If the nuclear industry "primes" for its long-rumored comeback much longer, the country's going to get a collective case of blue balls.
Meanwhile, this short excerpt pretty much contains the entire history of the nuclear debate in a nutshell:
[Nuke company] NRG Energy chief executive David W. Crane proclaimed "a new day for energy in America."
But there is still a lot of worry about the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear plants are hugely expensive to build; they have long lead times and a history of cost overruns. Bottlenecks loom for key components if more than a few plants are built. The price of uranium has soared in recent years. So has the cost of construction materials and skilled labor, which is in short supply. Politicians, environmentalists and business still can't decide how to dispose of radioactive waste.
"If I were an investor, I'd be squeamish," said Jim Harding, a consultant and former director of power-supply planning at Seattle City Light.
To ease financial concerns, the nuclear power industry has turned to Congress.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 1:38 am
10 Oct 2007
... Nuclear plants are hugely expensive to build; they have long lead times and a history of cost overruns ... Politicians, environmentalists and business still can't decide how to dispose of radioactive waste.
... To ease financial concerns, the nuclear power industry has turned to Congress.
Uranium's recent pullback has put it near 49 cents per million BTU, natgas is near $7, which includes some royalties, so the ratio is about 14. There may be additional taxes on natural gas.
By going to congress for loan guarantees, builders of new nukes ensure if something happens that derails their plans, government loses money.
But if nothing derails them and they start producing electricity that would otherwise have been produced by burning natural gas, the uranium that 30 plants burn is cheaper than natural gas by about US$14 billion a year at recent prices.
This means if the plants go ahead, government still loses money; the citizens gain it. The people's representatives, by forcing government to give these guarantees, correct a conflict of interest it otherwise would have -- and did have, in the 70s, when "grass-roots groups" figured so largely in those long lead times, cost overruns, and cancellations.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, boron internal combustion car fan
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
* No new power reactor on land. Ship propulsion reactors often start up, maybe there have been some this year. No loss of fuel tax revenue there, so no fuss.
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 5:04 am
10 Oct 2007
For example you recently posted an analysis of how to shut down nuclear power and fight climate change at the same time, and all the analysis included were % reductions/increases each year, except they weren't even exponential functions. A goal is not the same as a plan. What conceivable reason could you have to believe that there was useful content in this?
By mid-century we're looking at enormous species loss, a billion or more people without year-round water due to climate change, and other horrors, see IPCC working group 2. You tout solar energy, though a recent UN report puts solar at 0.1% of world energy in 2030 under the reference scenario, 0.2% under the mitigation scenario. Coal, which provides 25% of today's energy today, would provide 26% under the reference scenario, 19% under the mitigation scenario -- since there will be more energy in 2030, even the mitigation scenario will see an increase. The increase in natural gas will be even greater, with national security implications as well. Meanwhile, nuclear will go from 6.4% today to 5% in 2030 (an increase of more than half) under the reference scenario, 9% under the mitigation scenario. (Energy use doubles under the reference scenario, and increases by about 70% under the mitigation scenario.)
Operating assumptions include strong anti-nuclear feelings in many places. Otherwise we could build more nuclear, less coal, at a lower cost, with lower pollution and GHG costs, fewer miner deaths, etc.
Oh, and non-fossil fuel, non-hydro, non-nuclear? Under the mitigation scenario, it comes in at 13% biomass, 1.1% geothermal, 1% wind, with some other much smaller contributions.
People will die due to climate change, and those who don't are likely to live in a world harsher than the one we know. When I read you, I don't hear a concern for those people. I hear exultation over reports of problematic quality that show that nuclear won't compete.
It is almost impossible to limit atmospheric GHG levels to 450 parts per million, 550 ppm will also be difficult. Each of these gives too great a chance that temperature increase will exceed 2 C. Those of us who care more about climate change root for the solutions to work. But whether they will or not, I find it better to get my analysis from people who study the issues.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 3:22 pm
10 Oct 2007
Many small nuclear plants (forget 'the bigger the better' line) all pumping out heat to make steam to turn turbines to make electricity, the cleanest energy, also make the most sense in every way you can think of ecologically speaking. Smaller footprints. Less intrusive into society. Easier to manage. Simple to pull individually from the grid for maintenance purposes. Waste disposal on site (until research figures out how to re-cycle rods, not using them for weapons hardening).
Having a surplus of electricity will also spur the change-over from internal combustion engines to nanobattery technology (so long, Big Oil!) and that alone would answer the question, Are We There Yet?
Des Emery
Permalink
ondrejch Posted 5:45 am
11 Oct 2007
Concerning the spent nuclear fuel, the so called "waste", yes we "cannot decide" about which of the several options of its treatment is the best. However several options are workable, unfortunately past political decisions were not exactly the good ones. However this is hardly a problem now, as several solutions exist, and the temporary storage of used fuel has been shown to be extremely safe. There is not a single causality related to storing of the nuclear spent fuel.
Permalink