Part 1 presented a new study by power plant cost expert Craig Severance that puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
Those ideologically promiscuous folks at the Heritage Foundation have replied with “New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic.” Craig’s point by point response follows a few of my comments.
Heritage is a leader of the conservative movement stagnation. They have written “the only thing a green ‘New Deal’ will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom,” comparing such a policy to “collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany,” and their Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change is quite confused about both of the subjects he analyzes.
The key paragraph in Heritage’s new critique is:
Aside from the cherry-picking of data and its clear tilt toward Big Green (the vast industrial complex and lobbying machine being built around global warming alarmism), its conclusions are potentially not that far off.
Yes Heritage is among those pushing the grand climate conspiracy, whereby the world’s National Academies of Science (including ours), the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, every major government in the world, and the leading science journals are conspiring to deceive the public.
(Note to Heritage: ‘Big’ Green is a “Vast industrial complex”? The nuclear and fossil fuel industries have maybe 50 times the revenues of the cleantech industry. So what does that make them—gargantuan? Try not to be so paranoid—For 30 years now (100 years?), your guys have had the ball and written the rules.)
And still, they can’t really dispute the conclusions. They can only try to blame environmentalists (i.e. the public) for supposedly slowing down the construction of nuclear power plants and running up the costs. But given that the public is assuming most of the liability of any major nuclear accident and given that the public is now assuming most of the economic risk of new nuclear plants with major loan guarantees, it is hard to argue against the public weighing in to ensure that the plants are built and run safely and affordably!
Indeed, to support the public taking all the risk of new plants while opposing the public having any say in the licensing process is some strange combination of socialism and totalitarianism. Hmm. Could that be Soviet collectivism? Nah.
The Heritage critique notes, “As one who believes in the value of nuclear energy, I am fully supportive of removing all the subsidies and government preferences and allowing the market to decide. If Big Green is so confident, then they should be prepared to do the same.”
If the government removed all subsidies and preferences for nuclear, we probably wouldn’t build another nuke. They simply couldn’t get insured or financed. I support removing subsidies and preferences for any power source that has more than a 5 percent market share. Nuclear is a mature technology and has seen vastly more subsidies than renewables, whereas many renewables are still coming down the cost curve and deserve government support.
That said, once we have correctly priced carbon dioxide to reflect its full harm to our health and well-being, then I would certainly be for removing virtually all subsidies and preferences for existing energy sources (though technologies with less than, say 1 percent marketshare could still get temporary support).
Finally, in Part 1, I wrote “So feel free to criticize the analysis, but anyone offering different all-in cost estimates for power from new nuclear plants should detail their own assumptions and calculation.” Heritage did not do that, so no one should take their critique too seriously. Nonetheless, here is Craig Severance’s detailed response:
Bravo! to the Heritage Foundation for calling for an end to all Federal subsidies for nuclear power, and “allowing the market to decide”.
I am a registered Republican and chaired my precinct caucus in this year’s Colorado caucus. However, John McCain’s and other supposed conservatives call for singling out nuclear power for massive Federal subsidies caught my attention last year. Heritage Foundation may recall that on June 20, 2008 I posted the following remarks on The Foundry:
I agree we should let the market work but McCain is proposing hundreds of billions in Federal pork for the nuclear industry that no other energy option will get. This is not letting the different industries (who also are American businesses creating American jobs) compete with nuclear on a fair
basis.
McCain got it right proposing a “cap and trade” carbon emissions reduction plan that will allow the most cost-effective methods to be adopted using a free market approach to meet the mandates. For instance, if a limit is set on the utility industry, then the utilities will bid out proposals.
Industries such as wind, solar, energy conservation, and nuclear will submit options, and if nuclear is the most cost-effective it could win some of those contracts.
The nuclear industry, however, with its $8000+/KW costs, knows it cannot compete on a level playing field, and has now convinced McCain to throw it billions in special subsidies.
This sounds like Energy Pork all over again. Round One was the corn ethanol lobby, now Round Two of Energy Pork is the nuclear lobby.
Is John McCain a true conservative, against pork projects for big lobbies, or not? No taxpayer funds should be needed whatsoever with a cap and trade plan. Why is it always the taxpayer who has to pay? Anyone who proposes cap-and-trade PLUS extra subsidies is just helping out a particular lobby
group.
We should just cap-and-trade (which by definition achieves carbon reduction goals), and let the free market work out the best means to meet the goals.
I’m glad to see Heritage has purportedly adopted a position in concert with conservative principles. My suspicion, however, is that when actual legislation and budgets are proposed, the ire of the Right against government manipulation of free markets will not be levied equally. These are just technologies we’re talking about here, folks. Yet too often, as Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, commented in his article “Nuclear Energy: Risky Business” posted here:
“Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, awonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding).”
Jerry Taylor’s full article is excellent, I suggest conservatives review it carefully. Of particular note is Taylor’s point “There’s another good reason why the [nuclear] industry is not protesting government intervention these days - the industry would not exist without it.”
As regards to the numbers in my Study, I am glad we are now going to be talking about specific numbers and how they play out—we can get past the mysterious Black Box, and the “religious devotion” noted by Taylor. If you have read my Study, you can see the final cost outcomes depend upon certain key factors. Are any of the following “Staggeringly Pessimistic”:
“Overnight” Cost Estimate—drawn directly from Florida Power & Light, using the midpoint of their Case A and Case C estimates. In other words, this is the industry’s own number. [See here for my discussion of the “nth” plant factor, in other words the advantages and realities of reaching economies from mass production.]
Cost of Capital—I use MIT’s assumption for the cost of equity capital but cut that cost by reducing the % assumed to be funded by Equity. I use 6.25% as the assumed cost of debt, which is 1.75% lower than the 8% rate assumed by MIT, and more than two full percentage points lower than current bond market rates. Also debt (the cheaper financing) is assumed to be 55% of funding instead of the 50% assumed by MIT or the 45% debt more commonly seen in public utility debt/equity ratios.
Escalation in Construction Costs During Construction Period—I plot out the effect of two different cost escalation rates, both of which are lower than recent experience with escalations in power plant construction costs. In other words, I optimistically assume that power plant construction costs will not continue to escalate as rapidly as they have.
Delays in Construction—I optimistically assume the proposed construction schedules laid out in utility dockets now underway will be achieved as proposed, with absolutely no delays. I do note with caution to investors, that if delays do occur, these utilities may face funding shortfalls so massive it may be impossible for the utility to obtain funds to complete the project. However, the cost projection numbers do not factor in any additional costs from delay.
Amortizing Capital Costs—David Bradish has suggested I should have assumed a higher initial cost/kWh for amortizing the capital costs, by assuming a shorter amortization period. He argues that once the power plants are finally paid off, the costs levied on ratepayers will decrease. Is this an advantage for nuclear, or is this a basic fact for all types of power plants? In other words, its ok for my family to buy a $2 million house, and its even better if I pay it off with a 15 year mortgage instead of a 30 year mortgage—because if I can just get past those 15 years, it will be a lot cheaper after that? Another example—a new movie house design is so expensive you will have to charge $50 a movie ticket, but that’s ok because you’ll only have to do that for the first 20 years? You won’t get past opening night.
My major concern is for the health of the electric utility industry (as also spelled out in Cato Institute Taylor’s article cited above). If a utility spends tens of billions and then tries to drastically raise electric rates to cover the costs, what will its customers do? If the increased rates dampen demand for kWh’s, the utility will not collect the projected revenues. Yet, almost none of its costs would go down, as they are fixed costs.
This is a setup for a spectacular insolvency and yet another trip to Washington for taxpayer bailouts. Have shareholders fared well in such cases? The nuclear industry has said not a single new nuclear plant can be built without Federal guarantees. What does that tell you?
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Comments
View as Flat
anyone Posted 3:52 am
09 Jan 2009
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...
And interconnected windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
Thinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.
http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.
Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008 alone. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/de/tour/wres/variab.htm
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
http://www.ausra.com/
HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of €70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).
http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...
China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http:/www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http:/www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...
Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: Efficiency
However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom to promote nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:17 am
09 Jan 2009
Concerning poster-bots, RealClimate would like you to outvote them in the year-end blog contest thing.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
Permalink
breckhenderson Posted 7:13 am
09 Jan 2009
I have not done a great deal of study regarding the cost of new nuclear plants, so I can't argue with you in excruciating detail on that matter. Nevertheless, I believe all of your studies are ignoring fundamental issues that have great bearing on the cost problem.
The first is the huge cost and risks imposed by our current regulatory regime. The system is rigged so that every citizen and every environmental group can potentially tie a license application up in court for decades. This risk represents huge potential for cost overruns in legal bills and interest on borrowed money.
Even were the licensing process allowed to proceed without intervention, the costs of obtaining a construction/operating permit are huge and require several years.
Safety is not an issue at nuclear power plants, no matter how loudly environmentalists may howl. I don't believe anyone can rationally argue with this claim after more than 50 years of operation without a single loss of life. Included in that experience is a meltdown at Three Mile Island, the worst accident scenario we can project, but which resulted in not a single injury or lost life.
Nevertheless, environmental groups continue to complain about nuclear safety and will seek to impose ever more draconian and costly safety programs through the NRC. This could unnecessarily adds billions to the cost of operating nuclear power in this country.
There is virtually no nuclear industry in the U.S. today, so all construction cost projections include buying components from overseas producers. Also, we don't have enough engineers, and certainly not enough experience building some of the advanced designs that are being proposed and which are beginning the licensing process today. So the costs of the first plants will be steep as the industry gears up and people gain experience. But, as the different manufacturers and builders begin to learn and compete for the business, and as manufacturing facilities are created in the U.S.(with large numbers of jobs, BTW), the costs will certainly come down.
My reading of the most recent energy act, which wrote into law financial support for nuclear power, only provides loan guarantees for the first few plants. This is the right thing to do since gov't regulation adds so much cost and uncertainty, and because once the first few plants are under construction the rest will benefit from the experience as stated above. Bear in mind that nuclear power woundn't exist without the huge investments made in the Manhattan Project during WWII and the subsequent effort after the war to convert this technology to a peaceful purpose. Think of it as an investment that we are still trying to wring the full benefit from.
So, to sum it up, nuclear may be expensive today, but here's what I believe needs to happen to make nuclear power affordable in the next few years. First, let's streamline the licensing process by forcing NRC to do it's work more quickly, and then let's write and enforce a set of rules that will prevent interveners from tying the licensing process up in court over the same dreary old issues (we all know that every plant sits directly over an earthquake fault, will surely cause an endangered species to go extinct, will foul some sacred site of native Americans, etc. etc.)
Then, we need to encourage more college students to become nuclear engineers. Here's a news flash -- nuclear power isn't rocket science! Nuclear power plants are pumps, valves, piping, steam turbines, your basic equipment little changed since the industrial revolution. What goes on inside the reactor vessel is just water flowing past some hot fuel rods, and engineers don't need to know very much about nuclear physics to do their jobs. The most important innovations in nuclear power are quality control, management, and a few details such as testing and non-destructive evaluation (to make sure welds are properly performed.)
Next is to encourage manufacture of components here in the U.S. Once we get that ball rolling, I suspect costs will come down.
The NRC currently has applications for combined construction/operating licenses for about 20 new plants. This wouldn't be happening if utilities believed the plants were not going to be economical, so no matter what studies you produce, it looks like things are moving forward.
The big picture I see is that anti-nuclear zealots remain unalterably opposed to nuclear power in any form. They've done a good job of forcing costs to go up, and now are taking advantage of that effort to make a case that the costs imposed render nuclear power un-economical.
What we need to turn that around is simply the will to do it.
Breck Henderson
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 10:11 am
09 Jan 2009
You mention we need to 'forc[e] NRC to do its work more quickly.' My understanding was there's generally a certain number of workerhours it takes to review these licenses, how would you speed up initial review (leaving aside intervenors for now) without adding new resources?
I heard that all Design Certification reviews for Gen IV are on the backburner (set to be taken up around 2014, according to an NRC staff doc I found) because NRC prioritizes designs referenced in pending COL's, and all current COL's are for Gen III/III+. Not a bad rule necessarily, and I'm sure most, if not all the Gen IV applicants (PBMR, NuScale, IRIS, Hyperion) you're in touch with have a good bit more work to do on their apps. Do you see as NRC being materially resource constrained in getting to these design certifications, or is the holdup more over just their time requirements on getting together a good/complete application?
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:01 pm
09 Jan 2009
Second, would you put your loved ones in a plane that hasn't killed anyone yet but has come damn close to slamming into bridges several times?
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 2:31 pm
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:43 pm
09 Jan 2009
As for regulatory delays, do you purpose that we simply tell large corporations to just "have at it" and build at will? You really comfortable with relying on the goodness of business?
Permalink
bryantheresa Posted 3:15 pm
09 Jan 2009
I hope I am open minded enough to accept technology on it's own merits, but whenever regulations, efficiency, economics and technology of Nuclear fission plants is discussed there always seems to be an omission of waste.
I'm pretty sure we're not going to see a billion gallons of spent fuel rods in the Tennessee river. But what DID we do with the past 60 years of radioactive waste? It is all safely put away and harmless, right? Or is it still in swimming pools scattered throughout the world while someone figures out what to do with it?
If those pools spring a leak or the pumps stop running, or the neighbourhood is the ninth ward what happens? Do we have to keep those little pools cleaned and recirculated and topped off for the next 10 months? 10 years? 10 centuries? My best guess is 10,000 years of pool maintainance - but my backyard pool won't run for a year without intervention.
I guess this should keep the cabana boys employed for the foreseeable future.
Of course this problem will be solved, why just last week I heard about ... ummm ... never mind.
Since Fission's big benefit is "no CO2 production", how much electricity and diesel does it take to dig up Australian Uranium from open pit mines enrich it if necessary; ship it to India, get rid of the UF6 or whatever the process is today, bathe spent fuel for a century, truck it away from population, dig more holes in the ground, giftwrap it nicely and store it for as long as agriculture has existed?
Is there a private insurance company that will write a policy for a nuclear reactor? I know they're safe, you know they're safe, but what did it cost the Ukraine when the only poorly designed reactor on earth failed?
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 4:26 pm
09 Jan 2009
Should there be no opposition? Of course not. I would hope watchdogs show up at every public NRC hearing on a license or w/e, but I would hope they would come armed with specific issues they would like to see resolved, as opposed to just using irrelevant technicalities to tie up projects in courts to bleed them to death. Should they shut up once the shovels hit the ground? Not if they don't want to, its a free country and all that. But that doesn't mean the regulatory process should grant them undue influence to wreck projects without demonstrating factual concerns.
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:41 pm
09 Jan 2009
Gotta' add that cost into the kWh price of nuclear power. As you would have to add in a similar cost were you to try to dam one of our few remaining wild rivers for hydro.
Does that cost alone drive the cost of new nuclear out of the range of affordability? Of course not.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:54 pm
09 Jan 2009
I see the best tactic to eliminate nuclear power as compromise with the enemy.
Support industry R&D on fourth generation waste neutralizing and fusion reactors to develop and test designs, then prove they can compete on cost and safety, including insurance and waste disposal.
If they can compete, go ahead and permit them. I am betting that they can't. Not under independent scrutiny and an honest subsidy free basis. No way , no how. But let them try.
For our part of the compromise, we would want, waste cleanup, an end to subsidies, private insurance for present nuclear plants, and absolutely no more present generation nuclear plants.
Don't compromise, that's fine with me, but don't claim we are the ones who won't negotiate.
We absolutely do need fast neutron waste treatment reactors that can be moved from site to site to clean up the present mess. It is not safe or financially feasible to transport this waste to a central storage facility like Yucca Mountain.
But as far as nuclear power continuing to generate electricty after presntly operating plants are shut down, and waste treatment reactors that also generate power are no longer needed, it looks to me like fission will never compete. Maybe fusion will, but who knows? It's worth the R&D funding to find out though.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 7:12 pm
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:40 pm
09 Jan 2009
We're likely to see great opposition to stretching power lines over national parks, much less taking them over railroad existing right of ways, for example.
Around where I live there has been a multi-year battle between putting a public trail along the ocean cliffs and resistance by a singe land owner. The courts did not force it through as the trail was not a dire need by the public.
I would expect that if right of way were needed to run a HVDC line between Great Plains wind farms and Chicago the courts would decide on the side of the greater public good. That's what generally happens with highways, sewage lines, etc.
As elected leaders become better informed about our need to make changes and make them quickly (IMHO) it will be easier to adjust regulations to fit the public interest.
Obviously regulation is often onerous to the individual being regulated. Less so form the beneficiary....
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 8:55 pm
09 Jan 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:31 pm
09 Jan 2009
I think that there will be less opposition to lines in general than there will be for new nuclear sites.
Things will vary from place to place in the country. There may be little opposition to building additional plants along side existing ones, much more trying to place one along the Pacific coast.
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 12:03 pm
10 Jan 2009
"And still, they can't really dispute the conclusions. They can only try to blame environmentalists (i.e. the public) for supposedly slowing down the construction of nuclear power plants and running up the costs. "
As I have said in several different forums today - I do not dispute the projected numbers that Severance has produced. They are as accurate as anyone else's predictions of the future. It is possible that power from new nuclear power plants will require an electricity cost of 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour. (As an aside - can you tell me which year dollars were used? I must have missed that in the study.)
There is plenty of blame to go around for the experiences of the First Atomic Age. There were management mistakes, a lack of understanding of some of the challenges of scaling the plants up from the 60 MWe Shippingport reactor to the 1350 MWe reactors at the South Texas Project, there were rapid shifts in regulations, and there were some weaknesses in safety culture and operator training.
The fact remains that heavy metal fission is a reliable source of concentrated heat that can be used in industrial processes, in thermal power plants, and for motive force. The material inputs needed are orders of magnitude less than those required by fossil fuel combustion. The raw materials are readily available in many friendly countries. The waste products are also highly concentrated and readily isolated from the environment.
The production costs of currently operating reactors average about 30% less than the production cost of currently operating coal plants. Compared to "clean natural gas" the production cost for nuclear would have to be multiplied by a factor of 3.8 to equal the production cost for gas fired generation.
In fact, the marginal cost of running the plants is nearly zero since they cost just about as much to own when they are not running as when they are. That is dramatically different from the competitive coal and natural gas plants that represent 70% of the electricity produced in the US.
We have been handling waste safely on site for more than 50 years. No one has been hurt and no hazardous material has been released to the environment. Dry casks require little attention and will last for at least a century without deterioration. If used fuel recycling is still not common at the time that the casks need replacement, moving the solid ceramic material after 100 years of radioactive decay will be a simple matter. I would gladly host a container or two in my own backyard and would have no problem living in the same town as the entire US inventory of used fuel - it would take up less space than a football stadium.
Fission's main problem, and the reason that it will always be opposed by some people, is that it threatens many establishment interests. It has the demonstrated potential to rapidly increase the world's energy supply and puts a lie to the notion that energy is a rare and valuable commodity that is rapidly being depleted.
In a world where fission is treated in a way commensurate with its real risk, a vast portion of the capital assets of some very powerful groups lose tremendous value since they are based on an idea that energy is scarce. When I mention "fossil interests" I am not just talking about Big Oil, but about King Coal and that ever popular Clean Natural Gas (which happens to be an integral part of Big Oil in many cases).
The big players in the fossil fuel world (including the banks, transportation industries and governments) quietly cheer when opposition groups propose rules that restrict new energy sources and increase the price at which they can sell their dirty commodities.
You dispute the notion that there is such a thing as "Big Green", but the majority of the subsidies flowing out to green energy are flowing into the coffers of companies like GE, Shell, Chevron, Google, Siemens, Sharp, Kyocera, FPL, BP (the company formerly known as British Petroleum) and BP Capital. They are the ones that operate large renewable divisions, even though their renewable investments are dwarfed by other portions of their energy portfolios. They often spend more money promoting renewable energy than they spend developing it. There are also vast government bureaucracies built on the notion that we need to "solve" the energy crisis. As you know very well, they are often manned by people who prefer to spend their careers in comfortable jobs with good retirements figuring out ways to treat the symptoms rather than healing the addiction.
Nuclear fission is up to the challenge of pushing its way into the market. There is no other energy choice that can match its cleanliness, safety, and long term investment performance. Nuclear may not have been a darling on Wall Street in the past 30 years, but I am not particularly impressed with the long term performance of the investments that have been favorites with quarterly profit focused bankers. I am pretty sure that most of the world's striving populations - the ones that have not received bailouts and have not claimed that they were too big to fail - would agree.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:19 pm
10 Jan 2009
If you back those numbers back to 2009 using the 3% inflation rate that he used you get $0.019 - $0.23 which are roughly equal to/slightly higher than the MIT, Keystone, and nuclear industry numbers produced over the last few years.
I think Joe made a mistake when he used Severance's 2019 number and divided it by 2009 electricity prices and came up with "3x". Seems that 2x would be more accurate.
Of course if we were comparing the cost of new nuke replacing currently cheap coal, which we are considering, then the number might be more like 4x.
----
And this...
"Nuclear fission is up to the challenge of pushing its way into the market. There is no other energy choice that can match its cleanliness, safety, and long term investment performance."
It's just factually incorrect in every aspect.
Nuclear is not safe when compared to other energy sources. If you like I'll spend time and give you a list of the close calls and significant spills that we've suffered over the years. We've been riding with a drunk driver that hasn't killed us, yet.
Nuclear is not clean. Nuclear has a large carbon footprint during construction and a continuing one during fuel extraction.
Nuclear has a lousy long term investment potential. A huge amount of capital is required and for many years before a revenue stream begins. During that period and the years it takes to extract the initial investment and deferred earnings the investment is 100% at risk by the appearance of a lower cost competitor.
Just think what would happen to your invested dollars in the XYZ reactor if hot rock geothermal pans out. That would mean a quickly installed, close to point of use, 24/365 electricity producer offering power at 2/3rds to half the price of your plant. Can you say "bankrupt"?
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 6:21 pm
10 Jan 2009
Just think what would happen to your invested dollars in the XYZ reactor if hot rock geothermal pans out. That would mean a quickly installed, close to point of use, 24/365 electricity producer offering power at 2/3rds to half the price of your plant. Can you say "bankrupt"?
I can certainly say and spell bankrupt, but I am not at all worried about hot rock geothermal as a competitor. I know enough about the challenges of drilling holes more than 2 miles deep into the earth and running high pressure water and steam piping to recognize why this phantom power source will remain a thing of discussion rather than a reality. If people are concerned about having adequate numbers of trained people and capital equipment to exploit nuclear fission, they should take a hard look at the manpower and capital challenges in the deep drilling occupations.
Moderately sized fission power plants can serve many market needs that would NEVER be possible with geothermal. For example, fission has proven itself as a reliable propulsion power plant for moderate sized to enormous ships over a 50 year period of at sea operations powering submarines, aircraft carriers, and ice breakers. 6% of the world's oil is currently burned on ships at sea - you think those will ever be powered through geothermal?
As a guy who has written incident reports and investigated "close calls" on real plants, I have a much better concept than most about the difference between routine human errors of no lasting consequence and dangerous accidents that result in human injury or death.
There were more people killed in a sugar dust explosion in the US state of Georgia last year than have been killed in nuclear power plant operation in 50 years all around the world outside of Chernobyl. Even at that enormously famous power plant, the total number of named people that can be attributed to specific exposures to fire and radioactivity from that accident is less than 60. I am not trying to say that radioactive materials are not hazardous, just that we know a great deal about how to handle them and keep the public safe.
There is certainly significant financial risk associated with investing in nuclear power if you do not know what you are doing. I am vain enough to believe that statement does not apply to me, but also versed enough in the ways of the world to recognize that there are many things that could make me fail miserably. Knowing the challenge that the world faces with regard to supplying reliable energy for 6 billion people, I am quite willing to invest heavily into developing the known capabilities of fission.
Finally - your comment reveals that you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the definition of "cheap". You wrote:
Of course if we were comparing the cost of new nuke replacing currently cheap coal, which we are considering, then the number might be more like 4x.
I do not know anywhere that is burning cheap coal. Just because the polluter does not pay the full freight of his or her damage does not mean that the costs are not being incurred by society as a whole. Burning raw coal is a deadly, dirty, nasty, habit that puts all of human society at risk. The planet will survive even if we burn every last bit of stored hydrocarbons, but humans may not.
Besides, even if you exclude external costs and simply look at the current production costs for the average coal fired power plant in the US - the land of some of the world's cheapest coal - they are nearly 30% higher than the average production cost of existing nuclear plants. If you add the costs of even a moderate attempt to control and handle the waste dumping from those plants, cheap takes on an entirely new meaning.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:39 pm
10 Jan 2009
Landau in Germany - On line
Both small, but proof of concept.
From Wikipedia...
"Australian pioneer Geodynamics has proved flow of geothermal energy from its Habanero 1 and 2 wells and completed drilling a third well, Habenero 3, to a depth of over 4km in early 2008. These wells are near Innamincka, South Australia. The rock is up to 290 Celsius."
Capital costs? Five million per hole, three holes per turbine. Expected hole life 20-30 years. Return and reuse in 50-100 years.
Want bet that hot rock geothermal doesn't threaten your long term investment in new nuclear?
You willing to bet very serious money (your own and not someone else's) that hot rock or slow flow hydro or something else won't steal your Easter basket in the 20-30 years it will take for you to recover your investment?
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 2:56 am
11 Jan 2009
Capital costs? Five million per hole, three holes per turbine. Expected hole life 20-30 years. Return and reuse in 50-100 years.
Want bet that hot rock geothermal doesn't threaten your long term investment in new nuclear?
So far my answer would have to be yes, I'll take that bet in a heartbeat. Care to tell me how big a turbine you can supply from those three $5 million holes, where the water comes from, what your cooling supplies look like and what the steam turbine inlet temperature is once you have moved the steam up a 4 kilometer long pipe to the surface?
I used to operate steam plants for a living. Our piping lengths were measured in tens of feet, yet we still experienced a significant amount of temperature difference between the heat source and the turbine inlet. Because of the effects of condensation, our systems required traps along the length of the pipe to allow the water to leave the system since turbines like dry steam, not wet steam.
All of the money that I have invested in my projects that has not come out of my own pocket is what is commonly known as F&F (friends and family). The numbers might not impress you, but for us they are really important quantities that represent a substantial commitment. I like my friends and love my family.
The only kind of assistance that I have ever advocated for nuclear fission projects is a more reasonable approach to licensing that does not hit applicants with an uncontrollable, up front cost of $258 per bureaucrat hour at the NRC and a reluctant acceptance that loan guarantees may be required, but do not have to cost the taxpayers any real money. I firmly reject the notion that the insurance pool set up and mandated by the federal government represents a subsidy, since it has never cost the taxpayers a dime and never will.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:22 am
11 Jan 2009
The beauty is that the turbines are powered by both sources.
All water would need to be recycled from both solar and hot rocks, a closed loop of pipe would be needed.
Long drill pipes going down into the hot rock, then a smaaler spray pipe that goes down the center. The water would spray on the hot pipe and the steam would come up into the system and be recondensed with ground source cooling.
The ground source cooling loop could heat a greenhouse or factory or mall, storing the heat seasonally under the building. Cool desert climate like Colorado might use this.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:25 pm
11 Jan 2009
You won't have a significant heat loss on the 4 km risers. They're coming up through solid ground which is a pretty good insulator.
Projected cost to generate about $0.10 per kWh, pretty much in line with wet sites.
Given that there are two dry rock plants on line and generating and multiple other companies currently installing plants do you really want to make a bet that dry rock or some other < $0.15 kWh source won't be developed before long term nuclear dollars are recouped?
That's the risk facing investment dollars considering nuclear startups....
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 6:44 pm
11 Jan 2009
Closed loop. Very little water loss, you're not blowing off steam.
You won't have a significant heat loss on the 4 km risers. They're coming up through solid ground which is a pretty good insulator.
Projected cost to generate about $0.10 per kWh, pretty much in line with wet sites.
All steam plants need a substantial amount of make-up water. They are closed loop systems, but they have valve leakage, pump shaft seal leakage, blowdown requirements, etc. A relatively small, tight steam plant might still need several thousand gallons per day of pure make up.
In addition to the closed loop part of the steam plant, you also need to consider the heat sink. If the geothermal plant is located near a body of water, it can use that for the condenser if the local regulations allow for it. (Of course, that option leads to the same charge of "cooking" the small fish population that is currently being levied against Indian Point Nuclear Plant on the Hudson River.)
If there is no local body of water, the geothermal steam plant will need a cooling tower type solution. That implies a significant water loss for an evaporative cooling tower or an efficiency and cost penalty for using a closed loop tower.
Your comment about the insulation effects of the ground through a 4 km long pipe exposes a technical optimism that is not shared by people who have actually operated steam plants that use carefully designed and applied insulation, but keep on smiling smugly.
Finally, your cost per kilowatt hour did not answer my question. I asked for the capacity in kilowatts of the turbines that can be served by the three $5 million dollar holes that you mentioned. (BTW - do those numbers include the piping and valves or is that extra.)
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:19 pm
11 Jan 2009
Let's take it back to the real issue - that IMO it is foolish to invest money in nuclear plants that will have to remain competitive for multiple decades if one is to get their money back and make a decent return.
In these days of rapidly evolving green energy harvesting one just can't predict very far into the future.
Here was my statement from which you launched a critique of hot rock...
"Just think what would happen to your invested dollars in the XYZ reactor if hot rock geothermal pans out."
Now, seems to me that you aren't willing to say, "Well, I'd be screwed."
Instead you want to get off on a tangent about why dry rock might not work.
Go there on your own and worry about putting your eggs in the nuclear basket. Forewarned is forearmed.
Permalink
breckhenderson Posted 12:46 am
12 Jan 2009
The COL process is not overrated, it's vital to new construction. It significantly reduces the risk of regulatory delay.
I don't work in licensing or new reactors, so I can't speak in detail about those issues. You're correct that it takes a certain number of manhours to review a new license application. But the big picture is that, if there is political will to shorten this time, it could be done, either by increasing manpower or by adjusting review procedures. Procedures can increase or decrease amount of detail NRC examines, which can increase or decrease the time required. (We can argue about how much detailed review is prudent, whether, for example, to accept the designer's work on a component or have it redone by a national lab, and so forth. One could easily force the process to take many years.) Also, as we become familiar with the technical issues by reviewing a license for one type of plant, it shouldn't take as long on the next one.
The other side of the coin is that political desire to block nuclear construction can easily be accomplished through regulation. The NRC is currently being restricted as to how many resources can be spent on the Yucca application. I'm sure you can guess which politician is behind this.
I'm not familiar with what we're doing in regard to the Gen III versus Gen IV applicants. We're always resource limited -- which, BTW, I think is good for a gov't bureaucracy.
Breck Henderson
Permalink
breckhenderson Posted 5:36 am
12 Jan 2009
As another writer has mentioned, I'd gladly take a few of these casks in my backyard if they ever need to rent more space. There is no safety issue, as these casks can survive train wrecks, air craft impacts, earthquakes, fires, whatever. The NRC has licensed the Goshute Indians of Utah to build a large, dry cask storage facility, but I don't know what happend to their plans to build it.
Yucca Mountain is a good technical solution for very long term storage, but it's tied up in politics. Certain politicians refuse to allow their state to be the dumping ground for nuclear waste, even though it means jobs and income for a depressed area and poses no significant danger to anybody.
Yes, processing uranium requires burning some fuel to dig it up and turn it into ceramic pellets. That's true of anything we do -- solar cells take a lot of energy and toxic chemicals to manufacture. I think the overall gain is going to be much on the positive side. I'm a global warming skeptic -- yes, we're getting warmer over the last 100 years and probably since the end of the Little Ice Age, but is that bad? Is CO2 to blame? Are the positive feedbacks postulated in computer climate models real and sufficient to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect? Can the earth adapt to a small climate upset without our help? Is man-made CO2 the only or even the primary cause of the last 100 year's warming? All questions that lead to the "no crisis" view, IMO.
But we should still build nuclear plants just because it's a clean, safe, reliable, concentrated form of energy.
Later,
Breck Henderson
Permalink
advancednano Posted 9:47 am
14 Jan 2009
Yet coal supplies 50% of electricity and is the dominant and still fastest growing electrical energy source.
Nuclear and anything not coal power displaces coal power.
Coal pollution kills 30,000 people per year in the USA, 200,000 per year in Europe and about 750,000 to one million in China. Fossil fuel air pollution kills 3 million per year, not including indoor air pollution in the developing world.
So the near misses ignores the massive number of deaths from the current situation. No more nuclear power means more coal power until solar, wind, geothermal etc... scale up so that no new coal power is built and after that allows for the retiring of old coal power plants.
Wind power scale up is being slowed.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2009/gb2 ...
Wind Power in the USA is about 53 billion kwh.
Nuclear Power in the USA is 800 billion kwh. 2600 billion kwh worldwide.
75% of new nuclear power is being added outside the OECD.
China is pressing ahead and accelerating nuclear power build
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/plenty-of-money-for-ener ...
China has a nuclear plant cost of about $1565/kw. About half the US cost. China's plants are on schedule and budget.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/chinas-cheap-1565-per-ki ...
There will be plenty of large steel forging capacity.
China is planning to mass produce its meltdown proof high temperature reactor.
China is ordering 100 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors that they want to have built or being built by 2020.
China completed an AP1000 module factory last year and other AP1000 module factories are being built in China and around the world.
Italy, UK, Brazil are joining China, Russia, India, South Korea and Japan with large nuclear building programs.
Energy cost analysis for June 2008 by Lazard
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/11/energy-cost-analysis-200 ...
The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor had been refurbished and completed at a cost of about $2 billion Dollars. During the first year the Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor was in operation, it saved TVA $800 million. That was the amount that TVA would have had to pay for spot natural gas power. The Browns Ferry reactor will pay for its rebuilding in 2 1/2 years. It will pay for its rebuilding and interest in a little more than 3 years. TVA is completing Watts Bar Unit 2 [2013 target operation]. TVA has filed to reinstate license for partially built reactors, Bellefonte 1 and 2. TVA has filed for COL licenses for two new more reactors at the same spot.
In 2012, GE is completing a laser uranium enrichment facility which will reduce the cost of enrichment by up to three times and thus reduce plant operating costs.
Permalink
anyone Posted 6:21 am
19 Jan 2009
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm
Thinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.
http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.
Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
http://www.ausra.com/
HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of €70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).
http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...
China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...
Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: Efficiency
However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.
Permalink
anyone Posted 6:24 am
19 Jan 2009
Wind turbines: 7500 MW
Nuclear power plants: 0 MW
http://strandedwind.org/node/212
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:04 am
19 Jan 2009
Trust us.
We promise we'll quit sleeping on the job, checking for leaks with a lighted candle, report leaks rather than hide stuff like we've been doing, etc.
In short, we'll quit being human and not make human errors. You can rely on us to handle some of the most dangerous stuff in the world.
You have our word.
After all, what's the big deal with a few near misses?
No one has been killed so far.
(In the US.)
Permalink