Subscription Center
Jun 19, 2009 02:00 PM | 53
Nuclear power plants may not emit greenhouse gases, but they sure could suck in the tax dollars.
An analysis by economist Mark Cooper at the Vermont Law School claims that adding 100 new reactors to the U.S. power grid would cost taxpayers and customers between $1.9 and $4.1 trillion over the reactors’ lifetimes compared with renewable power sources and conservation measures.
The analysis factors in studies from Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimating the efficiency of renewable energy at 6 cents per kilowatt hour versus 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear. Cooper says those costs will fall on either ratepayers through higher electric bills or on taxpayers through large subsidies.
“It is telling that in the few short years since the so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ began there has been a four-fold increase in projected costs,” Cooper said in a statement. “The original low-ball estimates were promotional, not practical; they were based on hope and hype intended to promote the industry.”
Cooper’s study comes on the heels of a recent review of the state of nuclear power by a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The researchers concluded that nuclear power was not the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases and that waste management and safety issues must be addressed for it to remain a viable option. In 2003, the MIT team expressed similar skepticism in a report co-authored by John Holdren, now President Obama’s science advisor.
Indeed, any new nuclear plants are a long way from fruition. Although 17 applications for 26 new reactors have been filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not one is under construction.
Image of the cooling tower from the Trojan nuclear plant in Oregon courtesy tobo via Flickr
More News Blog: Next: Google develops a landmark recognition engine Previous: Wolverine arrives in Colorado, first in 90 years
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Karan Casey - Johnny I hardly knew ye https://t.co/thpxgDkWp2 BoraZ Hip Hop Evolutionary Tales - new Video of the Week at #SciAmBlogs http://t.co/kKRqYxIGPz cc @BabaBrinkman
sciamblogs Hip Hop Evolutionary Tales - new Video of the Week at #SciAmBlogs http://t.co/uX2yk3nCAP cc @BabaBrinkman
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
53 Comments
Add CommentAn analysis made by a law school containing studies by Wall Street cannot be considered creadible. No two industries in the world have less respect for the truth than these two. I know. I work on Wall Street and I deal with lawyers every day. Come up with something more serious in the future please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is mathematically impossible, which is to say trivial and expected for vermont lawyers, and lately SCIAM. Look at the current (full cost) $ per watt cost of nuclear vs any renewable. Sure, renewable are more expensive, but they'll make up for it in volume...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewables at 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That's pretty funny, since they require direct production subsidies of 15 cents per kilowatt hour for wind to 35 cents per kilowatt hour for solar, with no reasonable hope those costs will fall significantly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile, nuclear is cost-competitive with hydro in Europe.
This magazine doesn't deserve to keep the word Scientific in its name if it's publishing political jeremiads like this.
According to NOAA, "Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere". If that's the case, how can you claim that "Nuclear power plants may not emit greenhouse gases"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! Duncan M, I've noticed, more and more, how Scientific American has been taken over by a bunch of ultra-left wingers who seem to be mostly pushing political agendas, rather than actual science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't I just read here that projected new nuclear technology costs around $0.02 USD per kW? I will find the info and repost, but I thought SCIAM posted an article to that effect. The new technology could use existing nuclear waste to rapidly deplete the radiation levels to safe levels within a hundred years as opposed to thousands of years currently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear energy is only to fill pockets of few industrialists/share holders. Renewable energy if tapped properly and at household level is going to be much more economical. Hopefully, it will not fill the pockets at the Wall Street. Example: Solar water heaters can heat ample water in at least 50% of USA 6 months a year. However most of the retailers do not sell them. Prius is a concept not based upon nuclear energy but using the energy which was being discarded. We need more enthusiasm in renewable energies than the nuclear. Nuclear accidents- deliberate or accidental would be/are detrimental to the human kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an excerpt in the last paragraph of a SCIAM article titled "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste", dated January 26, 2009:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the foreseeable future, the hard truth is this: only nuclear power can satisfy humanity’s long-term energy needs while preserving the environment. For large-scale, sustainable nuclear energy production to continue, the supply of nuclear fuel must last a long time. That means that the nuclear power cycle must have the characteristics of the ALMR and pyroprocessing. The time seems right to take this new course toward sensible energy development.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste
One thing everyone must keep in mind -- There is no one cure all solution to our energy needs. There is no magic pill. We must objectively and logically look into all potential applications and evaluate each accordingly. It is short-sighted to forgo nuclear because of its tainted past. Renewables do show promise, but come at a price. Waste discharges, cost, and other factors must be weighed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would probably be helpful for everyone to think of the costs of all forms of energy generation as subject to change. The costs of making power aren't fixed by some engineering rule, much as engineers in all the fields would like you to think. Coal prices vary, natural gas prices vary. The grid reliability and stability provided by big, baseload power plants is important, but so is the resilience that distributed generation provides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistorically, it's important to note that no one has accurately predicted either energy usage or costs. People miss high and low, estimating too high for the energy sources they don't like (for whatever reason) and too low for their own. But of course, right? Energy technologies are embedded in social systems like markets and governments. They are subject to the same forces that everything and everyone else is.
The dollar number that ends up mattering, then, isn't the "actual cost" (no matter how you decide to measure that number), it's the plausible cost of your technology 5 or 10 years from now. Make your case well and you win. Make your case poorly and you lose. It works the same way for everyone — nuclear engineers and Vermont lawyers alike — and we all get to fight it out.
Contrary to the studys finding that nuclear power cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace nuclear energy is expected to be among the most economic sources of electricity. To cite one example, an independent comparative study published in January 2008 by the Brattle Group for the state of Connecticut estimated that nuclear energy (at $4,038/kW) may have the highest capital cost, but still produces the least expensive electricity, except for combined cycle natural gas with no carbon controls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew nuclear reactors have been affirmed as the least cost option for new generation by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. The analyses supporting the PSC reviews found nuclear to be cost competitive with other forms of baseload generation in addition to helping to address climate change.
Various recently-released academic studies have also found the cost of nuclear energy to be competitive.
Its useful to think of it like this:
Contrary to the study’s finding that “nuclear power cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace” nuclear energy is expected to be among the most economic sources of electricity. To cite one example, an independent comparative study published in January 2008 by the Brattle Group for the state of Connecticut estimated that nuclear energy (at $4,038/kW) may have the highest capital cost, but still produces the least expensive electricity, except for combined cycle natural gas with no carbon controls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew nuclear reactors have been affirmed as the least cost option for new generation by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. The analyses supporting the PSC reviews found nuclear to be cost competitive with other forms of baseload generation in addition to helping to address climate change.
Various recently-released academic studies have also found the cost of nuclear energy to be competitive.
It’s useful to think of it like this:
• The cost of building advanced reactors is about the same as advanced coal plants with carbon storage, but nuclear energy has the lowest fuel cost over decades of electricity production.
• By comparison, natural gas plants are relatively cheap to build, but the supply and price volatility is a major drawback. The fuel cost for natural gas plants makes up 90 percent of the power cost.
The cost of power from coal and gas-fueled power plants would rise in a carbon-constrained world, further increasing their electricity costs.
A new licensing process, coupled with construction and project management experience from nuclear energy projects globally, will provide useful experience with new reactor designs in the United States.
Put simply, credible estimates of the total cost of new nuclear energy facilities show that electricity from nuclear energy will be competitive with other forms of baseload generation.
It is all about energy density, but with SCIAM in the tank for the environmental whackos - that subject will never come up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to mention, what to do with the spent fuel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe waste is radio active for years or can be used to make dirty weapons.
The power companies are not going to go quietly into the night as we convert to a distributed network of small generators comprised of wind, solar and hydro. Which is what we need - NOT MORE NUKES GENERATING A WASTE THAT REMAINS DEADLY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"RMI's position on nuclear power is that:
It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.
Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.
Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.
And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)"
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf
"This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper1, compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies havent attracted investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with lower cost, construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitorswhich, however, already outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster."
This article is criminally dishonest. It brings up a "12c-20c/kWh" cost range for nuclear, and then also cites an MIT study as calling nuclear power "uncompetitive". Which is interesting because I've READ that MIT study, and it concludes the levelized cost for new nuclear power is 8.4 c/kWh - well outside the other range the author quotes. Does the author point out this discrepancy? No; he ignores the inconvenient parts of his own sources, selectively cherry-picking the quotes and datapoints that support his position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe report is available for free here:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
And further when the MIT report calls nuclear power "uncompetitive", it is referring ONLY in comparison with coal and natural gas power, and ONLY when completely ignoring the costs of carbon emissions. In fact, by the studies' numbers, just a very small carbon price would make nuclear as cheap as coal. (2009 update, Table 1)
The cited MIT report also directly conflicts with the "$1.9-4.1 trillion" figure for 100 new reactors. It estimates a capital cost figure of $4/W for new reactors (based on real-world figures from recent reactors in Japan and South Korea, which fell in the range of $2-3/W*, and extrapolating from that with commodity price increases). At the this cost, 100x new 1 GWe reactors would carry a pricetag of $400 billion, which is majorly conflicts with his other (presumably fradulent) numbers. Since when did commercial power reactors reach $41/W???
*These are discussed in a supplementary paper to that report, which is here under "Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power":
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers.html
Again, it is despicable that a self-proclaimed "journalist" would so blatantly misrepresent his sources, twist them to support his political ideals.
To append one thing to my comment - I want to preempt any argument that lifetime operation or decommissioning costs explain away the huge discrepancy with that $1.9-$4.1 trillion figure. Construction costs are by far the largest component of nuclear power costs, and other lifetime costs are comparatively trivial. Again citing the same MIT study (the supplement paper): Table 6C compares these. A full 72% of total costs are the initial construction costs (which would be $400 billion for one hundred 1 GWe reactors under this MIT study). A tiny 11% are operation and maintenance costs, 10% are fuel costs, and 7% decommissioning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain that paper is available here for free:
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers.html
Uvdiv's and Patrice2's posts are right on concerning nuclear's competitiveness and the actual contents of the MIT study. The only thing nuclear has ever had trouble competing with are fossil fuel plants that are allowed to just vent all their pollutants/toxins into the environment for free. Once this is priced or limited, nuclear becomes the least expensive option, as PUCs and utilities studies all over the nation have found. At a minimum, a combination of nuclear and renewables is much less expensive than an approach that tries to meet all our future needs with renewables only.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a study by the academic/neutral Electric Power Research Institue on the costs of various energy sources, under various CO2 emissions prices. Suffice it to say that EPRI disagrees with the conclusions of the report discussed in this article.
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/Newsroom/GenerationOptions2008.ppt
The point is that (as I've seen) studies about the costs of various energy options are all over the map. What to do? The most enlightened policy is to have the govt. not pick winners, or write policies which tell utilities what to do. Instead, tax or limit CO2 emissions (as well as foreign gas/oil imports, and other pollutants), and let the market (utilities) decide how to respond. This will automatically sort out all these economic questions, and will result in the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost.
It must be noted that while nuclear opponents often claim that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, they are NEVER willing to put that assertion to any kind of market test. Just the opposite. They say they're cheaper, but then insist on policies that prevent any fair market competition between renewables and other means of reducing emissions, including nuclear. Under current/recent policies, renewables are massively more subsidised than nuclear, and there are also outright mandates for their use (regardless of cost or practicality), just in case even those subsidies are not enough. If the relative cost of renewables was anything like this article's study, none of these policies would be even remotely necessary.
I'd like to add to the points I made above, in response to alexismadrigal's last paragraph. I've pointed out the huge disagreement between studies, and she/he talks about actual uncertainties in predicting the costs of future energy technologies. Both of these realities make it even more imperative that the energy policy just create a fair playing field (by finally accounting for negative impacts of certain sources, by taxing or limiting pollution), as opposed to picking winners or dictating any specific response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is imperitive that we not have a system (like the one alexis describes) where the advocates of different energy technologies make their case as best they can to the govt., and then the govt. decides what we're going to do. We can't have the govt. decide our path based on a convincing argument and a set of flawed studies (like the one in this article). Tragically, with policies like renewable portfolio standards, this is just the road we're heading down.
It may sound counter-intuitive, but a good, enlightened energy policy would be completely blind to what the future (or present) costs of various energy sources are. It's simply not relevant. That's for the market to sort out. As an example, a pure, simple carbon tax or cap-and-trade system does not care which sources are cheaper (e.g., whether nuclear or renewables are cheaper). The market will choose (zero in on) the cheapest, most effective path to reduce emissions. The govt.'s only job is to set the policy (cap-and-trade, in this case). If we had enlightened govt./policy, nobody would even be bothering to talk about such cost issues, or publish studies like the one in this article. It simply wouldn't affect policy.
I'm not saying that convincing people will have no role. It's just that advocates will be out there trying to convince individuals or utility executies of the merits of their energy sources; not the government.
One more thing, to add to Uvdiv's last post. The govt. does not pay a dime to decommission nuclear plants, or to store, handle or dispose of their spent fuel (nuclear waste). All of these costs are fully paid for by the utility, and are already fully included in nuclear's price. Thus, the market (competition) fully accounts for these costs. And the costs are very low, BTW. The cost for plant decommissioning is only ~0.25 cents/kW-hr. The cost of dealing with spent fuel is only 0.1 cents/kW-hr. These fees are routinely audited to ensure their adequacy.
Every report you read has an agenda. Most modern manufacturing practices are unsustainable, sustained by taxing the middle classes. China provides most manufactured goods by holding her Yuan at about one sixth of its true value, this is a tax on her middle classes who pay exorbitant prices for overseas goods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmall is controllable and does not cause a major calamity when things go wrong. It also offers security. A diversified energy generating system is safer and more reliable than a centrally based energy system. Same is true of banks. The current economic crises would not have resulted if banks were small. A conspiracy to exchange credit default swaps between banks when the general public was unwilling to buy them would have become public knowledge if a larger number of banks were involved. But I digress..
Distribution infrastructure can be downsized if thousands of small generators exist. Maintenance is distributed, creating distributed work and its cost is also distributed. Corruption associated with very large organisations is also eliminated (think Enron). Capital costs are distributed, any taxpayer dollars are more evenly spread across the community rather than handed over to the very rich few.
Small has always been safer and fairer. Nuclear power generation will keep carbon 14 levels rising. Its just nitrogen morphing into carbon in the presence of alpha particles.
The assertion that nuclear will have high long term costs is based on cost overruns on the first generation plants. It false on its face, because those same first generation plants are now the lowest cost power sources on the grid except hydro. Large power projects are built with borrowed money, so the power is always expensive to begin with to pay back the loans. A new nuclear plant will likely last 60-100 years. After the loans are paid back the power will be cheap. If we are going to have a real economy that produces real products, they are the only environmentally acceptable solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe MIT 4000 a kw is just a (WAG) wild guess based on suspect figures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) It is based on a few Asian reactors with some rather dubious conversions to US Dollars.
2) In the middle of the worst depression in a century it assumes without proof that nuclear plant cost inflation is 15%.
3) It assumes 11% cost of money at a time when public power ie governments can borrow at 3%.
4) Ignored are Westinghouse's sale of four ap-1000 reactors for 5.5 billion to China a little over 1300 a kw and Hyperions sale of six of its 25 mw units for $25 million each again $1000 a kw with 45 mw of free heat leftover to warm the town.
5) Ignored also is Westinghouse's contention that with mass production techniques it can produce these reactors for around $1000 a kilowatt. With a World War Two hell bent for leather lets save the planet from global warning type effort ramping up quickly to hundreds of plants opening worldwide every year, costs for mass produced reactors would drop drastically.
5) It assumes every country is like the US where a large portion of costs are a result of an army of attorneys, bureaucrats and insurance companies lined up for and against any proposed private power company nuclear plants.
Renewables cheaper. What a joke
I am very sad to note that Sciam has become a platform for all sorts of misinformation and outright drivel, much of it aimed against nuclear energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease come back to your objective, scientific roots lest you lose at least one subscriber who has enjoyed your honest reporting for 30-plus years.
I'm as liberal as anyone, but on this one, the left is being fearful and conservative, and they are definitely in the wrong. Nuclear is the cleanest and quickest way out of our energy mess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will agree that renewables are the future. ...but Nuclear is now.
As for the economic side, I'll just point out that money not being in circulation is a drain on the system. Things everyone uses are the things everyone should pay for, and energy & energy independence are two of the biggest of those things. Even if it did cost "more" that's not necessarily a detractor.
Well, I have met many people who are anti-nuc, but none of them have proposed an alternative. We cannot continue to rely on coal (over 50% of our electric generation), natural gas or oil. They all produce lots of CO2, especially coal and oil. I read a special issue of Power Engineering yesterday, and the issue focused on hydro power. Some people have said that it is not a renewable energy source, though I do not understand why they have taken this position. I believe that hydro power is a renewable energy source, and that said, it makes much more electricty than all other US renewable energy sources combined. Hydro power really dominates Canada, BTW. Nuclear power needs to be very strong in our effort to gain energy independence and to minimize the release of CO2. Strong nuclear power advocate that I am, I really do support renewable energy, as we must utilize it to survive. Mideast oil and US coal are just not the answers that we need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack Stanford, PE
StanfordJ@ASME.org
920-388-0776
And I bet that the powers that be will select nuclear power. And most likely because the nuclear industry can afford higher-priced lobbyists...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLobbyists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets see nuclear industry - 2008 Westinghouse and GE Gross sales :10 billion
Big Oil/Coal 2008 revenue 100 billion
Since all US Congressman and Senators are for sale to the highest bidder in campaign donation baksheesh, I suggest the Big Oil's lobbyists are winning hands down. The fact that no nukes but lotsa expensive polluting coal/oil/gas plants have been built in the US in 30 years is the score card you need to look at.
Pure rubbish from a Vermont lawyer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFYI - Folks, Vermont is in the throes of its ultra-green, superannuated hippies insisting on shutting down a perfectly functioning nuclear power plant called Vermont Yankee.
The entire article is absolute rubbish. It has no grounding in any facts whatsoever. This article isn't even an article about the subject of nuclear power. It is an article about another article written by a man with an agenda of anti-nuke that comes to a predetermined conclusion.
It does not matter if you believe in climate change caused by humanity or not. What I believe everyone can agree on is; we need high paying jobs and we need to stop paying big bucks for energy. Now is the time to exploit space power and resources. Sunlight is available in high Earth orbit 24/7, 365 days a year. We have had the technology since the late 60’s to transmit via microwave all the energy we could ever use, to Earth, from orbit. The material for constructing the space end of the system is available on the near Earth asteroids and the Moon. We the people need the government to fund the project just as the government funded World War II. Our survival as a people with liberty was threatened by mad men with weapons during WWII. Today our survival is threatened by mad men with oil. If we as a people shrink from the task at hand we will lose our liberty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis guy is really a good lawyer...the talent to argue complete rubbish with a straight face takes one far in this world
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind and solar cannot replace any base load generation (coal, nuclear) snce they are variable unreliable sources of energy. They also are diffuse and do not have the power density necessary to economically produce power on a large scale. It is so obvious that I am stunned by the lack of intelligence of the voting public that they buy into all of the hot air. Maybe we do need a poll test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is like comparing apples to oranges or suggesting that the bicycle can replace the automobile.
Politicians continue to meddle and seem to think that electrons will follow their politicaly correct whims. They won't. No matter what the polls say the electrons will always follow the laws of physics. Unfortunately the voters are too stupid to realize they are being duped.
So nuclear energy is even going to be more expensive than renewables. By the way, it is also unfair to future generations. One generation gets the energy, all others get the nuclear waste, with all the risks connected to it. So here is a situation in which one group gets advantages and the other group gets disadvantages while it has no possibility to prevent that. The general term for that is EXPLOITATION. That is morally inacceptable. The only npn-exploitative option is renewables. Look at the DESERTEC project in Europe and North Africa, for example. That is the way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wind and solar cannot replace any base load generation (coal, nuclear) since they are variable unreliable sources of energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey can, if we build a continental-wide or worldwide grid. The DESERTEC project is one example. Linking solar power from Northern Africa to French nukes, Swiss/Norwegian hydro, Swedish CHP plants, British offshore wind and other power sources eliminates the need for base load coal plants and new nukes.
"suggesting that the bicycle can replace the automobile"
If the automobile will continue to be the king of transportation we're doomed. We should produce sustainable (i.e., no corn ethanol) liquids fuels for things like aviation. We can't waste liquids fuels in urban sprawl, poor planning and lazy asses. We should retrofit cities with an emphasis on public transport (running on clean electricity), denser living, walking and bicycling. We must stop planning for the car.
"They can, if we build a continental-wide or worldwide grid. The DESERTEC project is one example. Linking solar power from Northern Africa to French nukes, Swiss/Norwegian hydro, Swedish CHP plants, British offshore wind and other power sources eliminates the need for base load coal plants and new nukes. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually no they can't. You can't replace 50% of our baseload generation with renewables. There is not enough land, sea, desert to do this. Power density and capacity factor will not allow it.
So on top of all of this we have to build massive T&D interconenects all over the place to pick up the windmill and solar panel generation which will transport the power , with all of the associated line losses, great distances when the wind isn't blowing somewhere.
And this is cheaper, better? What a crock. SCIAM needs to quit perpetuating a fraud
Oh yeah, and we need more centrally planned communities. That worked real well the last time it was tried in the USSR.
If you kill the economy with exorbitant energy costs you might achieve that same USSR effect by depression.
.
what frustrates me about the people who I have talked to who are pro-nuclear energy is that they don't accept that anything else can be better. If the perspective is solely economic, coal is the best solution for energy. Nuclear is better for the environment, but renewables are even more eco-friendly because there is no waste or uranium mining.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have spent hours trying to look up the current cost of renewables and nuclear, and have been frustrated that even with the internet and several books that claim to be comparing energy sources fail to provide that information.
Both renewables and nuclear energy require subsidies from the government. But Nuclear could not even get insurance without the government, because the banks (again emphasized in the wall street study sited in the article) decided it is too risky. How is letting the free market choose liberal?
This is almost amusing. Renewable proponents want everyone to invest in wind and solar; have *they* invested in renewable energy? I can shell out $30,000 today for a solar-electric system to power my home that will payback in ~22 years -- if I install it myself. Should I? Heck, no! The risks of reduced output over those 22 years (for a variety of reasons) are too great for me to invest my funds. Simply put, I am not willing to take that risk. And those individuals that propose replacing coal and nukes with wind and solar are not waving cash around either. They want someone *else* to take the risk. Electric utilities will make the investment where it financially viable -- there are no wind farms in my area because it is not a good financial investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo offense to you who are the early adopters and are blazing trails by making that investment; you are few and far between. My intention is to address those that make much noise in the media and forums concerning what everyone else needs to do for them and their ideology.
The primary method by which we can all make a difference is by conserving. Evidently, we do not want to. I am as guilty as any of you. Last night, I sat in my 2000 sqft home kept at a comfy 78 degrees F while it was 90 degrees F outside. Required? No. Smart? Not really, but that's my lifestyle.
YMMV
Nuclear's present subsidy is catastrophic liability insurance (Price -Anderson). That's it. At this time, which includes the TMI accident, more has been paid into the fund then has been paid out. Utilities have all paid into a fund for permanent waste disposal which it appears the government plans on reneging on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLoan guarntees are being proposed. Once again, like co-signing, you only pay on default.
Compare that to wind and solar subsidies which pay per kw generated. That's the only way anyone will build them. So the extra you pay for these sources is hidden in your taxes. Whoopee what a deal.
Nuclear power's operational costs are low. It is an economical way to prodcue power on a large scale, reliably 24/7, CO2 if you are so inclined as to buy into the AGW fraud.
If you want CO2 baseload generation nuclear is the only option.
Is every thing in this article a lie or just the parts that I personally know of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewables are very material and manufacturing intensive. (Read mining and energy consumpsion.) HELLO, just why, do you think that, they are so expensive? Without government subsidies, there is no profit in them.
COAL is the worst, dirtiest way there is to create energy, it is also the quickest, and most effective use of resourse's to get energy. It makes profits and PAYS taxes to the government. I personally like solar panel systems but lets GET REAL. ALL of the best arguments in the world by the slickest lawyers will not change the laws of economics and physics.
And all the most wonderful demands of Eco's will not help.
This article seems very biased and disparaging. I just finished a 50 page research report about reprocessing nuclear waste and the benefits are ignored by articles like this. It's only more expensive if you don't factor in things like Yucca mountain. Reprocessing waste will reduce nuclear waste in the United States by 95%. No kidding. Not to mention that waste will only need a few hundred years to decay to a safe level instead of 10,000. If by "renewables" you're referring to solar, biofuels and wind power, I think you need to check your research. They're all highly subsidized and are just bandaids. I used to really appreciate SCIAM, but now I'm wondering how scientific it is to find "studies" by the WSJ and use them to support your opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisha ha agreed Roger. Their podcasts, for example seem to be more like anti-creationism propaganda than unbiased science. Almost every episode for a few weeks had Steve Mersky making fun of someone for believing in something other than "pure science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is nothing but pure propaganda! These numbers can be manipulated at will. Did they incorporate advances in nuclear technology that would vastly reduce the cost? For example, the use of thorium based breeder reactors? No. They did not. This is completely and totally agenda driven. I am very disappointed with SCIAM for not giving due time to the counter opinion. I will soon be cancelling my subscription to a magazine that has become nothing but a political springboard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting that SCIAM now tries to influence public opinion on nuclear power and other energy sources. Recently, people were starving in America because so much corn and grain was diverted to ethanol production in order to increase biofuels production. Now, we get reports of how unsafe it is to have these unburned fuels wafting in the atmosphere and that the addition of ethanol in gasoline actually decreases engine efficiency thus requiring the burning of MORE gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also don't understand this cost issue concerning nuclear power. The Japanese and the French have very little waste left over as they reprocess as much of the material as possible for reuse in nuclear power, medicine and other industries. We could do more of the same.
Also, I am thinking that as we use more exotic fuels for our vehicles and power plants, we may wind up paying a greater cost in medical bills. I have only heard of one person dying as a result of issues with nuclear power in the United States, and that was in the Manhattan Project.
Interesting that SCIAM now tries to influence public opinion on nuclear power and other energy sources. Recently, people were starving in America because so much corn and grain was diverted to ethanol production in order to increase biofuels production. Now, we get reports of how unsafe it is to have these unburned fuels wafting in the atmosphere and that the addition of ethanol in gasoline actually decreases engine efficiency thus requiring the burning of MORE gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also don't understand this cost issue concerning nuclear power. The Japanese and the French have very little waste left over as they reprocess as much of the material as possible for reuse in nuclear power, medicine and other industries. We could do more of the same.
Also, I am thinking that as we use more exotic fuels for our vehicles and power plants, we may wind up paying a greater cost in medical bills. I have only heard of one person dying as a result of issues with nuclear power in the United States, and that was in the Manhattan Project.
Interesting that SCIAM now tries to influence public opinion on nuclear power and other energy sources. Recently, people were starving in America because so much corn and grain was diverted to ethanol production in order to increase biofuels production. Now, we get reports of how unsafe it is to have these unburned fuels wafting in the atmosphere and that the addition of ethanol in gasoline actually decreases engine efficiency thus requiring the burning of MORE gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also don't understand this cost issue concerning nuclear power. The Japanese and the French have very little waste left over as they reprocess as much of the material as possible for reuse in nuclear power, medicine and other industries. We could do more of the same.
Also, I am thinking that as we use more exotic fuels for our vehicles and power plants, we may wind up paying a greater cost in medical bills. I have only heard of one person dying as a result of issues with nuclear power in the United States, and that was in the Manhattan Project.
Interesting that SCIAM now tries to influence public opinion on nuclear power and other energy sources. Recently, people were starving in America because so much corn and grain was diverted to ethanol production in order to increase biofuels production. Now, we get reports of how unsafe it is to have these unburned fuels wafting in the atmosphere and that the addition of ethanol in gasoline actually decreases engine efficiency thus requiring the burning of MORE gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also don't understand this cost issue concerning nuclear power. The Japanese and the French have very little waste left over as they reprocess as much of the material as possible for reuse in nuclear power, medicine and other industries. We could do more of the same.
Also, I am thinking that as we use more exotic fuels for our vehicles and power plants, we may wind up paying a greater cost in medical bills. I have only heard of one person dying as a result of issues with nuclear power in the United States, and that was in the Manhattan Project.
According to Russian, American and British sources, nuclear electricity was originally sold solely as a means of reducing the extortionate cost of producing plutonium for atomic bomb projects. Therefore, as nuclear energy has been admitted to be an uneconomical defence issue no longer being of any strategic value, why continue with the illogical uneconomical civil programs? Wait until the current plant has achieved its life cycle, but surely build nothing new .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would start with the fact that renewable energy sources come no where close to meeting grid demand! Second, nuclear sources are much better on the environment than coal! Finally, your analysis is based on old technology. The new generation will be based on much safer and nearly autonomous systems that operate using Thorium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt always kills me those advocates of renewable sources always speak of the future of photovoltaics and wind energy but always make the comparison to nuclear technology that is 40 years old. To simply dismiss nuclear sources as uneconomical is as ridiculous as dismissing photovoltaics as uneconomical. Ya...maybe now! You are simply apply a double standard!
This is the reasonable and rational approach but government will play substantial role and politicians have trouble with long views, short election cycles, and ability to keep vested interests at arms length.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to point out that there is a cheap and easy way to dispose of radioactive waste. Several years ago now, although not many people know this, scientists at Chernobyle Power station found fungi that thrived on radioactivity and nuclear waste, even fed off it. This process cleared any radioactivity in the area making the area 'clean'. If we could cultivate this fungi, we would never have to worry about radioactive waste damaging the environment ever again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo: samuelsg, you say " I just finished a 50 page research report about reprocessing nuclear waste and the benefits are ignored by articles like this." I've been looking for a good current report on recycling. Can you give the reference? France, Japan and others have been separating the Pu and other long life products since near the start of their nuclear power programs. Jimmy Carter stopped efforts in the late 1970's and that was a big player in the cancellation of Nuclear power efforts in the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the majority of comments that the article is poorly written and poorly documented. I worked on the design and construction of the first generation of nuclear power plants, as i frequently say through the birth and death of nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people do not realize that for those plants completed and put into service during the late 70s and the 80s over half the cost of the plants was the effective interest on the money used for construction of the plants. A major part of this was due to the excessive delays in getting the plants in operation brought about by anti-nuclear activists.
The authors seem to be trying to get a head start on the next generation of nuclear plants with their distortion of the costs and benefits of nuclear power.
A lot of mis information here so let's look at real facts on actual units.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI being lucky to live in Fla where 4 new reactors have just been priced out at $9k/kw to build. They will take 10 yrs to put in and every nuke plant in recent yrs has come in at 50-100% over bid!! But for argument sake we'' say $9ki/kw
Next let's do RE like wind generators. Here are some for $1k/kw built to last, www.magnet4less.com They also sell the parts to build your own from scratch which is about $400/2kw unit.
plus others available, yahoo axial flux for many other American makers.
So home windgens are 1/9 the cost of nukes, no? With inverters too still only $2k/kw.
Now CSP solar units are 5hp steam/Rankine engines with a 200sq' trough collector and a 3kw alt would cost about $6k in mass production and needs no inverter as the alt connects to the grid directly with just an auto switch and breaker. So that's $2k/kw plus as a bonus you get 12kw/hr of heat. So per day 9-27kwhrs of electric and 24-72kwhrs of heat/hot water. Now add an optional wood pellet or any other fuel burner and you can have heat/power even if the sun don't shine.
Now using biomass and NG as back ups, peak power at under $3k/kw and it kicks coal, nukes a--
Other killer apps are kinetic hydro river/tidal power running under $.02kwhr I've personally have done and EV's charging from RE at night and giving power back in the day that's not needed for transport, recharged to go home. Each EV has a 50-200kw inverter easily doable to put power back into the grid.
So please tell me again how nukes, coal are cheaper than wind, river/tidal or solar?