about it. A jet airliner uses turbines to move passengers in a similar way that solar thermal, natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear power stations use turbines to make electricity.

The operating costs certainly are not the same for an aging 747 and a brand new 737. But there are very good reasons why a given airline will keep its aging fleet of 747s. Based on the simple cost of operation and maintenance, McCullough might tell an airline operator to retire its older 747s. But do you really think he would know better than the airline operator (or grid operator)? Not a chance. He's a hardcore antinuclear economist using smoke and mirrors to attack one of the biggest sources of low carbon energy in the state.

"As I write this response, the on-peak prices for electricity in fiscal year 2021 is $31.30/megawatt-hour (MWh) and the off-peak price is $25.05/MWh [note that wind receives a $23.00/MWh subsidy]. The Columbia Generating Station's cost forecast for December 2021 is $49.60/MWh."

I'm a big fan of solar, but as I write, the world's cheapest unsubsidized solar photovoltaic power price in very sunny Texas is purportedly $57.10/MWh,⁽¹⁾ 15% higher than the Columbia Generating station. In general. PG&E paid $200.00/MWh for electricity from the Ivanpah solar thermal power station last summer.⁽²⁾ Why isn't McCullough calling for their closure?

Mark Jacobson thinks a desert ecosystem usurped by mirrors is a beautiful thing

Photo Ivanpah Solar Thermal via US Fish and Wildlife Service

I disagree.

  

Above is Jacobson's Twitter response to my comment: "...what is beautiful about displacing natural desert ecosystems with mirrors?" Below is my response:

Bird scorched by Ivanpah solar thermal power station

 Sources:

http://solarindustrymag.com/update-nrg-confirms-cause-of-fire-at-ivanpah-solar-planthttp://solarindustrymag.com/update-nrg-confirms-cause-of-fire-at-ivanpah-solar-plant

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/business/energy-environment/a-big-solar-plant-opens-facing-doubts-about-its-future.html

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/IER-Testimony-Solar-Projects-on-BLM-Lands-1.pdf

Update 7/17/2016 below:

Mark responded with a pointless remark and got one back:

The term "Twitter debate" is an oxymoron (i.e, you can't debate someone using Twitter). Attempts to use it for debate would make good material for a modern Monty Python skit not unlike the classic Department of Arguments skit:

Our future is in low carbon energy, not just green (whatever that means) energy

Columbia Nuclear Generating Station in Washington State

 Cross-posted to Energy Trends Insider.

Robert McCullough has an Op-Ed in the Seattle Times titled "Our future is in green energy not aging, costly nuclear plants" that rebuts an earlier Op-Ed by James Moss supporting Washington State's single nuclear power station. McCullough:

"I read James Moss’ recent Op-Ed with interest and some amusement. The interest reflects whether Washington’s aging and very expensive nuclear plant is a good use for our energy dollars. Moss is doing a good job for his union constituents and takes a position I normally support. Sadly, we may not be on the same side regarding the costs."

I read Robert McCullogh's Op-Ed above with interest and some amusement.

We recently reviewed the cost and value data for our Northwest clients and found that ...

Which got me to wondering who these Northwest clients might be? Neither the Times article nor the study he references says. But based on the Wikipedia article about this power station, I'm pretty sure I know who it is:

In December 2013, Robert McCullough, ... published an analysis of the economics of Columbia Generating Station commissioned by Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group that advocates eliminating the use of nuclear power.

Shouldn't the Times have divulged that information so readers would know he was being paid by a well-known antinuclear energy group? And don't let the group's name (Physicians for Social Responsibility), which is an argument from authority, fool you. It would be a big mistake to ask a physician to fix your brakes. I'm married to a physician. I know a lot of physicians. Physicians don't know any more about nuclear energy than any other lay person ...maybe less.

His antinuclear bias is further exposed by his repetition of old, dog-eared, antinuclear talking points. Below I will show you where he isn't being completely accurate with us using my tried and true (and mostly arbitrary) veracity score system with a rating of ten defined as a cold hard fact all the way down to one, which can be defined in any number of colorful ways.

Did Climate Change Drive the Bramble Cay Melomys to Extinction? Probably

Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola)

Credit Ian Bell/Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

 Melomys Rubicola has been declared extinct. Had it been something like a fuzzy koala or panda instead of a rat, the world might have taken more notice, but maybe not. A Google search on the topic goes over 20 pages deep. This seems to have struck a nerve.

It's possible that an undiscovered genetically identical population exists somewhere else. It's not unheard of for a species declared extinct to show up again. But if it has been on that tiny island off the coast of Papua New Guinea long enough for speciation to occur, then it is extinct because to repopulate someplace else a pregnant female would have needed to leave the island and establish itself elsewhere, and that is extremely unlikely.

There have been some dubious claims of extinctions caused by climate change, as one would expect, and I'm sure there will be many more. But little by little, the real extinctions will arrive.

 

I poked around on the internet for critiques of this announcement and found three, two of which were not worth bothering with (one confused the ozone problem with climate change) so I settled on the one at Energy Matters, which is an excellent blog and on my regular reading list. The analysis provided on this particular topic is characteristically thorough but not thorough enough to convince me.

Roger Andrews found that there has not been an increase in the number or intensity of cyclones in that area since 1969. He also looked up the tide gauge records for the area since 2000 and created a crude best fit line through it to determine that the ocean level in that part of the world may have only risen maybe 2.5 inches since 2000. His conclusion was that because the highest point on this island is about nine feet (even with the seasonal fifteen inch increase in sea level rise during cyclone season) sea level rise since 2000 would not have made much difference. And according to the authors' explanation, he's right. Temperature changes are likely the main driver, not sea level rise.

So there you have it. The demise of Melomys rubicola had nothing to do with temperature, rainfall or sea level rise. The animal was a victim of storm surges that progressively destroyed its habitat.

This is where Andrew lost me. The researchers are the ones who stated that Melomys rubicola was the victim of repeated storm surges over the last decade that progressively destroyed its habitat. Given time, this is how it will end for other island species.

No evidence – not even a climate model – is presented to support the claim that these storm surges had anything to do with increasing atmospheric CO2.

But the report does present evidence. Keeping in mind that CO2 levels not seen for 800,000 years have led to warmer temperatures which have in turn led to rates of ocean level increase not seen in millennia (all three of which are measured, not modeled) and contrary to the tidal and cyclone data presented by Andrew, the repeated storm surges at that island over the last decade were obviously severe enough to eventually wipe them out after having been there for at least 1.7 centuries.

Seattle City Council Takes a Stand Against Nuclear Energy

Last year I wrote an article about the failed attempt to mandate biofuel consumption by the Governor of Washington State. To me his failure was an example of why two party political systems work better than one party systems. Bad ideas from either party (and they can both come up with some really stupid ideas) have a tougher time being implemented than good ideas.

An example of this was the Seattle biodiesel craze which came and went. The biodiesel gas stations that had sprung up have all but disappeared along with the once ubiquitous smoke belching Jettas and their biodiesel bumper stickers. Not unlike new hydroelectric dams, existing biofuel technology continues to ravage ecosystems and displace local inhabitants around the world. The genie was let out of the bottle but at least it has been largely, to date, contained here in Seattle.

 Columbia Nuclear Generating Station

In place of biofuel enthusiasts, Seattle now has a member of the antinuclear tribe on the council. So, here we go again:

The measure was sponsored by Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, who on Tuesday called the resolution a step forward in “taking a stand against nuclear energy.”

James Conca over on Forbes is not a happy camper and I don't blame him. You can read about it here: