Rifkin vs Yergin: Who Is Right?

September this year, Daniel Yergin, the founder and chairman of IHS CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), published "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World."
About two weeks later, Jeremy Rifkin, the author of "The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream," published "The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World."
If Daniel Yergin is the Business-As-Usual (shale gas, inevitable nuclear, and cutting-edge renewable energy),

can Jeremy Rifkin be an elitist anti-corporate alternative (distributed renewable energy and smart grids, as planned in Europe)?

Who do you think is right? (Or, are they all wrong?)

If you haven't had a chance to read the books, let us talk about it after watching the videos linked below.

Yergin's interview with UC Berkeley: http://youtu.be/f-KtX9OPtsQ

Rifkin's keynote speech at Canada's Evergreen Brick Works Forum: http://youtu.be/LRl8ki3FH2c

Sources:

Rifkin, J. (2011). The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yergin, D. (2011). The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

What Made South Korea the Saddest Country in the OECD?

In my previous posting, I found South Korea's suicide death rates were the highest in the OECD.
I tried to figure out possible causes of the grim facts.
Among some seemingly suicide-related sad statistics, I found one statistically meaningful evidence.
It is the "wage dispersion" in the country. Wage dispersion is the ratio of the wages of the 10% best-paid workers to those of the 10% least-paid workers.
As you can see from the figure below, the wage dispersion has been increasing over the 15 years' span from 1994 to 2008.


It is highly correlated with South Korea's suicide rates. In a simple linear regression, the square of the correlation coefficient between the two variables was 0.8648.

Then, what is causing the ever-increasing wage dispersion in South Korea? I'll find the answer when I'm free of some duties.

Data sources:
Statistics Korea. (2011). Annual Report on the Cause of Death Statistics. [Data from http://j.mp/Cause_of_Death]

OECD. (2011). Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. [Full-text from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119536-en]

Saddest Countries in OECD

The figure below shows how depressed the OECD countries were in terms of suicide mortality. South Korea, Russia, Hungary, Japan, and Finland were the unhappiest countries in 2009.

Have they been depressed all along? Not really.
Another figure below shows that South Korea's suicide rate was lower than the OECD average in 1995. However, suicide rates in South Korea have been increasing since 1995. This grievous hike in suicide rates in South Korea, the country that doesn't (officially) show major symptoms of economic depression.
What's happening in South Korea?


Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/OECD_Health_2011]

Final Cambridge University Press Version of the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

A few days ago, Cambridge University Press made available online the final book version of the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (aka "SRREN"). It is written by the IPCC's Working Group III and was first published online as an unedited version on June 14, 2011. It is 1076 pages long. I'll take time to read through the report and write a little about it later.

Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., & von Stechow, C. (Eds.). (2012). IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SRREN]

Contents

Section I
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Section II
Summary for Policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Technical Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Section III
Chapter 1 Renewable Energy and Climate Change  . . . . . . . .161
Chapter 2 Bioenergy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
Chapter 3 Direct Solar Energy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .333
Chapter 4 Geothermal Energy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .401
Chapter 5 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .437
Chapter 6 Ocean Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .497
Chapter 7 Wind Energy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .535
Chapter 8 Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and
 Future Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .609
Chapter 9 Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable
 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707
Chapter 10 Mitigation Potential and Costs  . . . . . . . . . .791
Chapter 11 Policy, Financing and Implementation  . . . . . . .865

Section IV
Annex I Glossary, Acronyms, Chemical Symbols and Prefixes  . .953
Annex II Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .973
Annex III Recent Renewable Energy Cost and Performance
 Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Annex IV Contributors to the IPCC Special Report . . . . . . 1023
Annex V Reviewers of the IPCC Special Report . . . . . . . . 1033
Annex VI Permissions to Publish  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059

Employment Rates (NOT Unemployment Rates) in 15 Countries from 2006 to 2010

Previously (on August 9, 2011), I compared unemployment rates of 15 countries.
I think I made a naive comparison. While unemployment rates are calculated by each country using their own methodologies, employment rates give little confusion by being estimated with obvious numbers. The employment rate measures the ratio of employed people in certain age groups. The unemployment comparison graph in the previous post gave me (us) a misguiding impression that certain countries' economies have been well performing while their actual employment rates were not so good, and vice versa.

Today, I am trying to compare "employment rates" of the same 15 countries from 2006 to 2010.

I want to share two figures of employment rates calculated with different methods.

The first figure is made by the OECD. The OECD calculated the employment rates by measuring the ratio of employed people among the population between ages 15 to 64. (In this figure, China's data are missing.)

Data: OECD (2011)

In this figure, we can see how the employment rate estimation tells us a different story from the unemployment rate statistics. High unemployment rates do NOT mean low employment rates. Contrary to an intuitive conception, some countries with low unemployment rates are NOT always showing high employment rates, either.
In the previous post, Iceland's unemployment rate skyrocketed since 2008. However, as we can see from the above figure, its employment rates are still higher than all countries.
Although Korea's unemployment rates were low in the previous post, they don't translate into high employment rates in the above figure.
Italy's lowest employment rates among these countries are hard to explain, too. In the previous post, its unemployment rates were not worse than those of such countries as Spain, Ireland, and Greece.

The second figure estimates the ratio of the employed people among the population aged 15 or older, without an upper age limit. It is estimated by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

Data: ILO (2011)

In this second figure, most countries have shown downward slopes in employment rates since the global financial crisis shook the global economy in 2008. It is not so much different from the first figure.
However, I want to point out some interesting observations.
Now, China is enjoying the best employment rates. 71% of its working-age population is employed.
Although Iceland has experienced a deep drop of employment rates, it still shows a robust employment rate.
The fact that employment rates in Brazil and Germany didn't get worse during 2008-2010 is consistent with the descending unemployment rates observed in the previous post.
A notable contrast is between the United States and South Korea. In the first figure, the United States' employment rate was well above South Korea's even after the economic recession. In the second figure, however,  the United States' employment rate went down below that of South Korea in 2010. From the ILO's standards, the United States' employment condition became worse than that of South Korea.

I'm not so sure whether these employment rate estimations are better or more correct than the unemployment rate estimations. But we have to look into employment rates if we don't want to be confused by different unemployment rate calculation methods among countries.



Sources:

ILO. (2011). Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) (7th ed.). Genève, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Retrieved from http://kilm.ilo.org

OECD. (2011). OECD Employment Outlook 2011. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/employment/outlook

Two Reports: A Lot More Radiation Was Released from Fukushima Dai-ichi Than Japan's Official Estimations

Recent research revealed that far more radiation was released into the atmosphere and ocean from Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant than the Japanese government and TEPCO have estimated.

1. Atmosphere

Stohl et al. (2011) argue that 35.8 peta Bq of cesium-137 was released into the atmosphere, which is twice the Japanese government's estimations (cesium-137 = 13 peta Bq (JAEA) or 15 peta Bq (NISA)).

2. Ocean

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) estimated that 27 peta Bq of cesium-137 was released into the ocean, which is 20 times as much as TEPCO's estimation (Cesium-137 = 1 peta Bq) or 6 times the Japanese government's estimation (cesium-137 = 4 peta Bq (JAEA)).

Notes:

JAEA  = Japan Atomic Energy Agency

NISA  = Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency

TEPCO = Tokyo Electric Power Company

Sources:

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire. (2011). Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l’impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi. Fontenay-aux-Roses, France: Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire. Retrieved from goo.gl/6Rtql

Rough English translation: http://houseoffoust.com/group/?p=3818

Kawamura, H., Kobayashi, T., Furuno, A., In, T., Ishikawa, Y., Nakayama, T., . . . Awaji, T. (2011). Preliminary Numerical Experiments on Oceanic Dispersion of ¹³¹I and ¹³⁷Cs Discharged into the Ocean because of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 48(11), 1349-1356. doi: 10.3327/jnst.48.1349

Stohl, A., Seibert, P., Wotawa, G., Arnold, D., Burkhart, J. F., Eckhardt, S., Tapia, C., Vargas, A., & Yasunari, T. J. (2011). Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion, 11, 28319-28394. doi: 10.5194/acpd-11-28319-2011

Per capita CO2 emissions in 15 worst countries, 2006-2010

The Netherlands' Environmental Assessment Agency (or PBL, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) published its own assessment of global CO₂ emissions by country.
How much CO₂ have the 2010's 15 worst emitters been spewing out into the atmosphere over the past five years?


Figure. CO₂ emissions per capita from fossil fuel use and cement production
(Source: PBL, 2011)

Even after the global financial crisis began in 2008, five countries (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China, Indonesia, and India) didn't stop increasing per capita CO₂ emissions. Never.

They are not worse than USA or Russia who are emitting enough greenhouse gases. However, the five countries' ceaseless emissions growth makes their efforts for climate change mitigation well short of that of other countries. We can see the evidence from the following figure. It is comparing each country's pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.


Figure. Percent change in absolute emissions from 1990 levels in 2020
(Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2011)

Sources:

Olivier, J. G. J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Peters, J. A. H. W., & Wilson, J. (2011). Long-Term Trend in Global CO₂ Emissions: 2011 Report. The Hague, the Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL; Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving). [Full-text: http://j.mp/PBL_Text; data: http://j.mp/PBL_Data]

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2011). Common Metrics: Comparing Countries' Climate Pledges. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. [Full-text at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/country-pledge-brief.pdf]

Virginia earthquake and a nuclear power station

I tried to measure the distance between the Virginia epicenter of today's earthquake (magnitude 5.9) and its nearby nuclear power plant.

If you click on the link below,

http://j.mp/Earthquake_Nuclear

you'll find they are only 11.64 miles (18.73 kilometers) apart!!!!!

View Earthquake and Nuclear Power in a larger map

Unemployment Rates in 15 Countries from 2006 to 2010

How does unemployment rate reflect economic crisis in some countries?
I looked at 15 countries I am interested in, some of which are troubled and others are struggling.
The following figure is based on the IMF's estimation.
It seems that workers in Spain, Ireland, and Greece are in the worst situation.
Descending unemployment rates in Germany and Brazil undeterred by the global financial crisis are worth further study.
Asian-Pacific countries are not stricken so hard by the financial crisis.
In addition, a dramatic change in Icelandic unemployment rates is noticeable.

Source: International Monetary Fund. (2011). World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011.  Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/download.aspx

An e-book on climate change (science, adaptation, and mitigation)

Australia's national science agency CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) is providing their latest e-book on climate change science and policy at no charge (in pdf and ePUB formats).
Although this book is primarily written for Australian readers, its eye-catching figures and kind readings lists of latest literature at each chapter's end will be very helpful to foreigners as well.

Cleugh, H., Smith, M. S., Battaglia, M., & Graham, P. (Eds.). (2011). Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
[Full-text pdf at http://j.mp/Climate_Change_pdf; full-text epub at http://j.mp/Climate_Change_ePUB]

Contents
Foreword .................................................... v
Megan Clark
List of authors ........................................... vii
Acknowledgements ......................................... viii
Introduction ............................................... ix
Bruce Mapstone
Chapter 1. Observations of global and Australian climate .....1
Karl Braganza and John A Church
Chapter 2. Climate and greenhouse gases .....................15
Michael Raupach and Paul Fraser
Chapter 3. Future Australian climate scenarios ..............35
Penny Whetton
Chapter 4. Climate change impacts ...........................45
Kevin Hennessy
Chapter 5. Adaptation: reducing risk, gaining opportunity ...59
Mark Stafford Smith and Andrew Ash
Chapter 6. Adapting to heatwaves and coastal flooding .......73
Xiaoming Wang and Ryan RJ McAllister
Chapter 7. Adapting agriculture to climate change ...........85
Chris Stokes and Mark Howden
Chapter 8. Greenhouse gas mitigation: sources and sinks in
agriculture and forestry ....................................97
Michael Battaglia
Chapter 9. Mitigation strategies for energy and transport ..109
Jim Smitham, Jenny Hayward, Paul Graham, and John Carras
Chapter 10. Reducing energy demand: the imperative for
behavioural change .........................................127
Peta Ashworth
Chapter 11. Responding to a changing climate................135
Helen Cleugh, Mark Stafford Smith, Michael Battaglia, and 
Paul Graham
Endnotes ...................................................139
Index .............................. .......................153

U.S. Utilities: In Two Ns, We Trust (Even After Fukushima)

According to an energy consulting company Black & Veatch's survey of 530 plus utility respondents, the U.S. energy companies still rely on two Ns (nuclear and natural gas) for their future to comply with environmental regulations. The survey was conducted after tsunami crippled the Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plants. But their creed didn't change:

Q. Where do you believe the industry should place its emphasis on environmentally friendly technologies?

A. (The bigger the number, the more emphasis the utility respondents place upon the technology)

1) Nuclear Energy    3.87

2) Natural Gas       3.81

3) Hydroelectric     3.48

4) Solar Energy      3.37

5) Coal Gasification 3.27

6) Wind Power        3.18

7) Other             3.07

8) Biomass           3.01

9) Tidal Generation  2.93

They are not so sure of renewable energy's reliability. They even don't trust future of energy storage. How do I know that? Read the following Q&A.

Q. Do you have plans to implement any energy storage systems at a commercial scale?

A.

Yes 21.5%

No  78.5%

Sadly, now I acknowledge that Texan journalist Robert Bryce was right when he argued the "real fuels of the future" are the two Ns (he called the 2-N energy strategy "N2N", that is, 'natural gas first, and nuclear eventually') even before the Fukushima nuclear accident. (And recently, in the New York Times.)

Is two-N reliance or N2N strategy inevitable? I hope not. (Yeah, another 'hope,' I uttered. However, I will find any convincing science and policy that can persuade these utility respondents.)

Sources:

Black & Veatch Corporation. (2011). 2011 Strategic Directions Survey Results: Managing the Transition in the Electric Utility Industry. Overland Park, KS: Black & Veatch Corporation. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BV_Survey_2011]

Bryce, R. (2010). Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. New York, NY: PublicAffairs. [Book homepage at http://j.mp/Power_Hungry]

Bryce, R. (2011, June 7). The Gas Is Greener. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html

A free book on environmental change and food security

I found out a generous offer from Earthscan publisher.

Ingram, J., Ericksen, P., & Liverman, D. (Eds.). (2010). Food Security and Global Environmental Change.  London, UK: Earthscan. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Food_Environment]

Contents


List of Figures, Tables and Boxes ........................................  vii
Editorial Committee ........................................................  x
List of Contributors ......................................................  xi
Preface .................................................................  xiii
Acknowledgements .........................................................  xvi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................  xvii


Part I Food Security, Food Systems and Global Environmental Change


Chapter 1 Food Systems and the Global Environment: An Overview .............  3
Diana Liverman and Kamal Kapadia


Chapter 2 The Value of a Food System Approach .............................  25
Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Jane Dixon, David Barling, Philip Loring,
Molly Anderson and John Ingram


Chapter 3 Lessons Learned from International Assessments ..................  46
Stanley Wood, Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Philip Thornton and 
Molly Anderson


Chapter 4 Part I: Main Messages ...........................................  63


Part II Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation in Food Systems


Chapter 5 Vulnerability and Resilience of Food Systems ....................  67
Polly Ericksen, Hans-Georg Bohle and Beth Stewart


Chapter 6 What is Vulnerable? .............................................  78
Hallie Eakin


Chapter 7 Vulnerability to What? ..........................................  87
Alison Misselhorn, Hallie Eakin, Stephen Devereux, Scott Drimie, 
Siwa Msangi, Elisabeth Simelton and Mark Stafford Smith


Chapter 8 Adapting Food Systems ..........................................  115
Polly Ericksen, Beth Stewart, Siri Eriksen, Petra Tschakert, 
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler, Jim Hansen and Philip Thornton


Chapter 9 Part II: Main Messages .........................................  144


Part III Engaging Stakeholders


Chapter 10 The Science–Policy Interface ..................................  149
John Holmes, Gabriele Bammer, John Young, Miriam Saxl and Beth Stewart


Chapter 11 Engaging Stakeholders at the Regional Level ...................  169
John Ingram, Jens Andersson, Gabriele Bammer, Molly Brown, Ken Giller, 
Thomas Henrichs, John Holmes, James W. Jones, Rutger Schilpzand and
John Young


Chapter 12 Part III: Main Messages .......................................  198


Part IV A Regional Approach


Chapter 13 Why Regions? ..................................................  203
Diana Liverman and John Ingram


Chapter 14 Stakeholders’ Approaches to Regional Food Security Research ...  212
John Ingram and Kamal Kapadia


Chapter 15 Undertaking Research at the Regional Level ....................  221
John Ingram and Anne-Marie Izac


Chapter 16 Part IV: Main Messages ........................................  241


Part V Food Systems in a Changing World


Chapter 17 Food, Violence and Human Rights ...............................  245
Hallie Eakin, Hans-Georg Bohle, Anne-Marie Izac, Anette Reenberg, 
Peter Gregory and Laura Pereira


Chapter 18 Governance Beyond the State: Non-state Actors and Food Systems ..........................................................................  272
Rutger Schilpzand, Diana Liverman, David Tecklin, Ronald Gordon, 
Laura Pereira, Miriam Saxl and Keith Wiebe


Chapter 19 Green Food Systems for 9 Billion ..............................  301
Michael Obersteiner, Mark Stafford Smith, Claudia Hiepe, Mike Brklacich 
and Winston Rudder


Chapter 20 Surprises and Possibilities ...................................  318
Alison Misselhorn, Andrew Challinor, Philip Thornton, James W. Jones, 
Rüdiger Schaldach and Veronique Plocq-Fichelet


Chapter 21 Part V: Main Messages .........................................  342


Chapter 22 Reflections on the Book .......................................  345
Thomas Rosswall


Index ....................................................................  351

Government Subsidies for Nuclear Energy in Germany and the United States

I wanted to check out how much of the taxpayers' money are being wasted for nuclear energy.
From the following two tables, I can say the German government paid at least 5.6 cents and the U.S. government paid 0.78~12.01 cents per every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-powered electricity in 2010.
* In Germany, the residential retail electricity price in 2010 was 18.31 U.S. ¢/kWh (or 0.1381 €/kWh).
* In the United States, the residential retail electricity price in 2010 was 11.58 U.S. ¢/kWh .

1. German State Aid for Nuclear Energy 1950-2010

All specifications in billions of €		Funding 1950-2010		2010 Funding	Funding as of 2011 (accumulated)
		Nominal	Real (2010 prices)
A	Financial aid	51.1	> 82.4	> 1.3	> 8.9
1	Research (Germany)	28.7	55.2	0.59	> 1.8
2	Federal state contributions	5.0	5.3	n/a	n/a
3	Guaranteed loans	0.14	> 0.14	n/a	0.05
4	German share of Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community) and PHARE (improving the operational safety of nuclear power plants and the training of their operators)	2.3	2.9	0.11	0.11
5	Closure of East German nuclear power	3.0	> 3.1	0.11	0.86
6	Decontamination of Wismut's uranium mines	5.4	6.5	0.15	1.02
7	Morsleben (repository for radioactive waste)	0.8	0.9	0.05	1.34
8	Asse (deep geological repository for radioactive waste)	0.5	0.5	0.08	3.7
9	Repository site search	0	0	0	0
10	Chernobyl	0.4	0.5	0.01	> 0.02
11	Contributions from international organisations	4.9	7.3	0.18	n/a
B	Tax benefits	92.1	> 112.5	3.3	66.4
1	Accruals	54.2	68.3	1.8	54.0
2	Net energy tax benefits	37.8	44.2	1.6	12.4
C	Budget independent state provisions	37.5	> 44.4	2.7	35.0
1	Increase in price of electricity through emissions trading	8.4	8.7	1.3	24.6
2	Incomplete competition in the electricity market	29.0	35.7	1.3	10.4
A + B	Sum 1: Budgetary funding	143.2	> 194.9	> 4.6	> 75.3
	Average in Euro cents per kWh	3.0	> 4.1	> 3.2	> 7.3
	Average in U.S. cents per kWh	4.0	> 5.4	> 4.2	> 9.7
A + B + C1	Sum 2: Budgetary funding + emissions trading benefits	151.6	> 203.7	> 5.9	> 99.9
	Average in cents per kWh	3.2	> 4.3	> 4.2	> 9.8
	Average in U.S. cents per kWh	4.2	> 5.7	> 5.6	> 13.0

Annual exchange rate: 1 € = 1.3261 U.S. $ in 2010 (Source: FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) at http://j.mp/USD_per_Euro)

2. U.S. Subsidies to Existing and New Reactors

Subsidy Type	Subsidies to Existing Reactors (¢/kWh)			Subsidies to New Reactors (¢/kWh)
	Legacy	Ongoing
	All Ownership Types	IOU	POU	IOU	POU
Factors of production Capital Reactor loan guarantees or direct loans Accelerated depreciation Recovery of construction/work-in-progress Government research and development Tax-exempt public reactors; no required rate of return Subsidized site approval and licensing costs Transfer of stranded asset liabilities Traditional rate regulation (return on “prudently incurred” investments even if not used or economically competitive) Regulatory-delay insurance Labor (shifting of health-related liabilities to taxpayers) Land (reduced property tax burdens for new plants at state or county level)	7.20	0.06	0.96-1.94	3.51-6.58	3.73-5.22
Intermediate inputs Uranium Subsidized access, bonding on public lands Percentage depletion on uranium extraction Legacy costs of uranium mining, milling sites (contamination costs staying with taxpayers) Federal uranium-stockpile management Enrichment services Below-market sales from government-owned facilities (prior to privatization in the United States) Tariffs on imported enriched uranium Federal liability indemnification for U.S. Enrichment Corporation; ambiguous requirements under Price-Anderson for newer private enrichment provider Monopoly agent for selling LEU derived from Russian HEU in warheads Environmental remediation costs Cooling water (free or subsidized use of large quantities of cooling water)	0.10-0.24	0.29-0.51	0.16-0.18	0.21-0.42	0.21-0.42
Output-linked support Market-price support (purchase mandates) Payments based on current output (nuclear production tax credit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.05-1.45	0.00
Security and risk management Cap on accident liability: reactors, contractors, fuel-cycle facilities, shippers ("Price-Anderson" cap) Nuclear Regulatory Commission services not paid by user fees U.S. funding of proliferation oversight abroad by the IAEA Plant security/low design-basis requirements for attacks	0.21-0.22	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50	0.10-2.50
Decommissioning and waste management Tax breaks for reactor decommissioning Nationalization of nuclear waste management	n/a	0.29-1.09	0.31-1.15	0.13-0.48	0.16-0.54
Total (in 2007 U.S. cents)	7.50-7.66	0.74-4.16	1.53-5.77	5.01-11.42	4.20-8.68
Total (in 2010 U.S. cents)	7.89-8.06	0.78-4.37	1.61-6.07	5.27-12.01	4.42-9.13
Share of power price	139%-142%	13%-70%	26%-98%	84%-190% (high)	70%-145% (high)
				88%-200% (reference)	74%-152% (reference)

Consumer Price Index (CPI) change between 2007 and 2010: 105.2% (=218.056/207.342) (Source: BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) at http://j.mp/US_CPI)


Sources:
Eurostat. (2011). Energy Statistics - Prices. Retrieved from http://j.mp/EU_Residential_Electricity_Price
Energy Information Administration. (2011). Electric Power Monthly. (January 2011). Retrieved from http://j.mp/US_Residential_Electricity_Price
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Green Budget Germany). (2010). Staatliche Förderungen der Atomenergie. Hamburg, Germany: Greenpeace. [Full-text at http://j.mp/German_Atomic_Subsidies]
Koplow, D. (2011). Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at http://j.mp/US_Atomic_Subsidies]

Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2011 Update

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2012. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2011). Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2012 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2012

IPCC's summary of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by electricity generation technology

Today, the IPCC's Working Group III has published the 'summary for policy makers' chapter of their special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation.

In the summary, I found a figure on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions estimates for electricity generation technologies.

Compared to renewable resources, fossil fuels' greenhouse emissions are gigantic.
Emissions of three energy sources seem controversial. Biopower's emissions span from negative to positive. Photovoltaics and nuclear energy can emit either near-zero or up to almost 250 grams of CO₂ equivalent greenhouse gases per kilowatt-hour.
However, when we take into account the Fukushima dai-ich nuclear power plant's ongoing disaster, photovoltaics beats nuclear energy. (I hope I can get empirical evidence for this assertion soon.)


Source: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Arvizu, D., Bruckner, T., Christensen, J., Devernay, J.-M., Faaij, A., Fischedick, M., Goldstein, B., Hansen, G., Huckerby, J., Jäger-Waldau, A.,  Kadner, S., Kammen, D., Krey, V., Kumar, A., Lewis, A., Lucon, O., Matschoss, P., Maurice, L., Mitchell, C., Moomaw, W., Moreira, J., Nadai, A., Nilsson, L.J., Nyboer, J., Rahman, A., Sathaye, J., Sawin, J., Schaeffer, R., Schei, T., Schlömer, S., Sims, R., Verbruggen, A., von Stechow, C., Urama, K., Wiser, R., Yamba, F., & Zwickel, T. (2011). Summary for Policy Makers. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, & C. v. Stechow (Eds.), IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/report/srren-spm-fd4]