Such nuclear batteries could in principle be sealed, placed in the ground, and run for a decade before being swapped out for an entirely new modular reactor. And if manufactured in a factory, they could also be cheap. "There is no inherent reason why nuclear power needs to be expensive," Bill Gates, who has invested in the novel reactor proposed by TerraPower, told the ARPA–e summit on February 28, noting that nuclear's relative expense largely derives from building in safety features.
Evaluating the safety of such new reactors will take time, of course, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to receive an application from any of the would-be vendors of small modular reactors, whether fast reactors or scaled-down light-water reactors. And staffing requirements, emergency planning and clean-up funds, among other issues, remain to be worked out between the reactor makers and the NRC—a key component of reducing the cost of such reactors. "The staff has contended pretty much all along that they will have to meet the same security requirements as all of the large reactors," says Michael Mayfield, director of the Division of Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking in the NRC's Office of New Reactors, noting that a timeline for licenses could be expedited if such reactors are simply scaled down versions of existing light water reactors that do not require new regulations. "Why would it take so long to review something that is substantially smaller with fewer parts? That however is based on the notion that vendors submit complete, high quality applications and address staff concerns more quickly than we have been able to do with some of the large [reactor] designs."
By eliminating human intervention—through passive safety features that kick in without the help of operators—staffing requirements might be cut. And if buried or otherwise hardened, the need to pay security guards might also be reduced. "If you need humans to do something, that is not a good design," Gates argued at the ARPA-e conference.
Ultimately, the success or failure of such scaled-down designs may relate to manpower. "If you need the same overhead to run 100 megawatts as you do to run a 1000, that's economically problematic," notes William Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy, a utility considering whether to build new nuclear power plants in future.
The Homer Simpson factor
Of course, human error has yet to be eliminated from either operating reactors or those that exist only on paper. And, much as in airplane or pharmaceutical development, government decisions will determine whether these reactors succeed. Small modular reactors "becoming a reality are dependent on government and the nuclear industry," said NRC commissioner William Ostendorff in a speech to the American Nuclear Society conference this past November. "With respect to new reactor licensing, 'the devil is in the details.'"
Regardless of how cheap such small modular reactors may allow nuclear to be in future, it is unlikely to be as cheap as natural-gas-fired turbines in the present. In fact, low natural gas prices stalled the U.S. nuclear renaissance outside Georgia and South Carolina, long before the reactor meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. "Because of an unanticipated abundance of natural gas in the United States, nuclear energy, in general, is facing tough competition," noted an analysis of the prospects for small modular reactors from the University of Chicago published last November. The analysis also suggested that small reactors would be more expensive than large reactors on a per-megawatt basis until manufacturing in significant quantities has happened. "It [is] unlikely that SMRs will be commercialized without some form of government incentive."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
86 Comments
Add CommentAn idiot is someone who does the same thing over and over an expect a different result. Since they seem hell-bent and determined to frack the shell rock for natural gas, and the only thing you can do with it is burn it, why don't they use natural gas to heat water that would turn turbines? About 20 turbines in one plant can generate enough power to power 170 million homes and businesses, and you wouldn't have to worry about finding a place to store nuclear waste, which this article said it would be deadly for about 250,000 years and natural gas shouldn't be as polluting as oil and coal or nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than offering new information, this article offers excellent perspective on the future of nuclear power in the United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough there are certainly some aspects of this small reactor way of thinking I like; in an age of terrorism I wonder, even if buried, how secure these are going to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn idiot is someone who says the same idiotic things over and over no matter how many times they have been destroyed in argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...why don't they use natural gas..."
Uh, duh, because there isn't nearly enough NG to replace Coal or Oil or even to meet rising Energy Demand. And your Shale Gas has just as much GHG emissions as Coal, including Methane Leakage. And Radiation emissions from Shale Gas exceed anything Nuclear Power ever dreamed of.
"..have to worry about .. place to store nuclear waste,..would be deadly for about 250,000 years.."
Yep, instead you just dump the one million times greater amount of waste, including Radon & other Radioisotopes, NOx, SOx, deadly fine particulates which lodge inside a persons lung sacs, CO2, methane @ 75X the GHG potential of CO2, into the Air, onto the Land and into the Water for people to eat, drink & breath. James Davis figures that's OK. Nuclear is the ONLY energy source that contains its wastes.
As for the "250,000 yrs" disinformation statement, well that is a lot less than the forever that James Davis' Coal Waste, Oil & Gas waste last, including deadly heavy metals that build up in the environment. Let's take an honest and scientific look at "Nuclear Waste", from someone who actually knows about it - not some idiot he just repeats Big Oil propaganda:
"...One immediate application of Fig. 1 is to estimate how much of the waste glass, converted into digestible form, would have a good chance of killing a person who eats it — this may be called a "lethal dose." We calculate it by simply dividing the quantity of waste glass, l5 tons, by the values given by the curve in Fig. 1, and the results are as follows:
Shortly after burial 0.01 oz.
After 100 years 0.1 oz.
After 600 years 1 oz.
After 20,000 years 1 lb.
Lethal doses for some common chemicals are as follows11:
selenium compounds 0.01 oz.
potassium cyanide 0.02 oz.
arsenic trioxide 0.1 oz.
copper 0.7 oz. ..."
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
So after 600 yrs, Nuclear Waste is LESS DEADLY THAN COPPER!
As an example of James Davis' "I'm Ok with that" non-Nuclear waste - the Canadian gov't is going to freeze in place, right on the shores of Great Slave Lake - 240,000 tonnes of carcinogenic, poisonous Arsenic Trioxide, which will have to be maintained FOREVER. CANDU nuclear waste has the same radiation level as natural Uranium after 500 yrs. And that spent fuel replaced 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, so 6X the total Spent Fuel in Canada. Just for some residue from one mickey-mouse Gold Mine.
"...age of terrorism I wonder, even if buried, how secure these are going to be..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, like terrorists are going to rent giant front-end loaders, kill off all personnel, kill off the police who will be on site in about 30 mins max, spend the about 10 hrs it will take to dig up UG reactor, if they were VERY,VERY lucky and some how break threw the steal and concrete containment and WOWEE they got access to a soccer ball or less sized chunk of highly radioactive core material, kinda like medical isotopes or agricultural/industrial/geophysical/security radioisotopes that exist all over the world. Except much harder to utilize for any nefarious purpose.
I would say it would be about 10,000X easier to blow up any of the 10's of thousands of miles of deadly NG pipelines, a lot of which are rusted out and ready to explode anyway, or chlorine storage or cyanide or peroxides or acids shipped all over in rail cars, or use a submersible to attach anti-tank mines (Iran has lots) to blowout preventers & undersea oil & gas pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and blow them open all at once by remote control. Or maybe just hijack an Airbus 380 and crash it into a LNG storage facility or hijack and LNG tanker and blow it up in New York harbor. Or Canada & Alberta's big multi-$billion CCS SCAM to greenwash the Tar Sands - with blanket 100% liabiltiy protection on CO2 releases. With thousands of kms of liquid CO2 pipelines being a Terrorist's dream-come-true. Yep smother a whole city. Notice Greenpeace & the Sierra Club never complain about that Terrorist risk.
Terrorism & SMR's - nope, pure hype.
I think technology, safety and nuclear waste are solvable. The main turnoff to nuclear is cost. The article mentioned a cost of $7/watt for large reactors and higher for small reactors. That's pretty steep. You can probably build a coal or gas plant for $2/watt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no inherent reason why nuclear power needs to be expensive," Bill Gates, who has invested in the novel reactor proposed by TerraPower, told the ARPA–e summit on February 28, noting that nuclear's relative expense largely derives from building in safety features."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArguments about nuclear power aside... I'm a little concerned that Bill Gates is investing in nuclear power. The above quote does not alleviate my concerns, not one little bit... nada, nope. Now, I'm thinking I understand how Windows Vista got released. After all, there's no reason an operating system needs to be expensive, noting that most of the cost is associated with, you know, making it work. Now, if we could just get an opensource nuclear reactor ;)
Did Seth write this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow genuine are those who claim that nuclear is unsafe. Even the two Japanese cities that were bombed with atomic bombs are now & have been for decades, heavily populated. The only nuclear accident that has ever resulted in radiation deaths was Chernobyl & the death toll there was less than one hundred. Those who have wished for heavy death tolls from nuclear accidents have been sadly disappointed & still try to claim that the danger still lingers. Just in China the annual death toll in coal mines is about three thousand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sickening that some people only talk about the danger of nuclear radiation in Japan while ignoring the real death toll from the tsunami.
That is so similar to the arguments about pollution, global warming & Co2 being such a dire threat while arguing against nuclear power, thus perpetuating all the things they are campaigning against. Many would prefer the death of mankind instead of real solutions & they often admit it.
Thorium nuclear power, guys, promises to produce power whilst at the same time consuming loads of what we currently call nuclear waste. Look up the lectures on youtube. Then ask why isn't uncle Sam doing anything about it? Or is the power of the oil companies all pervading?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the billions wasted on solar wind & wave had been spent on nuclear research, building demonstration plants to test several of the most promising technologies, perhaps by now some of them would be reaching sufficient maturity to begin mass installation. Unfortunately it takes many years to properly test a new system. These experimental systems need to be built now but we can not wait for the proving period. Reactors using existing technology are a vastly superior option to building coal fired power stations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4 meters wide by 25 meters tall (no mention of the length) does not seem small to me. I am not even sure a rail car could handle something that tall. The center of gravity would have to be near the bottom for sure. Why can't they build something smaller than that? Like big enough to power a neighborhood instead of a medium size city.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know they have nuclear power on some of the space probes. I admit that the power requirements in space would be very small but we should be able to build something smaller than the ones described in this article that could contain much smaller amounts of nuclear material and be much safer. Oh... never mind. That would make it to easy for communities to opt out of the power companies controls and would hurt the big utilities.
The main constraint on buliding new nuclear reactors is that the more that are built the sooner uranium ores will be depleted. Reactors are built to last thirty years, the same period of time for total uranium ore depletion. So building new reactors is just not economical, it is the poor old tax payer will end up paying through the nose for decommissioning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"4 meters wide by 25 meters tall (no mention of the length) does not seem small to me. I am not even sure a rail car could handle something that tall."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt wouldn't be shipped upright! Lay it down -- 4 m high x 4 m wide x 25 m long -- and it's large, but manageable.
Garbage on both counts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah I think ARPA-e is doing the right thing by neglecting funding for things like this and focusing on other items. Personally I look around and the most obvious and efficient power sinks are plant life which also happen to utilize the most plentiful energy source around - the sun - and convert that energy in the most efficient way known to man. It seems just a matter of time before we harnous plant life in an environmentally friendly way to feed our energy needs. And the best way to make that happen quickly is to create more scientists. And the best way to create more scientists is to reduce the costs of higher education. It does seem many of our problems would be best solved by not helping ourselves but by helping our children. But unfortunately that's counter to the 1%ers and the American political philosophy. So I guess we will just continue to throw money at the problem and hope for instantaneus results... Gamble. Gamble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the Chernobyl also about related cancers and environmental impact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAren't these more important than the immediate death toll?
How many people are being killed in coal mining accidents yearly worldwide? Or those in other carbon based extraction industries? How about deaths from the pollution caused by them. Then we get to global warming. Can't anyone ever look at the big picture here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the WHO united nations report. There are other reports too detailing the thriving wild life around the plant. More deaths are attributed to stress caused by the allarmism. same goes for Japan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the death toll from ignoring established scientific fact and being an entrenched denialist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny figures on that?
The 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study claimed 212 deaths over 12 years from the 72,000 workers who cleaned up Chernobyl and exposed themselves to high radiation. This death toll figure was endorsed by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. This translates to 0.025% mortality rate for this high-risk population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that the average mortality rate in the US is 0.84% according the CIA Factbook (2012). The average American is more likely to die than the Chernobyl clean-up workers.
According to the National Cancer Registry of Ukraine, from 1989 to 2006 the highest incidence of thyroid cancer in the country was 0.001% for males and 0.005% for females.
Now compare that to the thyroid cancer incidence in the US according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 0.005% for males and 0.015% for females. The average American male and female are 5 times and 3 times more likely to develop thyroid cancer than Ukrainians who live near Chernobyl.
As for environmental impact, Chernobyl is open to tourists. The radiation level in the contaminated areas is lower (9 mSv) than the natural radiation in Norway (11 mSv).
When I said stress, I meant suicide by people who have been living in horror of radiation caused cancer forecast by alarmists like you & the disruption to their lives. There has been NO discernible increase in cancer rates attributable to the accident at Chernobyl. The Chernobyl accident occurred on April 26, 1986. That is thirty six years ago. When exactly do you expect the dire effects you wish for to show up. Ghoul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the useful facts on the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat alarmism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI asked a question regarding the potential danger related to meltdown of a nuclear power plant, and the potential long-term risks to people and the environment thereafter. I don't recall claiming I know what the long-term effects have been. It's called asking a question.
In what way is that alarmist? Lunatic.
Human error has been eliminated from Generation 4 reactors. They are human-proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith recycling and breeding, we already have enough fuel for centuries.
I refer readers to the string & the abuse directed towards me & other rational correspondents. judge for yourselves. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-close-to-becoming-ir&posted=1&posted=1#comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I refer readers to the string & the abuse"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat string? Is that an Australian phrase?
I would say both sides could do with a bit more civility, you included.
As for rational, their is nothing rational whatsoever about insisting virtually every climatologist and scientific institution on the planet is simply a lying charlatan engaged in some sort of global conspiracy. I'm sorry you see something rational in that, I believe the more accepted term would be paranoid.
"The main constraint on buliding new nuclear reactors is that the more that are built the sooner uranium ores will be depleted. Reactors are built to last thirty years, the same period of time for total uranium ore depletion. So building new reactors is just not economical, it is the poor old tax payer will end up paying through the nose for decommissioning."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@eco-steve
This is pretty misleading. There happens to be quite a bit of uranium in seawater, which would raise the cost of fuel somewhat, but would not significantly affect the current economics of nuclear power.
But I do not think that is the best way to go. As conventional LWR only consumes U-235 and some bred Pu, fast reactors would be far more fuel efficient, allowing them to operate for thousands of years.
What would be far better though is to take that U, enrich it to 20%, and then use that to start a molten salt thorium-fueled reactor. Thorium has a cleaner fuel cycle, and the molten salt reactors do not require a great deal of initialization fissile, allowing for rapid expansion. The high temperature of operation allows for both dry cooling and efficient energy-carrier (H2, NH3, etc.) synthesis.
The downside is that the technology has to be aggressively developed, and the general populace remains incredibly ignorant of both the precarious situation we are in and the importance of cheap energy for maintaining the economy. We risk losing civilization if we do not promptly act with prudence.
String was the internet term used on the internet before blogs existed. People used to have discussion forums on what they called boards before programmes like ICQ came along, followed much later by blogs. It is not an Australian term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the inverse of what you accuse me of only more so.
There are plenty of climate scientists who do not agree with the alarmism you blindly accept. Also you have expressed the opinion that no dishonesty was revealed in the email scandal nor in the more recent Gleick affair.
Who is delusional?
The Strange Doctor said -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"$7/watt for large reactors and higher for small reactors. That's pretty steep. You can probably build a coal or gas plant for $2/watt"
You need to factor in fuel costs - plus cost to offset AGW from coal or gas CO2.
"Just in China the annual death toll in coal mines is about three thousand."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2004 - 6,027
"There are plenty of climate scientists who do not agree with the alarmism you blindly accept."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you can wrap your mind around the fact that 98% of climate scientists accept AGW as scientific fact, then you can try making the case that you are not delusional.
As to my opinion, I believe I stated that hacked emails showed scientists trying to demonstrate the accuracy of their data; and this is not the equivalent of the Gleick affair, in which an institution was attempting to lie to the public with the provably false claim that climate change was still controversial among scientists (which it is not).
Again, as to who is delusional, still just you.
Idiot in Spanish is very similar to one that has a great idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain we are promoting the rise in prices for the survival of anachronistic businesses that rely on horse poop, and we consider it appropriate by the impending miracle of making cement (green energy) with it.
Moreover, we are delaying making cars again (Oceanogenic Power) to kill all the horses (oil, nuclear fission and weapons that consume it) in a world war.
Horse poop or carbon-based fuels or nuclear fission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say: “As to my opinion, I believe I stated that hacked emails showed scientists trying to demonstrate the accuracy of their data; and this is not the equivalent of the Gleick affair, in which an institution was attempting to lie to the public with the provably false claim that climate change was still controversial among scientists (which it is not).”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that says it all really. The party line. Singing an ode to Al.
A nuclear submarine is a the size of a small village. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus....
I vaguely remember having seen a SA article some years ago on the idea such small underground reactors (one per small town or village). Anyone could retrace it?
A nuclear submarine is a the size of a small village. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus....
I vaguely remember having seen a SA article some years ago on the idea such small underground reactors (one per small town or village). Anyone could retrace it?
Thanks for demonstrating you have no refutation of my argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad to know you not only blatantly dishonest, but also incapable of rational discourse.
I think you might be referring to the Toshiba 4S (the 4S stands for super safe, small and simple).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
Thanks Stuart. I guess not all of them were directly related to coal for power generation but it sure does confirm the relative human cost as compared to nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not recall the specific SCIAM article but this link describes a small system suitable for a small town of 20000 people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/08/10/baseload-technology-signs-letter-of-intent-with-hyperion-power-generation.aspx
The reactor, called a Hyperion Power Module (HPM), is designed to be used as the energy source for small base load power stations. Euphemistically referred to as a "fission battery" the HPM is transportable on the back of a truck and each HPM reactor supplies enough energy to power more than 25,000+ large homes, or the equivalent, for 10 years. It is not refueled on site. After the non-weapons grade fuel has run its course, the sealed 1.5 metre wide by 2.5 metres tall canister is replaced with another and the original is returned to the factory. No spent or ‘waste' fuel is stored at the site. Features and operating procedures including these and others have made the HPM attractive globally as a non-proliferation nuclear energy solution.
Some interesting information about radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://xkcd.com/radiation/
Low levels of radiation are not dangerous and may give protection against cancer in later life. see www.radiationandreason.com Current limits could be raised by a factor of 200 without any danger. People in Iran and France are living healthy lives in radiation levels comparable to the highest levels experienced at Fukushima. Fukushima has not, and will not, kill anyone from radiation sickness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt $7000/kW nuclear power is a lit cheaper than solar power that costs ~$4000/ kW because you need 4000 MW of solar to equal 1000MW of nuclear. So the equivalent cost is $16,000/kW. And that is without transmission and backup. Solar power is seriously crazy.
Gas/oil combined cycle is cheaper than nuclear. See Base Overnight Cost in Table 8.2 of the report of US Energy Information Administration. Even if you add Variable O&M, same result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://205.254.135.7/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=5
WRONG! Solar PV generates RETAIL electricity at the point of load, so your arbitratry multiplication of its costs is just silly. It reduces bottlenecks in transmission by effectively taking load centers off the grid during peak demand (either partly or completely providing the electricity needs of the structures it sits on).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar module costs have dropped %50 over the last 2 years and are still falling. Balance-of-system component costs are falling as well. (don't know what balance-of-system is? If not, WHY ARE YOU COMMENTING ON THIS ISSUE IN SUCH A STATE OF IGNORANCE?) The main thing holding Solar PV back now is the hostile attitude directed against it by local governments (red tape, permitting issues), homeowners associations (NIMBYism) and the illogical hatred from people like you and members in congress that are likewise just as ignorant.
Quite correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this44. Dr. Strangelove. Those figures could well be correct but I do feel that we should be moving away from the carbon based fuels for electricity generation in an orderly & considered way. Co2 does not concern me but it is wasteful to use oil & gas unnecessarily for power generation.
Sault: I am not wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar on houses generates retail electricity only for some of the time. Solar farms are often far from the load. Solar power stops when the sun sets and drops by 40-60% when there is a cloud over the sun. Conventional power stations and the transmission and distribution system are needed to maintain a continuous supply.
All this costs money and all consumers pay for it. So the solar power subsidies are largely paid by poor people to benefit the rich.
Disgraceful.
If you want to move away from generating CO2 - event though it doesn't cause dangerous global warming, then nuclear power is safer than any other major form of power generation and effective in reducing CO2.
Good to have you back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow exactly is this a subsidy for the rich paid for by the poor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe costs you are showing are EIA (always extreme optimists for Fossil Fuel), and DO NOT include Fuel costs. So of course CCGT is a much lower Capital Cost than large PWR's, using typical construction methods, under the current Onerous Regulatory Environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe killer with Natural Gas is Fuel Cost. With Nuclear Fuel cost 1/4 to 1/2 cent per kwh, and Natural Gas is 2 to 3 cents per kwh at current bargain basement North American NG prices. Fuel cost is more like 10-12 cents per kwh at Asian prices - and you're a fool if you think these low NG prices will last. Start replacing Coal, and new demand with NG, as well as exporting LNG and NG transportation and see how long NG prices are low. Shale Gas is mostly hype, produces a lot for a short time, then the field becomes uneconomical at even modest NG prices.
And then there is the cost of NG infrastructure, including storage. It is in a state of decay, just repairing the current NG infrastructure will cost 100's of $billions, never mind adding new infrastructure. Cost of new NG infrastructure will certainly add 2-3 cents per kwh to NG generation cost.
And the fact is, there isn't nearly enough NG to replace Coal, or even to meet new demand for energy worldwide, and it is very expensive & dangerous to transport, and the real cost will be way too high to support developing nation economies.
There really is ONLY one viable replacement for fossil fuels, and that is Nuclear. Asian capital costs for Nuclear are running less than CCGT, including the necessary NG infrastructure.
It is very important to understand that Nuclear is a CLASS of Energy, like Renewables are and Fossil Fuel is, so saying Nuclear costs X$ a kw is like saying Fossil Fuel costs X$ a kw or Renewable Energy costs X$ a kw. As-a-matter-of-fact, the Nuclear Class of Energy is much bigger than either the Fossil Fuel or Renewables class. There are literally hundreds of very different designs for Nuclear Power. We haven't even began to exploit the potential for Nuclear energy. There are dirt cheap methods to produce Nuclear.
Example, David Leblanc's denatured molten salt reactor, factory produced on an assembly line, with standardized, no-nonsense licensing, certain to be a lower cost than ANY Fossil Fuel or Renewables tech.
The ONLY real obstacle to low cost Nuclear is the current total apathy of politicians to replacing Fossil Fuels. When it comes to Peak Oil or Climate change, some Politicians talk-the-talk, but don't walk-the-walk.
Actually the real cost of first of kind nuke power in the US is $4B/ Gw the cost of the new reactors at VC Summer in the south. The Vogtle in Georgia cost for the nukes is the same but the total project includes an additional $4B for upgrades of the state's transmission network.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor nuclear costs at the mature end of the learning year we have costs of less than 3 cents a kwh after the first score of Candu's were built. Here is an example of units 26 and 27 of Candu technology.all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh.- the cheapest reactor available anywhere outside China. The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.
Google cnnc 168 candu
Westinghouse now 90% finished building the first AP-1000 at Saimen in China on time and on budget estimates the cost of new AP-1000's at $2B/Gw as factory production now under way in China moves into full gear.
What about the pebble bed reactor design of nuclear reactor.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA small design of reactor
Again, if you think anything with the "Made in China" label is built to the proper standards %100 of the time like nuclear technology NEEDS to be, you're crazy. Besides, the low-ball reactor costs in China are that low because of currency manipulation, hidden subsidies, horrible worker pay, horrible working conditions and the fact that China's government can never really separate itself from its economy in any way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVC summer is actually $4.5B per GW and that is too low because they get to charge their ratepayers $1.4B before the plant even cranks out one electron. How come we can't have a feed-in tariff like that for renewables in this country? The track record of building renewable energy in the U.S. is stellar compared to the dozens of reactor construction failures that caused the nuclear industry to implode in the 1980s. Efficiency and renewables are MUCH lower-risk investments of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money compared to the billions that have been flushed down the nuclear toilet in the past.
Oh, and these plants are getting loan guarantees from the government, lowering their capital costs even further while the Price Anderson Act allows the nuclear industry to have its liability insurance covered by the feds FOR FREE! If nuclear technology was so great, why does it need all this interference from the government 60 years after it was developed? I can understand support for renewable energy that is just now entering the market, but why does a technology developed for the Manhattan Project need such huge government crutches to stand on its own?
Good to be back. It looks like the voices of reason took good care of things while I was gone...and it looks like the hacker gave up on trying to ruin my reputation too! Hopefully I haven't spoken too soon...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Ole Sault is at it again. With his laughable claim of a BS and MS in engineering, he continues to spew his many times debunked repeated horsepucky on nuke power in his effort to retain his stupidest commenter on Sciam title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Vogtle/Summer twin AP-1000 reactor now 90% complete on time on budget at half the cost in China, is an American design build by American engineers under the watchful eye of NRC observers. The Chinese were so concerned about nuke safety after FUKU that they halted approval on all nuke projects for a year. If FUKU had happened in China, the corrupt managers would have all been executed and their body parts harvested ensuring great attention to safety. The Chinese reactors are built by public power so have no incentives to cut corners. Chinese reactors are built by engineers and craftmen - American ones by attorneys doubling American costs.
Once again we see Sault can't do elementary arithmetic. The actual number is $4.18B/Gw for a first of a kind reactor. Westinghouse claims after the first score or so of these reactor are built factory module production will cut that cost in half similar to the Chinese experience.
The cost of most renewables are paid 100% by the taxpayer up front by tax credits, unsecured loan guarantees and grants. The advance actually reduces the cost to rate payers significantly as the extremely inefficient American private utility is forced to borrow from Wall Street pirates at rates approaching 15%. Had Public power TVA borrowing at 2% built those machines the cost would be insignificant.
Since the last 7 Candu's were all built on time and on budget all over the world up to 2007 and the 4 AP-1000's under construction in China are all more than 75% complete on time and on budget, it would appear that unlike day care employee Sault, the industry has learned a lot in the last thirty years. One difference is all AP-1000's/Candu's are all built exactly the same as opposed to the earlier 60's design's every one different.
The only one proposed American loan guarantee at Vogtle is appearing to be so onerous the Vogtle is considered turning it down.
The nuke industry carries $15B in an insurance fund that will never be used as the chances of the Fuku accident under a modern and onerous NRC regulation is exactly zero. No other Bhopal chemical or Big Oil nuke bomb sized LNG terrist targets carry even a tiny fraction of that insurance. Like asteroid hits and alien invasions insurance companies can't insure against events that would bankrupt them - no matter how unlikely.
Small nuclear power unit manufacture would resemble airliner manufacturing. Each unit of a fixed design would be low enough in cost that one could be sacrificed to actual safety testing to demonstrate the safety of the hundreds which are just like it. Certification testing would be much superior to the present scheme of relying on computer analysis on one of a kind builds. Who would buy a ticket on a plane if our only assurance that the wings won't fall off is a computer printout for a condition never actually tested?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a good point. And having a regulator of SMR's that is separate from the NRC and modeled after the FAA. The NRC is dysfunctional monster bureaucracy that was setup specifically to block Nuclear Power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice the difference between the NRC and the FAA:
The FAA's major roles include:
"Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology."
A role that is sadly absent in the lets-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-due-to-Coal-Pollution NRC.
Notice bilateral agreements:
www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/
So an aircraft is tested and approved by the EU then it will be approved by the FAA. Including the Airbus 380 targetable flying Nuclear Bomb sized weapon. The Airbus 380 initially failed to meet its vital 150% wing strength certification test, the engineers immediately modified the wing design, and the plane was certified 45 days later in both the USA & Europe. The NRC would send the design team back to the drawing board for 5 yrs worth of redesign and paid-by-Airbus training of NRC personal @ $273 per hour - including bureaucrats who wouldn't be able to repair a flat bicycle tire.
atomicinsights.com/2011/12/examples-of-regulatory-costs-for-nuclear-energy-development.html
So the CANDU which can burn American LWR nuclear spent fuel and does in China, run on thorium and is station-blackout Fukushima type accident immune. And approved and operating in a dozen countries as well as Canada with a very tough regulator. To get those same CANDUs approved by the NRC would cost $100's of millions and take probably 5-15 yrs. Despicable regulatory madness. The GenIII CANDU:
www.candu.com/site/media/Parent/Candu_Overview_Brochure_111104.pdf
And FAA supplemental type certificates for Foreign designed aircraft:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/multiple_stc/
Canada was ahead of the Rest of the World, with the Slowpoke III, 10 MWth reactor, 600 kwe. Intrinsically safe based on TRISO (pebble bed) fuel, runs 3 yrs @ 10MWth on one fueling. Fuel load can be carried on one plane. Cost $10M or $1k per kwth, way cheaper than Oil, suitable for heat & power for small Northern Communities and Mining Camps which rely on expensive, job killing, smoke belching, terrorist funding Oil for most of their Energy. Also could have been used in fuel guzzling Ocean Shipping. Was earmarked for Canada's submarines. Unfortunately, the Slowpoke III was blocked by despicable pseudo-Greenies.
www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionH.htm#g3
www.nuclearfaq.ca/north.htm
In the EIA study, the fuel cost of CC is included in the O&M cost which is measured in MWhr. CC is still cheaper than nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut economics aside, yes the problem is politics. In France, 80% of their power is nuclear while in Germany, they are phasing out nuclear plants.
Oh, so is this the same "watchful eye" of the NRC that allows stuff like this to happen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed - up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes - all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident."
http://www.pjstar.com/free/x1781765020/AP-study-U-S-nuclear-regulators-weaken-safety-rules
Yeah, that's a really "watchful eye"!
And all your blathering about how China would do things is pure, emotionally-charged conjecture on your part. "Public power" has no incentives to cut corners? Give me a break! So I guess these guys had no incentive to put melamine in pet food or cadmium in childrens' toys, right?
Also, there are 2 reactors being constructed at Voglte and 2 reactors being build at VC Summer, so get your facts straight. And the construction permit at Vogtle was just approved in Feb 2012, so no, they AREN'T %90 finished either. Unit 3 will be online in 2016. How can we think that you're debating in good faith when you can't even tell us the facts? In the age of Google, why lie?
Oh, and get this: "The federal government has awarded the project $8.3 billion in conditional federal loan guarantees, and Georgia Power's customers are paying down the financial costs of the project with a fee on monthly bills."
http://www.ajc.com/business/groups-sue-to-stop-1351830.html
So it's not just VC Summer that's forcing their ratepayers to take out basically NEGATIVE YIELD bonds to cover the obscene capital costs of these reactors!
Oh, and if you think CANDU reactors are so awesome, look at this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Based on Ontario's record, the economic performance of the CANDU system is quite poor. Although much attention has been focussed on the problems with the Darlington plant, in fact, every single CANDU design in Ontario went over budget by at least 25%, and average over 150% higher than estimated.[58] Darlington was the worst offender, at 350% over budget, but this project was stopped in-progress thereby incurring additional interest charges during a period of high interest rates, which is a special situation that was not expected to repeat itself.
In the 1980s, the pressure tubes in the Pickering A reactors were replaced ahead of design life due to unexpected deterioration caused by hydrogen embrittlement. Extensive inspection and maintenance has avoided this problem in later reactors.
All the Pickering A and Bruce A reactors were shut down in 1999 in order to focus on restoring operational performance in the later generations at Pickering, Bruce and Darlington. Before restarting the Pickering A reactors, OPG undertook a limited refurbishment program. The original cost and time estimates based on inadequate project scope development were greatly below the actual time and cost and it was determined that Pickering Units 2 and 3 would not be restarted for commercial reasons. Despite this refurbishment, the reactors have not performed well since the restart.
These overruns were repeated at Bruce, with Units 3 and 4 running 90% over budget.[58] Similar overruns were experienced at Point Lepreau,[59] and the planned refurbishment of the Gentilly 2 plant has been delayed until the fall of 2012, and currently there are serious plans to simply shut it down instead.[60]
Based on the projected capital costs, and the low cost of fuel and in-service maintenance, in 1994 power from CANDU was predicted to be well under 5 cents/kWh.[61] In 1998, Ontario Hydro calculated that the cost of generation from CANDU was 7.7 cents/kWh, whereas hydropower was only 1.1 cents, and their coal-fired plants were 4.3 cents. As Hydro received a regulated price averaging 6.3 cents/kWh for power in this period, the revenues from the other forms of generation were being used to fund the operating losses of the nuclear plants."
Continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The debt left over from the nuclear construction could not be included in the rate base until the reactors were declared in service, thereby exacerbating the total capital cost of construction with unpaid interest, at that time around $15 billion, and another $3.5 billion in debts throughout the system[62] was held by a separate entity and repaid through a standing charge on electricity bills.
In 1999, Ontario Hydro was broken up and its generation facilities re-formed into Ontario Power Generation (OPG). In order to make the successor companies more attractive for private investors, $19.4 billion in "stranded debt" was placed in the control of the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation. This debt is slowly paid down through a variety of sources, including a 0.7 cent/kWh tariff on all power, all income taxes paid by all operating companies, and all dividends paid by the OPG and Hydro One. Even with these sources of income, the amount of debt has grown on several occasions, and in 2010 stood at almost $15 billion. This is in spite of total payments on the order of $19 billion, ostensibly enough to have paid off the debt entirely if interest repayment requirements are ignored.[62]
Darlington is currently in the process of considering a major re-build of several units, as it too is reaching its design mid-life time. The budget is currently estimated to be between $8.5 and $14 billion, and produce power at 6 to 8 cents/kWh. However, this prediction is based on three assumptions that appear to have never been met in operation: that the rebuild will be completed on-budget, that the system will operate at an average capacity utilization of 82%, and that the Ontario taxpayer will be on the hook for 100% of any cost overruns.[63] Although Darlington Units 1, 3 and 4 have operated with an average lifetime annual capacity factor of 85% and Unit 2 with a capacity factor of 78%,[64] refurbished units at Pickering and Bruce have lifteime capacity factors between 59 and 69%.[63] However, this includes periods of several years while the units were shut down for the retubing and refurbishing. In 2009, Bruce A Units 3 and 4 had capacity factors of 80.5% and 76.7% respectively, in a year when they had a major Vacuum Building outage.[65]"
Yeah...this is a REALLY GREAT technology...
And see here for the final nail in the CANDU coffin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/active/0/darlington.pdf
"OPG’s 6 to 8 cents per kWh estimate is based
on the assumption that a re-built Darlington
will have an average annual capacity utilization
rate of 82 to 92%8 despite the fact that
Ontario’s fleet of nuclear reactors has never
achieved an average annual capacity utilization
rate of 82% or better during the last 25
years.9"
So much for all those bogus %100 capacity factor numbers you like to throw around...
"..EIA study, the fuel cost of CC is included in the O&M cost which is measured in MWhr.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it ain't. Are you kidding me? $3.37/Mwh for variable O&M including fuel - NO. If it does include fuel they will say including fuel:
www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
So as you see variable O&M for CCGT including fuel as of Nov. 2010 is $45.6/Mwh - Not $3.37/MWh. And that is with UNBELIEVABLE RECORD LOW NG prices - which WILL NOT LAST. The Shale Gas Boom has been called the World's largest uneconomic investment and has frequently been compared to the last housing bubble fiasco.
So yes Levelized Cost, according to the EIA, of fully mature assembly line built CCGT, along with extraordinary amounts of GHG emissions (including methane it is worse than Coal), and a NG price that is 1/4 to 1/5th International prices (how long can that last?) is indeed lower than First-of-a-kind GenIII PWR's with zero supply chain built, zero learning curve, zero flexibility of choice, zero factory builds, zero assembly-line production and almost zero competition.
And also you have to add about 2 cents per kwh to NG for the NG infrastructure which is not including in the EIA pricing. Just one example of the new infrastructure necessary to supply future NG - Artic NG - the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to deliver 1200 MMCF/day or 15.1 GW of avg. thermal power.
The Arctic NG supply reserves are estimated at 6 TCF, or 14 yrs supply for the pipeline.
So overnight capital cost of the pipeline would be $1126 per kwt, with only 14 yr supply of fuel. So with a 50% efficient CCGT that's $2252 per kwe, so that alone will add a couple cents to fuel cost, with a production cost of minimum 3 cents per kwh you up to 5 cents per kwh fuel cost minimum.
And remember it is INEVITABLE that that fuel cost will explode with future supply shortages, international pricing and Carbon Penalties. And that high cost will continue and rise above the rate of inflation for the ENTIRE 60-100 yr of the Nuclear Power plant. Whereas the Capital Cost of Nuclear will be paid off in 15-20yrs. And by-the-way they are using 7.4% interest, whereas public power companies can sell bonds @ 2% interest, and the Fed is giving away $trillions to private crooked screw-up banks @ 0% interest.
So it is pretty damn obvious, take away the EXTRAORDINARY level of Big Carbon interference in the Free Market, doing their damnest to block Nuclear Power - it is quite obvious that rapid Nuclear Power expansion is a NO-BRAINER!
Sault has sunk to a new low, pasting a full page of Wikipedia right into the comments, information that he doesn't understand and probably hasn't even bothered to read. Didn't even bother to properly quote the mass of text he posted without even the decency to say where he got all that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo many times I have explained the Cost Escalations of CANDU's in Ontario, which even government mandated reports have shown occurred due to political reasons, not intrinsic to the Reactor Build itself - and specifically recommended continuing the CANDU builds with qualifications.
Typical reprehensible behavior of Sault, you explain these issues to him, in detail, he thereupon completely ignores the explanation, offers no counter whatsoever, and THEN JUST GOES AND REPEATS THE SAME DRIVEL OVER & OVER. The man doesn't have an ethical bone in his entire body.
You have to take a Wikipedia article like the one Sault posted without any comprehension, with some skepticism and requires proper analysis. Just one example:
"...generation from CANDU was 7.7 cents/kWh, whereas hydropower was only 1.1 cents, and their coal-fired plants were 4.3 cents.."
This is entirely bogus, in 1998 including the capital cost or debt payments on the recently constructed Nuclear Plants (Darlington $14.4B 3.5GWe in 1993) with already paid off debt on the ancient Hydro and Coal plants. Note EIA puts O&M costs on Hydro at 1 cent per kwh - just as the 1.1 cent mentioned - so it is obviously just O&M cost quoted, which for Nuclear is 1.7 cents per kwh - EIA (2010).
So the proper analysis, something Sault doesn't know how to do, would say capital cost on the most heavily inflated Darlington build was $14.4B in 1993 for 3.52 GWe. Capacity factors have been over 90%. That's $19.6B in $2010. So 19.6/3.52/.92 = $6k/kweavg. Not so bad eh Sault? Sault claims $13-$25k/kweavg for Wind is a good deal. And Solar at $20-80/kweavg is also a good deal.
So most of what Sault posts, that he doesn't understand, is poorly researched information from Ontario Clean Air Alliance which believes Ontarians should pay 14-80 cents a kwh for nutty Solar & Wind Scams which do not produce useful power.
Another example of Saults quoted misinformation - an actual proper analysis of the Ontario Debt Retirement charge, which concludes the Nuclear Debt is already paid off, and in actual fact the Ontario Gov't is funneling the DRC to Wind Energy.
morecoldair.blogspot.ca/2011/08/retire-debt-retirement-charge.html
You are right and wrong. Right, $3.37/MWh doesn't include fuel. Wrong, nuclear is not cheaper. Your own reference shows total cost for nuclear is $113.9/MWh while for conventional combined cycle is $66.1/MWh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is common knowledge in the power industry that nuclear is more expensive than conventional coal and gas plants. We can debate about the exact figures but it is generally true that nuclear is more expensive. Unless we include a carbon tax.
The proper way to make nuclear energy is by Thorium. The Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor was initiated by Enrico Fermi of University of Chicago, a Nobel prize winner in physics no less. His work was continued by Alvin Weinberg and colleagues at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis method cannot produce a nuclear bomb. it has 1% if that of the wastes of the Uranium and Plutonium reactors. The waste products are Strontium and Neodymium. These elements may have some background radiation but nothing compared to the wastes of the Light Water Reactors.
It is incomprehensible that research on this topic was halted by the Nixon administration during the 1970s. There will be no Fukushimas, Chernobyls, Three Mile Islands nor Windscales of the UK, with this technology.
The pebble bed reactor is a safe method. You can use Thorium, or even Neodymium as fuel. Both these elements can be coated with Carbon , like the South Africans did in the 1960s. This way you mechanically pile the fuel together, use hot gas, nitrogen perhaps, to drive turbines to generate electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! Thanks for the personal insults. You know, I can tell when someone's argument is intellectually bankrupt when they resort to your scummy tactics! Just look up CANDU in Wikipedia and go to the sources yourself. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia page, submit edits and see how they stand up to peer-review. That article has been subjected to continuous peer-review and it's just the easiest way to present the info. If I could post more than 2 URLs in a SciAm comment before failing their Touring Test, I would, but Wikipedia is just the easiest way to present the info. It's hard to put a lot of time into this when I'm not getting paid to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, politics caused hydrogen embrittlement on the fuel bundles and reactor structures in some of those plants, right? Politics likewise keeps Ontario's nuclear plants from getting above an %82 capacity factor, right? Give me a break! This technology is hugely expensive without even discussing the massively pricey heavy water plant needed to provide moderator / coolant for these reactors. And then it looks like most of them need a "mid-life refurbishment" costing billion$ more! What a deal!
Please! Show me how politics caused these technical issues! I'll buy the fact that political pressure may have caused construction delays, but I have seen hardly ANY evidence to back that up. I have not seen EVEN ONE of your explanations that you have allegedly supplied "so many times".
AND THEN you have the cojones to think SOMEBODY'S BLOG is a reputable source after criticizing me for quoting Wikipedia?! Do you even know the definition of hypocrisy?
Is there a substance, like silicon, that will turn radiation into electricity the way silicon does from sunlight? If so, would it also shield waste radiation from close proximity? Such a material could be used to dispose of waste radioactive materials, providing long lasting replacements for the millions of dry now powering portable electronic devices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again Sault accepting the bow for the dumbest commenter on Sciam since the inception of its comments section. Is it even possible to believe the man can actually read much less earned the BS and MS in engineering he claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of this moron's stupid claims are based on events from thirty years ago. Just because he hasn't learned a thing in all that time, he assumes the nuke industry hasn't either.
The last 7 Candu's built were all on time on budget built for less than $2B/Gw in 4 years or less all around the world. These reactors all work at capacity factors in the 90's.
They are however an past generation of machine and it is likely the new Darlington units will be the NRC approved AP-1000 or EPR contrary to the mindless posting by some Energy Probe idiot on Wikipedia.
It's an utter waste of time ripping apart this idiots stupidity over and over again so I'll restrict my shredding to the his postings catching them just before they disappear into the bowels of the comment thread.
I'm really getting sick of this nonsense from you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EIA is a virulent anti nuclear organization supported by Big Oil campaign donations to the White House, which uses unstated and whacky assumptions to inflate nuclear capital costs and deflate fossil/wind/ solar numbers.
SCANA's real numbers for a real nuke build by an extremely inefficient American private utility now under way in S Carolina at twice the cost of similar units in Canada, puts paid to EIA nonsense.
"Why Nuclear?” If you look at the chart at the top right of the slide below, SCANA provided their all-in cost estimates for nuclear ($76/MWh), natural gas ($81/MWh), coal ($117/MWh), offshore wind
($292/MWh) and solar ($437/MWh). For them, “new nuclear continues to be the low cost alternativ"
http://www.scana.com/NR/rdonlyres/94A681F0-6304-46A9-932E-8F7224FC052E/0/SCANA2011AnalystDayPresentation.pdf
And how many times do I have to tell you, YOU CAN'T TRUST THE PRICES FOR REACTORS BUILT IN CHINA! We can't just clear people off their land and make them deal with a nuclear plant in their backyard like they can in China. We can't have the government funnel billions of yuan either. I mean, the subsidies in the U.S. aren't a well-hidden, take the Price Anderson Act or Loan Guarantees or all those billions spent developing the LWR fuel cycle by government labs for the Manhattan Project, but I digress. Finally, in a market economy, the government can't just make nuclear reactors by fiat like the Chinese Government does. So, unless you're a big fan of Communism, you need to stop quoting baloney Chinese reactor costs like they're legitimate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Thanks for confirming my attitude towards personal insults in relation to the validity of someone's argument!
You know, the hallmarks of a baseless conspiracy theory are always harsh allegations with ZERO evidence to back them up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo please, show me the evidence of "Big Oil" donating money to the White House to make the NRC anti-nuclear. (Whew, did I get all that straight?) How can this be if "Big Oil gives %88 of its political donations to Republicans?
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/23/450941/will-senators-stand-up-for-american-consumers-or-big-oil/
I've asked numerous times about the lawsuits or at least investigations into the NRC's supposedly anti-nuclear bias and you just retreat like a coward EVERY SINGLE TIME. Could it be that there ISN'T any evidence because nuclear proponents such as your self are just making it up?
Additionally, how can the NRC be so anti-nuclear when they started issuing combined design and construction permits to speed up the approval process? Does that sound like an organization that wants to destroy the industry? Do you know how silly you sound?
By the way, did you see THIS article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/
“Let me state unequivocably that I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like,” said John Rowe, who retired 17 days ago as chairman and CEO of Exelon Corporation, which operates 22 nuclear power plants, more than any other utility in the United States.
“Having said that, let me also state unequivocably that new ones don’t make any sense right now.”
"I’m the nuclear guy,” Rowe said. “And you won’t get better results with nuclear. It just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.”
Rowe has been on a bandwagon of promoting NG power generation for the past several years, and has quietly admitted its all about putting cashy money in his pocket. For its Nuclear Generation Exelon gets paid the most expensive bid that NG power plants get - and with low NG prices now that is not very high. Rowe admits he want to return "that glorious period" of much higher NG prices 2004-08. Then, since Nuclear is a fixed cost, of about 1.5-2 cents per kwh, the higher NG price is - is CLEAR PROFIT. And ANY competitive Nuclear plants built will reduce NG price and reduce the value of Exelon's OWN low Carbon Electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs well Rowe has been campaigning for extreme controls on Coal Burning & Carbon Trading to once again reduce competition for his product. Rowe is a lawyer with ZERO TECH training or interest - his interest is ONE & ONLY ONE - making as much cash as possible. A carbon copy of Ken Lay of Enron who also promoted Carbon Trading and restrictions on new power generation. The New Capitalism: compete fairly in the free market & win by having the best product REPLACED by make sure YOU have the ONLY product in the marketplace by forcing out the competition by ANY MEANS possible - best of all - buying political influence, ENGO's & media. That is John Rowe / Ken Lay in a nutshell.
atomicinsights.com/2011/11/john-rowe-wants-everyone-else-to-buy-natural-gas.html
"..show me the evidence of "Big Oil" donating money to the White House to make the NRC anti-nuclear.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, you need only look at the MMS, Minerals Management Service, which regulated Oil Drilling, in particular in the Gulf of Mexico. They accepted an emergency action plan for an Oil Spill that included saving the Walruses in the Gulf Of Mexico, and contacting long dead scientists. Zero requirement for Fail-Safe emergency shutdowns, which is industry standard EVERYWHERE EXCEPT in the Oil Industry. Batteries Fail - Too Bad, Hydraulic Pressure low - Too Bad, No communication with Oil Rig - Too Bad. And drug & sex parties with Big Oil execs and MMS management. And maximum 30 days Environmental hearings for getting a MEGA-OIL-SPILL Rig. No lawsuits allowed. Unlike Nuclear which is often stuck with 5 yrs of environmental hearings and NON-STOP lawsuits by ENGO's like the Sierra Club & Greenpeace.
So tell us Sault, tell us that the MMS was NOT corrupted by Big Oil cash? Tell us how you believe that the MMS was a legitimate regulator? And if you admit that the MMS was corrupted by Big Oil, please tell us how you believe that Big Oil wouldn't go one step further, with their
And if you admit that the MMS was corrupted by Big Oil, please tell us how you believe that Big Oil wouldn't go one step further, with their UNLIMITED CASH to corrupt the NRC, which by any logical analysis is more valuable to Big Oil than the MMS, simply by blocking Nuclear Power puts FAR more cash in Big Oil's pockets than ALL OF:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa)the Iraq Oil war - who started that and why? - tell us Sault.
b)unrestricted drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
c)unrestricted drilling in Alaska Federal lands etc.
Follow the money dude. The current head of the NRC is a staunch anti-Nuke, who had ZERO qualifications for the job, a former puppy of the anti-Nuke nutcase - Ed Markey and then went to work for Harry "boondoggle" Reid, who thereupon threatened to shutdown the Federal Gov't if Bush wouldn't appoint Jackzo as NRC chief.
Meanwhile, Shale Gas companies like Chesapeake Energy have been caught financing ENGO's like the Sierra Club to block Nuclear Power with non-stop lawsuits, as they have been doing. Just that one NG company funneled $25M into the Sierra Club to fund their anti-Nuclear and anti-Coal campaigns, with an agreement of $30M more, which the Sierra Club executive lied about until they got caught red handed, and consequently they refused to call Shale Gas the Environmental Disaster that it obviously is, and instead referred to NG as a "transition fuel". One of Sierra Clubs execs, a person with integrity, resigned from them, writing of her "disgust" of the cozy relationship of ENGOs with NG interests, biggest in North America being Exxon.
Not a personal insult just a statement of fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the one who claims an BS and MS (Bull S and More S) in engineering when in reality you work in daycare.
How many times to I have to tell you. The AP-1000's are built in China. by American engineers to American standards with NRC observers. There is no advantage to building in Hitek China other than public power. You see any Chinese airliners flying around?
No other country in the world has a Price Anderson yet nukes elsewhere have no insurance issues at all.
Most of the US's hydro power was build by FDR's public power. TVA, Bonneville are far more efficient than the tiny pirate outfits like Excelon.
Anybody remember the "Slowpoke"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody remember the "Slowpoke"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Slowpoke III, 10 MWth reactor, 600 kwe. Intrinsically safe based on TRISO (pebble bed) fuel, runs 3 yrs @ 10MWth on one fueling. So safe it was licensed for unattended operation, with remote monitoring. Fuel load can be carried on one plane. Cost $10M or $1k per kwth, way cheaper than Oil, suitable for heat & power for small Northern Communities and Mining Camps which rely on expensive, job killing, smoke belching, terrorist funding Oil for most of their Energy. Also could have been used in fuel guzzling Ocean Shipping. Was earmarked for Canada's submarines. Unfortunately, the Slowpoke III was blocked by despicable Greenies, who as usual try their damnest to maintain Big Oil's Energy Hegemony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionH.htm#g3
www.nuclearfaq.ca/north.htm
The article mentions the need for the nuclear industry to make provision for compensation to sick or evacuated people in the event of a disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis fund exists in France, but for one reactor close to Paris the fund ammounts to one euro per person-equivalent fukushima victim. Enough said?
How about some compensation for the millions KILLED by your fossil fuels and biomass burning smoke? How about for the 13,000 homes evacuated by one mud volcano caused by NG drilling, which will continue for 85 yrs? Or the towns in Germany evacuated PERMANENTLY by Giant Coal Strip Mines or the VAST AREAS evacuated permanently by giant Hydro dams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the people killed and homes destroyed in NG explosions.
And how about FORCING Greenies to pay for the cost of the Radiation Paranoia they deliberately & maliciously create - the disinformation they spread recklessly on Radiation health effects, that has ZERO basis in Radiation Health Physics. And forcing Greenie ENGOs to have full disclosure for the source of their $Billion in tax exempt funding. Why should the taxpayer be subsidizing Greenpeace etc, so they can KILL millions of persons by spreading disinformation, and REFUSE to disclose where there funding is coming from?
I really don't know why Americans get so emotional about nuclear power. Is it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) Because the French use it
or
b) Because there was a very minor nuclear power station accident in the USA and at about the same time there was a crappy B movie released about a nuclear meltdown.
Makes me think of Orson W and his radio broadcast that caused a panic all over the US.
More people are severely injured and die in ONE YEAR in the USA in chlorine escape incidents than have been severely injured or killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the USA ( ..and maybe western Europe and Japan combined).
Grow up!
.
"Of course, human error has yet to be eliminated from either operating reactors or those that exist only on paper." is a lie, as you should know. All of Generation 4 are intrinsically safe, relying only on Nature for safety. As you already said, spent fuel is fuel for Generation 4 Integral Fast Reactor. Read the book: "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees, 2008; and read
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://BraveNewClimate.com
Reference: "The Rise of Nuclear Fear" by Spencer Weart. The fear started thousands or millions of years ago with the fear of witches, wizardry, magic etc. The design of the human brain is very bad. See "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer.
"The Rise of Nuclear Fear" by Spencer Weart needs "Religion Explained" as background. A lot of modern first world people do magical thinking rather than logical or scientific thinking [not all logical thinking is scientific]. That is, they think of technology and things they don't understand as magic. That is especially true of anything "nuclear."
The US government did a lot of propagandizing about nuclear things in the 1950s. Some US government officials used secrecy as an instrument of political power at the same time. The secret is:
THERE ARE NO SECRETS.
Nature is an open book. Nature is the same everywhere. Any country with enough money, sanity, scientists and uranium can make a nuclear bomb. Most that could, chose not to. Iran seems to be stuck by a lack of something cultural. Uranium is mineable in many countries.
The following seems to be too complicated for many people:
Bomb = bad
Reactor = good
There is no possible way that a reactor could ever become a nuclear bomb. Chernobyl did not. I will have to tell you a little about how to make a bomb to explain the difference. Nothing classified. See:
http://clearnuclear.blogspot.com
dwbd, I agree with your arguments and I like your style...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Rock in that I would like to see better development of Thorium based reactors. Thorium is about 3 times more abundant than Uranium and the breeding of Th into fissile U234 has minimal nuclear proliferation risks and does not produce the transuride isotopes that persist for so long in the environment. Finally, I would like to see development of molten salt nuclear reactors, whereby fuel could be added and waste removed on a more or less continuous basis. The U.S. began to develop this type of reactor in the 1950's at Oak Ridge National Laboratory but the project was discontinued in favor of light water reactors due to the lower initial cost. Now would be a good time to look at that method again.