Personally I’m convinced that persuing the nuclear course is a waste of time no matter what the price is *now*, because it will increase, whereas the price of using renewables is decreasing. Renewables are not per se good – I guess ethanol from corn or oil from rape seed is one of the worst things to do on a large scale, whereas using algae or grass waste is better.

I’m a “photovoltaics-guy” myself, love powering everything from toys to large boats – including my own house and computer infrastructure – with solar power. It’s just so cool: stick a panel in the sun and it runs! So what if it costs a lot! People are prepared to spend a hundred or so times more on something they think is cool than the cheapest alternative, just think about his when you order or buy a bottle of water or wine instead of drinking tap water or local tea. Of course PV has environmental costs reflected in the high price and needs a lot of storage capability and/or other power sources, so it’s not all good. But some of the risks – like falling from the roof when mounting your panels – are preferable to the statistical increases in cancer from small amounts of radition caused by nuclear fuel processing. I wonder if such external costs can be included in the price calculations.

The swell of costs occurring in the 1970s and 80s was the result of regulators realizing that if standards didn’t quickly get more rigorous, one more accident like Three Mile Island would put them permanently out of a job — b/c the industry then was under existential threat.

If you stand next to an irradiated spent fuel bundle, you will die of acute radiation poisoning in less than 20 minutes. You can come back 1,000 years later and still die.

Therefore, masses of concrete and lead are necessary to shield from all post-reactor phases of the nuclear cycle, before it’s finally buried in a hole in the ground. (however, on the front end with the mine tailings, there is effectively no containment of the waste) Why someone thinks carbon capture & sequestration would be less feasible than storage of nuke waste for 500,000 years is beyond me.

The relatively small verified body count from nuclear is an artifact of two things:

1. such casualties from cancer as have occurred are being denied, just as in the cases of tobacco and lead. With long latency periods and not enough epidemiological studies, we have to use indirect inferences from A-Bomb survivors and uncertain dosimetry. If you don’t count the casualties, you can continue to claim “safe” nuclear power.

2. the industry has really only recently passed from ‘infant’ to ‘adolescent’ status. To quickly grow from 100 GW/yr in the USA to 2,000 as advocated to tackle climate change, will greatly multiply both chronic and accidental radioactive exposures.

CAPITAL RECOVERY PERIOD YRS: 40
WEIGHTED AVG COST OF CAPITAL 14.50%

I think most of us would disagree with these assumptions. Many reactors will operate longer than 40 years and a gov’t backed loan would be far less. To get to .20 kw-hr for cost, the number comes to repaying the value of the nuke plant in 7 years.

The fundamental mistake of this study is assuming the worse case/high side scenario.

How about a similar study for wind and solar based on actual end user USD kw-hr. I bet it’s more. My guess is wind and solar are >.30 kw-hr.

[JR: Most of you should do your own detailed analysis and get a single nuclear utility to stand behind them in a rate case. In fact, the Author has explained why those assumptions are reasonable.]

http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 02/ nukes-must-withstand-aircraft-crash.html

Echoing my earlier comments, if nuclear plants were not ultrahazardous, why must they be built to withstand such an unlikely event? Why not the same precautions for oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, steel mills, and chemical plants?

This new requirement will likely add 5 to 10 cents per kwh to the costs as published by Severance, and a longer construction time. Thus, power from nuclear plants will now cost $0.30 to $0.40 per kwh.

It was the 8 GW completed in one year, not 25 GW

“Compared to the documented effects from the worst accident ever involving radioactive materials, the death toll in New York was significantly greater.”

“While you’re at it, please reference a case of a worker or any member of the public who has suffered ill health effects from an American nuclear power plant.”

I think this is a lame argument for nuclear. The potential harm from nuclear is almost unthinkable. Nuclear energy leads to nuclear weapons. Obviously, it’s the big nuclear catastophy that scares the hell out of people.

I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how building nuclear power plants on a large scale all over the world is not going to make for a more dangerous planet. What’s going on right now with Iran comes to mind.

JimHopf

You question whether wind is cheap enough. It’s already proven, it’s being built like gangbusters, increasing by 8.3 GW in 2008 and growing jobs by 70% to 85,000. Wind capacity is now 25 GW. A capacity factor of 35% gives you 8.75 GW 24/7 equivalent, or about 8 or 9 nuclear reactors worth of power. Completed in one year, with 4 GW completed in the last three months of 2008.

There’s no question if it’s cheap enough. Not so with nuclear or clean coal.

Why are you against renewable getting subsidies and dismiss that nuclear has been heavily subsidized for half a century? That’s a level playing field?

Wind will be built where it is cost effective not in some state where it won’t be because of lack of wind. Why are you comparing nuclear to wind in an unwindy location?

I guess we can both agree that the other is obviously working from a different foregone conclusion. I won’t bother pointing out the logical flaws in your arguments again. It is obvious your mind is made up. I can only hope that future policy and public opinion is more defined by science and true costs than the prejudicial dogma and outright falshoods that you continue to spout.

Say Hi to Hanoi Jane for me at your next meeting.

FL

Repeating myself, but the Combined Cycle plants fired by natural gas, with wind turbines providing power into the same grid, DO exist. Your refusal to accept an existence proof is puzzling, to put it nicely.

As to power transmission lines, do you assume that an incremental nuclear plant can just send the power along the existing lines? Surely you understand that transmission lines have limits, just like freeways? More transmission lines will be required. And, I don’t recall anyone whining when the Palo Verde plant was installed and transmission lines were run across hundreds of miles of desert into California.

Your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest will come as a surprise to the hundreds of people with whom I work and associate. I work with serious players who invest hundreds of billions of dollars over long time horizons. Any proposal that is advanced for serious consideration must pass their laugh test. Hence, my deep understanding of the economics and financing options and evaluation of alternatives. We do not use fallacious economic models, rather, we use detailed economic and financing methods accepted under various industry protocols.

As to the alternative nuclear projects you cite, if they are not seeking bank funding, their investment returns must be even higher. Private investors almost always require a better return than does a bank. Therefore, the alternative projects you tout will have even less chance of success attracting investment capital.

You and I disagree on the future of nuclear fission power. I am on record stating they will not be built in the U.S. due to cost issues, and lawsuits to delay their implementation. Only where governments subsidize their costs, and hide their true cost of operation will those plants be built. France is a good example. China is building some, too, under the same paradigm.

Clean power from nukes? Nope, not even close! Uranium mining ruins the environment and water. Uranium processing into fuel uses toxic materials and further contaminates the environment. Spent fuel rods release heat into the environment for decades. Reprocessing spent fuel is hazardous beyond words. Nuclear plants themselves release far more than 70 percent of their heat into the environment and not as electricity.

Safe power from nukes? Accidents happen regularly. Toxic, radioactive waste is placed into the environment. Search for radioactive water spills. Also, please consider this quote from Japan’s nuclear website: “… during the formulation of the Long-Term Program, a criticality accident occurred at the JCO Tokai Plant in Ibaraki Prefecture…”

Inexpensive power from nukes? Who are you trying to kid? How, exactly, is power produced at $0.25 to $0.30 per kwh inexpensive? That does not pass the laugh test.

It is clear that your mind is made up, and no rational, factual arguments will change that. So be it. I continue to watch with great interest the progress of new nuclear power plants around the world, and place them into categories of non-USA, and in the USA. In sports terms, the score is 44 – 0. Data from IAEA.

I truly do not understand people like you, who want to foist off on the largely un-informed public toxic, unsafe, and outrageously expensive nuclear power. Does not the burden of poor people bother you? Or people on fixed incomes such as the retired? Does increasing the cost of their electricity not bother your conscience? Do you realize that every dollar they spend on electric power is a dollar they do not have to spend on food or medicine or heating fuel or clothes or shelter?

Good day to you, Sir!

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
California

I was referring to the reference by Mr. Severance to CCGWT (Combined Cycle Gas and Wind Turbines). This is an emergant technology that neither Mr. Pickens nor anyone else is using yet. Mr. Severance says so and he is correct. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines have indeed been used for decades – but it is not what Mr. Severance referred to. You use the straw man version of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy here – you are right in what you say but it does not respond to what I said.

I did not say Nuclear plants don’t need transmission lines. I said they can be built where transmission lines already exist – as opposed to wind farms that will need many miles of NEW transmission lines. Again, you arguing against something I did not say.

Power demand does not depend on point of view – it is the amount of watts needed. I suppose you could argue about dynamic demand mechanisms, peak demand equations, etc but you might as well argue about what the definition of “is” is. It is beside the point of this particular argument. Total electrical demand in this country and on the planet in general has, is, and by all estimates will continue to rise.

Mr. Severance says if it costs too much, people will use it less. While that might be true in individual cases, and certainly it is reasonable to assume that most people will be more conservative in its use, it does not follow that total electricity demand will fall as he states and you defend. An aggregate increase in generation will be required. Mr. Severance’s report says otherwise and my statement that he is wrong about this agrees with all US and international forecasts extant.

This is the crux of my assertion that anti-nukers are intellectually dishonest. They (you) bend the facts and the argument to your own ends.

Your bank loan argument is another version of the classic ignoratio elenchi fallacy. Whether or not a bank will lend money for a particular enterprise is not evidence that the enterprise is unprofitable. Several commercial initiatives (Adams Atomic Engines, Hyperion, Nu-Scale, etc) are succeeding in both building markets and investment stategies in nuclear. I applaud them all.

By the way, Mr. Severance’ report only argues against the model of traditional large nuclear plants (however irrationally). The aforementioned companies are building a new paradigm that is completely outside of Mr. Severance’s arguments.

Mr. Severance is previously published and his position is clear. He’s against nuclear energy. Fine. But he misstates opinion as fact and manufactures one-sided arguments to support his forgone conclusion that is not supported by facts.

Laugh away, Mr. Sowell. But science IS going to be the new driver in Energy (finally!) and neither fallacious economic models nor knee-jerk anti-nuke sentiment will be able to stop the clean, safe, inexpensive production of electricity with nuclear fission.

ForkyLee