Comments on: Nuclear power, Part 2: The price is not right

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:47:44 +0000

Link for the June 2007 Joint Nuclear Fact Finding Report:

http://208.72.156.157/ ~keystone/ files/ file/ about/ publications/ FinalReport_NuclearFactFinding6_2007.pdf

By: jay bearu

jay bearu — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:06:06 +0000

President Obama could be a great energy leader by promoting nuclear power steam turbines. No carbon dioxide produced! He would have to rise above political biased obstructionist regulation, like his recent foolish Yucca mountain declaration. He should quit letting Maddam Pelosi threaten
him on this and other issues., especially border security!
Respectfully submitted.

By: sak

sak — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:09:27 +0000

Oh… and let’s get real engineers to submit details, not PAC organizations who select data based on what their constituent members desire.

Idealistic? Yes. But isn’t that the promise of our new administration?

By: sak

sak — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:07:04 +0000

*Disclosure* I come from an engineering family who has built nuclear, coal, and garbage burning plants [they often burn pot!!! seized by the gov't]

Personally, I’m not wedded to any one particular energy source and believe that different parts of the country have advantages in using one source over another. Which is great.

Here’s a couple things to ponder: Part of the nuclear costs- a massive part- is due to a) increased commodity prices [which have since plummeted] b) Federal approval process which has added years to the process as past administrations were not interested in seeing nuclear plants go forward and kept delaying the process.

As far as solar goes, the process for creating semi-conductors is dirty. I’ve heard the Silicon Valley has several EPA waste sites. So it’s not ‘clean’ until it’s up and running.

What would be most helpful is a comprehensive study that looks at the entire process for each source: all require mining at some point- how do you generate wind power without metal blades??? What would nuclear power really cost if the approval process was thorough, but not obstructionist?

When I see my greenest friends examining all options clearly, without visceral, knee-jerk responses, I’ll feel a lot better…and let the energy chips fall where they may.

Cheers!

By: msn nickleri

msn nickleri — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:48:58 +0000

Which is why it might be helpful to make a comparison accross the board of all energy sources because the building of new plants would be affected by price increases in the same way.

By: flash games

flash games — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:16:58 +0000

Which is why it might be helpful to make a comparison accross the board of all energy sources because the building of new plants would be affected by price increases in the same way.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:39:40 +0000

Go to “Generation costs (word doc)(11/16/07)”

That document is a fantasy. A 27-40% capacity factor for wind?

In practice (eg. Germany), it’s closer to 17-20%. That alone puts wind on an equal cost footing with even their estimate nuclear, furthermore the cost estimate for wind totally ignores the cost of grid integration (smart grid technology and monitoring to counteract wind’s intermittency is expensive as hell).

And their estimate for the cost of fuel for nuclear is totally off the wall – they have it costing an equal amount to coal for equivalent energy generated! That would require a ten-fifty fold increase in the price of uranium…

By: psp game downloads

psp game downloads — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:02:31 +0000

In October 2007, Florida Power and Light (FPL), “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt — $12 billion to $18 billion total!(These are the actual costs, not adjusted for inflation.)

By: hapa

hapa — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:01:24 +0000

Perhaps once the righties’ heads start exploding we can harness the released energy.

like fusion, i fear this is an impossible dream. cognitive dissonance just isn’t a reliable catalyst in some brains — or i should say that it is suppressed in the reaction by ideological fury. reduce the inhibitor, and you get better thinking, reducing the cognitive dissonance. it’s a no-win situation.

By: Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:25:34 +0000

We have an interesting situation developing…

1. Righties love the free market and hate government support–look at their repeated attempts to kill Amtrak funding, for example.

2. Righties love nuclear power.

3. Nuclear power can’t possibly stand on its own in a free market.

Perhaps once the righties’ heads start exploding we can harness the released energy.