A few days ago, NYT's John Tierney wrote a column making what is by now a tediously familiar argument: fears about nuclear are overblown, public sentiment is shifting, and we should build a bunch of nuclear plants. There's some absurdly tendentious material about California's electricity situation, but in effect the entire argument hinges on a single study from Gilbert Metcalf that estimates new nuclear power will be cheaper than renewables. (Other analysts are not so optimistic.) Somewhat amusingly, Tierney adds, "The outlook could change, of course, if new nuclear plants turn out to be more expensive than expected ..." That never happens, does it?
Tierney has since written two follow-ups, here and here. Between the two, Amory Lovins responds. Tierney promises to address it later (once he asks the appropriate AEI scholar what to say, presumably).
Anyway! I don't plan on getting sucked into this argument yet again. I just wanted to point out one thing at the end of the latest column. Tierney is discussing the fact that the only demographic in which a majority opposes building new nuclear plants is young people 18-31 (see the new Harris poll). He says:
Any thoughts on the cause of the generation gap in attitudes? I supposed it might simply reflect the impact of the environmental movement, although I wonder if it also has something to do with "The Simpsons." This is a generation, after all, that spent its formative years watching Homer in the control room of Springfield's nuclear plant. Is that scarier than anything in "The China Syndrome"?
It seems the only thing that could possibly explain majority opposition to nuclear power is irrational fear based on scary fiction (or a cartoon), never studies like Joe's. Even after Lovins' fact- and figure-peppered comment, Tierney just can't conceive that opponents of nuclear power might also engage in reasoned assessment of evidence.
I've seen the nuclear argument played out many, many (many) times . There are good and bad arguments, facts and finger-pointing, dispassion and intense tribalism on both sides. But in my experience, only the pro-nuke crowd makes such a self-conscious show of claiming the mantle of Reason and rejecting Emotion.
I'm reminded of being beset with such arguments when I lived among Ayn Rand-reading, D&D-playing emotional illiterates in college. (I never played D&D!) In that crowd, exchanging charges of irrationality was an affectation, a kind of social signaling, like artists calling each other conservative or hipsters calling each other clueless. I guess that self-identification sticks for some folks. I'd bet an enterprising sociology grad student could do some interesting work connecting these recurring tropes to the gender breakdown of nuclear support.
I suppose I'll leave it at that. Accuse me of whoring for comments if you must.
Stewart Brand’s nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic
Comments
View as Flat
su Posted 5:16 pm
09 Oct 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:53 pm
09 Oct 2008
This speaks volumes about how biased the media is, on nuclear power.
I respect Joe Romm, he has a PhD from MIT. I really hope he understands the concept of sustainable energy in all its depth. I hope that as a true scientist, he pays more attention to why nuclear power "should be" more expensive than why it "is" expensive. Are there any inherent technical reasons why the construction should be delayed, any technical reasons why it should cost more than other power plants etc..
I have absolutely no regard for Amory Lovins. He is sold out to natural gas companies. For somebody who champions about energy efficiency, he supports Hydrogen for locomotion - the ultimate wasteful energy carrier. All his propaganda is carefully constructed to increase the revenues of natural gas companies. Careful coining of words such as micropower, CHP cannot hide the ugly fact that we are perpetually being dependent on fossil fuels. This is the last thing we need at these testing moments, where our very survival is at stake.
David, you grew up in a culture which participated in movements against nuclear bombs, which still had strong memories of nuclear devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. Americal nuclear industry has started as primarily a state-subsidized entreprise to produce Plutonium for nuclear arms race against the soviets. These memories are strong and will not go away easily.
But at the same time, we should try to separate facts from prejudice. Nuclear power need not be like this. The scientists and engineers who work in nuclear power are not mad men, who have a secret desire in annihilating every thing on this planet. They are highly motivated people who are keen on solving the problems of the world - how to provide sustainable energy, how to prevent radiation fallout, how to prevent nuclear proliferation and so on...
Just as rational human beings, we listen to climate scientists when they warn about changing climate, we need to listen to nuclear scientists about what they have to say on the state of nuclear power. They know much more than we do. Please don't listen to special interests such as Amory Lovins. Go hear the story from the horse's mouth. Let's listen to scientists not to the biased media.
Just as there are climate-change sceptics or critics, there are a few odd nuclear scientists who argue against nuclear power. Don't go with these sound-bites. Try to look for what is the scientific consensus on the state of nuclear power. You will be deeply surprised.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Russ Posted 8:28 pm
09 Oct 2008
Just as there are climate-change sceptics or critics, there are a few odd nuclear scientists who argue against nuclear power. Don't go with these sound-bites. Try to look for what is the scientific consensus on the state of nuclear power. You will be deeply surprised.
This comparison is invalid, since no one disputes the existence of nukes or any of the bare facts about them, the way AGW deniers do.
The fact is, despite these delusions of rational grandeur David referred to, the arguments in favor of nukes have nothing to do with reason and everything to do with ideology.
To wit, it's the ideology which assumes (1) that man must consume vast amounts of energy, (2) that this dogma justifies the safety and security risks endemic to nukes (not to mention the astronomical costs which require obscene levels of corporate welfare in a society where the "free market" is often invoked to justify assumption (1)).
Of course, there's nothing "rational" which militates the high-impact energy-glutton civilization. Indeed, environmentally, economically, and socially reason is on the side of lower consumption.
(I'm leaving out the mega-profits involved for special interests. Nukes are certainly eminently rational for that handful of people, but not for society as a whole, nor for the species.)
And, Vakibs, you can't reply that "people are going to be gluttons anyway, so it's better to maximize the lower-carbon nuke option", because you yourself have called for things like an immediate end to coal use, which is just as allegedly unrealistic as looking to greatly reduced consumption in general.
They are highly motivated people who are keen on solving the problems of the world
And what are the problems of the world? You and I evidently have different ideas on this, which are ultimately rooted in things beyond reason - philosophy, spirit, even aesthetics.
But like I said, I think the evidence of reason is that the high-impact, high-consumption, intense-centralization paradigm is reaching its end. So something like nukes, so rooted in the core of that paradigm, is a dinosaur.
To agitate for this dinosaur on account of climate change is retrograde, and to do so for any other reason is reactionary.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:58 pm
09 Oct 2008
May I request you to resist your temptation and avoid
calling nuclear power as "nukes"
calling it a "dinosaur"
mentioning "obscene corporate welfare" when we are talking about a technology and not the market
Further, you have all kinds of associations in your mind which are extremely difficult to disentangle.
high consumption, energy glutton society
intense centralization paradigm
I would like to ask you to question these associations yourself. Why is it so ? Does nuclear power automatically lead to a high consumption socieity ? Does it automatically lead to an intense centralization paradigm ?
In my opinion, the technology is guilt free. It is US who are ridden with guilt. I don't want to lead a high consumption lifestyle myself. But I cannot force other people to follow me.
And the sad thing is that there are several people who lead gluttonous lifestyles when million others are starving. It is the poorest people who will be first affected by a slowing economy, it is the poorest people who will be first affected by an energy crisis. The rich will always find ways to continue with their wasteful ways.
The whole history of mankind is littered with man's inhumanity to man : war, slavery, pillaging, bloodshed. An overpopulated world with scarce resources, dwindling water and food supplies will make it all worse. And none of this will be good for the environment, even if you care not about human beings.
I am not looking at nuclear power as a salvation to all these problems. But it is a good candidate amongst the many that we need to do. Reduce consumption - yes, use energy efficiently - yes, eat less meat - yes, drive bikes - yes, ... use nuclear power - yes.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:38 pm
09 Oct 2008
The bulk of a nuclear power plant has nothing to do with the radioactive parts anyway. Install the relatively small, transportable, sealed radioactive heat source and let it run.
When the heat and the fuel run out, store it, then recycle the metal in a few thousand years.
This is what nuclear power could be like, no waste, no fuel handling, no way for terrorits to get any radioactive material out, or use the radiation to make toxic materials like pollonium.
It is all probably impractical and impossible, but let the nuclear industry try to develop a design like this. Of they can do it and it ptoves top be cost competitive with renewables and conservation, then and only then, consider nuclear buildout.
This is a responsible, reasonable anti-nuclear power, as it exists now, position. But it supports research and development of safer nukes. If it takes decades, like most things nuclear contractors try to do (like cleaning up their present mess?!?), to develop this new design, maybe it will be suitable for fusion.
Fusion could replace fission by then.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 12:40 am
10 Oct 2008
Greed can lead to corruption in the construction process, so that nuclear plants are sited on top of earthquake faults. Inferior materials may be illegally swapped in for critical mechanisms, structures, vessels and piping, leading to premature failure. Safety procedures may be ignored during operations. Waste may be improperly dumped, or it may be stored improperly, contaminating the environment. Decommissioning may be bungled, also contaminating the environment.
Angry terrorists may seek highly radioactive material to make dirty bombs. They may strike nuclear shipments on trucks and trains as they travel through population centers. Angry nations may seek nuclear weapons materials from reprocessing facilities. Angry saboteurs may undermine the integrity of power plants during construction, or disrupt plant systems during operation.
The element of human emotion and human error is undeniable. It is the source and cause of most nuclear accidents and failures. But it tends to be ignored or minimized by nuclear proponents. The human element is the biggest reason to be cautious of nuclear power, and it is the reason we must demand strict oversight, monitoring and enforcement at all levels and phases.
The French have a massive bureaucracy devoted to nuclear power, far more centralized than the U.S. system, and a public watchdog agency that is recognized for its professionalism. But even with a so-called model system, France has experienced problems with leaks and waste storage and handling.
Jerome a Paris had a well-considered observation:
Which brings us back to ensuring that safeguards and procedures exist and are actually enforced. That's a task that can only be run and managed by a public body with the ability to retain competent personnel and to impose rules on the industry. That requires clear laws, a strong culture of regulatory enforcement, and the necessary high level political support and funding for the relevant body.
To me, this is the single most important element to ensure that nuclear is viable, and to make it possible for the public to trust the industry, something that a culture of secrecy and occasional contempt for the public has damaged.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:49 am
10 Oct 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:02 am
10 Oct 2008
Such designs already exist. In fact, this is the trend in nuclear reactors apparently.
India has a Thorium reactor design which satisfies your requirements.
In fact, the world over, we have several such reactor designs. There needs to be proper brainstorming and scientific exchange between several countries. It is sadly missing current.y. There needs to be proper funding of R&D. That is also missing currently.
After we agree on standards and designs, we can do massive simulation and testing, accumulating several hundred years of reactor experience.
And we can still be ready by as early as 2015 to mass production and nuclear power deployment. It will still be not too late to save the planet.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 1:03 am
10 Oct 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:07 am
10 Oct 2008
The U.S. government provided subsidies to kick start the embryonic industry (reasonable, if they aren't continued forever).
Then 3 Mile island was mishandled, resulting in the destruction of the power plant, and endangering much of the East Coast. The bankers lost a Billion dollar facility (when a billion was worth more). So investors don't want to fund risk like that. The federal government is offering -- I'm not sure of the status of this currently -- to pay the costs of an accident.
If you don't include potential risks of damage, then it's a lot cheaper. Just like cigarettes, whose health costs run to $7-$10 a pack.
Some nuclear advocates say the risk of an accident in a 'modern' nuclear plant would be much less. How about putting a figure on that -- like one in ten million?
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:08 am
10 Oct 2008
Eco-cultists doing a reasoned assemssment of the evidence? Bwwwaaaahhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaa. They will always take an assessment created by a fellow eco-cultist and treat it like it is gospel.
So if scientists say that mankind is responsible for global warming, then we must trust the scientists. If scientists say that nuclear is our best energy solution, then they must do, chuckle, "a reasoned assessment of the evidence."
This brings us to another issue. James Hansen, the high priest of man made global warming, is also a big advocate of nuclear. So is Hansen to be trusted or not. Or is your position that you will trust him where it fits your agenda and not trust him where it doesn't.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:10 am
10 Oct 2008
Financing
Waste
International Non-Proliferation
All of which, the Nuclear industry thinks should be primary shouldered by the US tax payer.
_
All that is, is proof that Anything can be cheap if you assume that someone else will pay for your liabilities.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:12 am
10 Oct 2008
Since no one knows about fusion power, there is a tendency amongst environmentalists that it will be some miracle energy. In fact, all your arguments against fission power only become more applicable against fusion power. I think fission (driven by breeder reactors) will be more advantageous than fusion, even if the latter ever becomes practical.
@jon
because if the government is going to run an energy company, I predict that it would be much easier, cheaper, safer, and more resilient if said government energy company was building solar, wind, and geothermal.
You are wrong on two counts. I think it will actually be cheaper, easier and more resilient if we build nuclear power than other choices. Secondly, even if you are right, wind+solar+geothermal might not be sufficient to generate all the energy that we need (without bringing about environmental devastation along the way). In which case, we have to have some nuclear as well.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:16 am
10 Oct 2008
Of course, the eco's have their ears plugged and say "LALALALALALALALA....I can't hear you...LALALALA.....fire is GOOD....LALALALA ....I can't hear you..... LALALALALALA"
Alas , idealistic dogma drama triumphs again!!
BTW, I'm still afraid of nuclear and against coal
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:28 am
10 Oct 2008
Anyway, there have been plenty of proposals for "the other stuff", by which I mean solar/wind/geothermal. The studies should all be wrapped up in a pretty little bow, but unfortunately those industries don't get the same money shoveled at them that the nuclear/coal/oil industries do. There are some studies, for instance Greenpeace and Sierra Club have been involved with some fairly large-scale studies (I don't have them immediately available, maybe it would be worth a post), there's another think-tank that has a large study I can't remember right now, anyway, humans could clearly thrive on solar/wind/geothermal with some kind of storage -- although it might not involve huge houses and huge cars, yes, I know, that's what everybody "wants".
In any case, it's too broad a blanket statement to say that wind/solar/geothermal can't do it. The "die-off" people, who think we're headed for a population crash, also can't point to studies that show definitively that solar/wind/geothermal can't do it. You're not in that category, Vakibs, it's just that lots of people claim that renewables won't do it, but there aren't even enough studies to show it won't
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:56 am
10 Oct 2008
But I do not agree that this renders technology innocent. While this is probably not the place to go into detail with my philosophy of technology, I will say that tech has an intrinsic inertia which drives it toward destruction and totalitarianism, regardless of the good or bad faith of governments, corporations, and the people in general.
While nuclear power doesn't cause high consumption or politico-economic centralization, it enables the first and intensifies the second. It helps confirm both.
Where it comes to technology and markets, I regard the two as inextricable. Where you have a technology involving massive capital, a large work force, vastly ramified logistics, tremendous infrastructure, elephantine corporations, and bloated government, you can't separate it from its market nimbus any more than you can separate a star from the space-time it bends.
(BTW, in the past I've referred to size itself as an evil, and didn't find much agreement. I wonder, now that we keep hearing the funereal chant "too big to fail", and the bells tolling failure anyway, the dirge "too big to prop up", how many people are having second thoughts.)
I didn't use "nukes" this time, though I must say, maybe I'm jaded, but I would never consider "nuke" or "dinosaur" to be excessive rhetoric.
Re Jon's "one note song":
It's a good song, and I'd sing it deeper - both food and energy are such critical sectors, not only for normal consumption, but for socioeconomic and political stability and national security, that it's reckless and stupid to leave such strategic terrain in the hands of sociopathic corporations.
That's like entrusting your health to a doctor who openly says, as his professional oath, that he cares nothing for your health, only his fee. So it is with corporations and their shareholder profit mandate, the enshrined corporate principle.
So it seems both obvious in principle, and is now being confirmed in practice (as it's been confirmed so many times before), that the community must either own outright or intensively oversee and regulate such critical elements of the economy, which are really core organs of society.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:17 am
10 Oct 2008
If nuclear technology, and cellulosic for that matter, can evolve to compete without massive governement distortion of market forces, and can produce power without further destroying the biosphere, then bring them on. In both cases government is attempting to pick winners for us.
Lovins predictions don't always pan out. 32 years ago he predicted cellulosic fuels would be powering most of our transportstion:
"...exciting developments in the conversion of agricultural, forestry, and urban wastes to methanol and other liquid and gaseous fuels now offer practical, economically interesting technologies sufficient to run an efficient U.S. transport sector."
Here he is talking up hydrogen cars just 7 years ago:
"Think of a world in which cars are whisper quiet, they emit only water vapor, and OPEC is out of business because the price of oil has fallen to five dollars a barrel," says Lovins, in characteristically measured tones. Global warming, smog, California-style blackouts, a whole host of ills will be solved by hydrogen, he says. "We're already on the way."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 4:05 am
10 Oct 2008
Of course we do, who doesn't? Hansen might be a brilliant climatologist but that doesn't make his opinions on anything else automatically brilliant.
Vakibs is trying to get people to consider nuclear power as a viable source of energy by appealing to reason and using rational arguments. You are effectively undermining his argument by implying that we should not use our own reason to solve problems, but instead pick a new Chief Mugwump and believe everything he says.
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 5:46 am
10 Oct 2008
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 7:24 am
10 Oct 2008
I don't think it's a bad thing to say in 1979 that nukes are scary; let's re-think them, but in 2008 say, "Hmm global warming is scarier, let's re-re-think those nukes". I think this is a reasonable thought process. FWIW, with every mercury-laden fish I pull out of Lake Michigan and eat, I have no love lost for coal-fired electricity plants.
I think it was a very poor idea to cite Lovins on anything at this point. He blindly compares an intermittent source that runs about 20% of nameplate capacity (wind) with nuclear power, which runs at 100% nameplate capacity (or better) nearly 100% of the time. There is simply no comparison to the quality and value of the power delivered by these two options.
Yes, efficiency better tackled than building more capacity, but there are practical limits to how quickly this can occur. He doesn't seem to understand that.
Lovins was dead wrong about hydrogen, and wrong about carbon fiber 'supercars' (still too expensive). And he missed the PHEV wagon, only belatedly climbing aboard in the past year. Lovins is not a futurist, he's a Lovinist, weaving a persuasive fantasy of his own design that unfortunately does not match reality very often. For that reason, he's actually a very counter-productive influence.
(I don't fault Roberts being taken in by him, I find myself fighting Ford and GM execs who are also 'McLovin' clones.)
Lovins makes specious arguments concerning the cost of nuclear power. I've looked into this. Let me attempt to set the record straight: The EIA has pretty clear figures on the costs of running nukes; only about 3-4 cents per kw-hr. What is unclear is the total cost, including plant construction. This is a bit dicey to figure, but it's pretty clear that total nuclear power cost is more like 7-9 cents per kw-hr, when plant costs are included. (After 40 years, the plants are paid for and then produce power at a very low cost.) Note that this is higher than nuclear proponents would like to admit, but much lower than the 14-20 cents per kw-hr often cited by people like Lovins. So yes, nuclear power is expensive. No, its not really all that expensive. Less expensive than wind, especially when considering the quality of power delivered.
It would be great if wind and solar were ready now, but they are not. Maybe someday.
The best ready-use of intermittent wind power is to power plug-ins which can be plugged in long enough to make do with intermittent charging. I think this is a great way to introduce more intermittent sources to the grid; by linking their introduction to PHEV deployment. Of course, we need a smart grid in place for that, but that is going to be needed anyway.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:28 am
10 Oct 2008
Hard to tell if you were being satirical, or serious.
ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/mccains-nuclear-plan-coul_n_126858.html
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:28 am
10 Oct 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:39 am
10 Oct 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
Also, considering the long ramp up time for Nuclear power. Saying that "It's here now" doesn't really mean much. Even the most optimistic utilities don't expect to have a nuclear plant constructed and operating until 2020.
And considering how reliant capital intensive projects are on financing, even that's probably optimistic.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:56 am
10 Oct 2008
20,000+ deaths per year.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-15-02.asp ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8739 ...
500,000 brain damaged children.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid ...
Living in the fossil age we can compare proven technology with unproven technology as if they are equivalent.
Here is my recommendation.
We need a fully integrated energy plan for the future. It is like a jigsaw puzzle with many interacting pieces. The candidates pick out one piece from the opponent's plan and say, "This won't solve our energy problem by itself, so there is no point in doing it". That argument could be applied to every piece of the puzzle. The problem is too serious to be playing such games.
There are 3 billion people around the world who want to join the middle class. If the U.S. could reduce its emissions to zero instantly, the savings would soon be gobbled up by the developing world.
The most important goal for the U.S. is to use our technical capacity to develop low emission energy sources that are less expensive than fossil fuel. People across the world will switch to the new less expensive sources quickly and voluntarily, not kicking and screaming.
SHORT TERM STRATEGY
1 Drill, drill, drill. Drill in Alaska, drill offshore, drill wherever we have oil and gas. Each $10 per barrel that oil goes up costs Americans another $80 billion per year. Each 1 cent per kWh that electricity goes up costs Americans another $40 billion per year.
We need fuel to keep our economy going so that we can afford to develop the new technologies that the world needs.
2 Level the playing field so that we are forced to pay the true cost of energy from each source. Eliminate all energy subsidies.
When you take a load of trash to the city landfill you pay a fee per pound of trash. Humans have been using the atmosphere as a free waste dump since we gained control of fire. Atmospheric dumping of hazardous material is producing severe adverse effects on human health and global climate. We should charge an atmospheric dumping fee equal to the best estimate of the cost of damage done by the toxic waste being injected into our atmosphere. Low emission technologies will become more competitive on a level playing field.
3 Conservation is a strategy that is being implemented already due to rising energy costs, and it will increase. Improving insulation and using more efficient appliances make good sense.
Higher electricity prices mean less security lighting. There'll be more muggings and rapes on college campuses and parking lots. Homes will be colder in winter and hotter in summer. More people on limited income will have to choose between paying for food, medicine or utility bills.
The cost of conservation includes increased human suffering and death. The sooner we develop clean safe abundant sources of inexpensive energy, the sooner we can minimize these costs.
INTERMEDIATE TERM STRATEGY
Use proven technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
1 Accelerate the mainstreaming of emerging technologies including hybrid, all electric and fuel cell vehicles.
2 Mass produce floating nuclear power plants to increase our supply of clean emissions free electricity. A company called Offshore Power Systems built a facility to do that in Florida during the seventies, but it was never put into production due to a downturn in the economy that stalled growth and canceled orders.
3 Convert most stationary applications of natural gas to electricity. Use our natural gas supply to displace imported oil. Automakers can make dual fuel vehicles, gasoline / natural gas, quickly and cheaply.
LONG TERM STRATEGY
1 Increase R&D for energy by more than a factor of ten to $100 billion per year, 90 cents per day for each of us. Push every technology as hard as possible, build prototypes of everything as it becomes possible and publish the performance data.
Let the marketplace decide which new technology to build on a level playing field.
This is the most anti nuclear recommendation that is practical because it maximizes the probability of developing an option better than nuclear power.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 8:39 am
10 Oct 2008
I think they are both great!
I think something like the Acadia system could do wonders for saving in NG and heating oil costs. Geothermal for electricity generation is good too, when applicable.
I'm also very impressed with solar thermal, especially its storage component. It has the potential of some great power production at reasonable costs. Far more reasonable than PV is likely to be.
One might note, however, the amount of land area needed to produce 1500 Megawatts continuous with solar thermal. Perhaps this is not a fair comparison in some ways, but it goes to show that despite their cost, nuclear power plants do provide a huge amount of power in a very small area; and in any part of the country, and at any time of year. So these technologies might not be a drop-in replacement for coal in all that many situations.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:58 am
10 Oct 2008
Please read chapter 16 (page 103) in Dr Mackay's book on sustainable energy. Geothermal has a maximum sustainable power density of 17 mW/sq-mt. It is not all that much, and wouldn't even satisfy a fraction of our energy needs.
GreyFlcn fantasizes on numbers such as solar insolation and how much geothermal "is out there". Neither of these numbers get translated to the actual electric power that can be produced.
The weakest point about solar thermal / geothermal power is their power density. These are great sources of energy, and they have a crucial role to play in easening the energy crisis, but they are by no means sufficient, and by no means the optimal energy source.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:58 pm
10 Oct 2008
We need fuel to keep our economy going so that we can afford to develop the new technologies that the world needs.
Don't you think it's rather silly to conflate electricity with liquid fuels?
One might note, however, the amount of land area needed to produce 1500 Megawatts continuous with solar thermal. Perhaps this is not a fair comparison in some ways, but it goes to show that despite their cost, nuclear power plants do provide a huge amount of power in a very small area
The weakest point about solar thermal / geothermal power is their power density.
Heh, well if that's the "weakest" part, then there's not much to worry about.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ...
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra2
geothermal power is like fossil water
It should be mined in a very careful way to make this a sustainable energy source. Otherwise, we will extinguish geothermal acquifiers like we have done for fossil water acquifiers.
Are you familiar with the concept of EGS?
http://www.calenergy.com/html/aboutus4b.asp?tour=8
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:16 pm
10 Oct 2008
That final design would need further testing. Then mass production would need to be developed and the resuklting units carefully monitered and tested.
20 years, sure. Not 2015 for mass production, maybe 2030?
Meanwhile limp along with present nukes plus renewable and conservation working through a smart grid. Maybe some natural gas/biogas powered distributed solid oxide fuel cell/ turbine cogenerasting power plants too?
If new nukes prove out on a cost and safety basis, replace old nukes with the better version. That's a pretty good compromise plan.
Maybe throw in a few coal CCS plants for the transition. Don't build new ones, convert a few of the old ones as pilot projects.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:36 pm
10 Oct 2008
So with six reactor types listed on Wiki on the Gen. IV page we would need to site and build 18 reactors in the US within five years. This would have to require all private funding since the public generally favors solar power, wind and geothermal.
Who's going to lend us $20 billion each for 18 reactors at a cost of around $360 billion? Mind you the failure of one reactor type destroys $60 billion in assets in a swoop.
Solar panels, wind turbines and geothermal plants all fail. They don't fail $60 billion at a pop.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:49 pm
10 Oct 2008
Then choose one to test in the next round. Integrate the mass production into that one design. I think that's enough to give the industry a chance. It would take 15 years before mass production could begin.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:11 am
11 Oct 2008
Don't you think it's rather silly to conflate electricity with liquid fuels?
In the absence of a massive supply of electric cars it is silly, and of course I did not do that. I said;
We need fuel to keep our economy going so that we can afford to develop the new technologies that the world needs.
Oil imports cost us $400 billion, one fourth of which would pay for a terrific R&D program. Why do you misrepresent what I say?
20 years, sure. Not 2015 for mass production, maybe 2030?
Sounds good, mature reactor technology can support 10 billion people for hundreds of years.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4558#comment-413193
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
anyone Posted 7:09 am
16 Oct 2008
Wind capacity is currently growing about 20 times faster than nuclear. http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content& ...
Wind is less costly than new nuclear:
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...
According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
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 is claimed to 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.
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada and less than 10,000 sq mi) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal.
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 ...
Aircrafts, trucks and commercial ships will still be oil powered in the future, but there's no reason to keep on powering heating systems and private transportation on oil.
Btw, China has significantly more solar hot water capacity installed than nuclear power:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:49 am
16 Oct 2008
And your point?
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 1:29 pm
16 Oct 2008
Do you have a problem with that? Do you support a totally level playing field? If you are right your system will be selected.
You did not include the cost of your backup power plants and the cost of their fuel supply and the carbon taxes on those backup plants and the cost of replacing the windmills every 20 years vs. 60 year lifetime for nuclear plant. If you're going to do a cost comparison make it fair and complete.
Sounds good, mature reactor technology can support 10 billion people for hundreds of years.
And your point?
Nuclear power is the only non fossil technology with the proven ability to supply unlimited amounts of reliable dependable electricity at an affordable cost.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 2:24 pm
16 Oct 2008
Hydro has big problems. Check this out.
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/10/14/BrzlDm/index.html
Dams are always one failure from disaster, whereas nuclear plants have multiple layers of protection, and dams evaporate up to ten times more water per kWh than nuclear plants.
See pages 65 and 68 of
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/D ...
Most dams don't have enough flow to maintain rated power all the time. But if we had several dozen more Columbia and Colorado rivers in virgin condition, distributed evenly around the country, hydro would be our salvation.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
anyone Posted 7:07 pm
16 Oct 2008
Nowadays dams and pumped storage hydroelectricity regulate nuclear power. In the future they regulate wind power.
People keep on forgetting, that nuclear power plants only produce electricity.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:19 pm
16 Oct 2008
"Nuclear power is the only non fossil technology with the proven ability to supply unlimited amounts of reliable dependable electricity at an affordable cost."
First of all, biomass could make the same statement. Most experts would argue it is considerably cheaper the nuclear. It is certainly dependable. And it can reverse the GHG problem... something nuclear cannot do. Further, nuclear has numerous important problems you do not mention (most related to safety).
More importantly, exclusive of biomass, your statement may be true today, but will almost certainly be untrue in 10-20 years as solar and wind prove themselves and costs drop.
For all practical purposes, your statement is meaningless and adds nothing to the important debate in front of us. I know you have a lot of value to add to the discussions at Grist, but making statements like this doesn't add to it.
Richard
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:00 am
17 Oct 2008
Scientific American published A Solar Grand Plan.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
They proposed using biomass to provide reheat of the air in the proposed compressed air storage system. Using their numbers I showed in point 3 that all of the U.S. biomass would only meet 20% of their need with none left over for liquid fuel. Clearly biomass is a limited resource.
In my 02/29/08 501-510 (they do not allow a direct link) I wrote;
" And the modular solar power plants distributed across the vast Southwest U.S. and its one million square kilometers (which is larger than the combined land area of England, France, and Germany) represents a much less risk of exposure to terrorist or full scale military attack than the exposure of nuclear power plants to either terrorist or full scale military attack "
It makes no sense to assume that terrorist will conduct the most ineffective attack imaginable. What percentage of terrorist attacks in the last ten years have been designed to minimize loss of life?
1 This is an attack I would expect.
Assume it is 2100 and this vision is fully implemented as proposed.
Assume that we are terrorists who hate Americans and have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.
We will not drop a bomb on a field of solar collectors. We will use small shaped charges to drop every HVDC power line crossing the Mississippi river, into the Mississippi river. Most wind power is west of the Mississippi river, so it will also be cut off.
We will watch the weather channel, and pick a time when they predict that a huge mass of arctic cold air will flow down from Canada generating record cold temperatures from Maine to Florida. Or we will attack during a record heat wave such as the summer heat wave of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wav ...
The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
My questions are;
a) Is this scenario possible? If not, why not?
b) If it is, do you agree that utilities will not be able to buy insurance coverage for it?
2 " For the peak PV-CAES model, which we advocate for the 2010-2020 scale-up period to prove PV-CAES' potential. The size of the PV plant is 160-MW and the size of the CAES gas turbine power plant is 110-MW (130-MW of PV electricity production is dedicated to direct grid electricity distribution and 30-MW of PV capacity is dedicated to air compression at the CAES power plant)…. The aggregate heat rate (fuel consumption) for the 1,100 MWh of daily electricity delivered to the grid is only 1,732 Btu/kWh. This translates into a remarkable fuel efficiency of 197% (3412 Btu/kWh of electricity output / 1732 Btu of fossil fuel energy input). "
It makes no practical sense to build solar storage for the 2010-2020 time span. Given the small fraction of energy solar will be producing, the sensible approach would be to feed all solar power onto the grid as it is produced and save all the expense and energy loss associated with storage.
The only good reason to build a solar storage demo plant would be to model how the GSP would work if we got the vast majority of our energy from the sun.
In the future electric vehicles will probably raise nighttime loads to match or exceed daytime loads. We should model a solar power system to supply a steady load 24 hours a day including occasionally a few days of bad weather. That would require vastly more storage capacity, and the fraction of energy going through the CAES system would be very high, resulting in much higher fuel consumption / kWh and cost / kWh than claimed here.
Modeling a solar CAES system that only produces nine hours of steady power on a sunny day is not a realistic simulation and only serves to produce unrealistic cost and efficiency numbers like â€oefuel efficiency of 197%â€.
3 " Land for food is of the highest priority. We have other land resources for energy production, therefore all land suitable for agriculture needs to be strictly allocated for food production; and only land held in conservation reserve should be used for cellulosic (natural prairie grass and switchgrass) biomass production. "
I have flown across the U.S. many times and I see very little flat treeless unused land with substantial unused supplies of water.
The fuel cost for the current fleet of natural gas turbines operating at 40% efficiency is 52.46 mills per kWh. Upgrading to 60% efficient machines would reduce fuel cost to 35 mills per kWh.
Nuclear reactor fuel costs 4.85 mills per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...
By using expensive photovoltaic electricity to compress air, the solar system can reduce the natural gas consumption 23% below the best turbine. The natural gas fuel cost is reduced to 27.1 mills per kWh, which is still 5.6 times higher then the cost of reactor fuel, and the reactors do not emit CO2.
Natural gas provides about 20% of the U.S. 4000 TWh / year of electricity, 800 TWh / yr. If electricity consumption goes to 29,000 TWh as projected by the authors, and if 70% of that energy passed through a CAES system, it will be 20,300 TWh of stored energy / year.
That is 25.4 times the amount of electricity that is produced by natural gas today. The solar CAES system needs 4,400 thermal Btu to make one kWh of electricity, 8.93 E 16 Btu to make 20,300 TWh, 13.1 times the amount of gas we are burning now.
" The 23% reduction in fuel consumption by CAES power plants (23% lower than the fuel consumption of advanced combined-cycle power plants) is a VERY significant improvement. And the development of combined-cycle CAES plants will increase the reduction by another 20%. "
60% efficient combined cycle gas turbines use a large fraction of the turbine energy to drive the compressor. Solar CAES uses solar energy to compress the air so that all of the turbine energy can go to the generator. A 50 MW CAES turbine will burn less fuel than a 50MW combined cycle turbine, so there will be less waste heat in the CAES turbine exhaust and therefore less energy available for extraction by the topping cycle.
Combined cycle gas turbines are 60% efficient when operating at or near their design point. I doubt that a combined-cycle CAES plants can achieve the additional 20% averaged over the wide range of pressure ratios required by using compressed air storage. Can you provide a reference?
" And CAES for storage of intermittent PV and wind electricity opens the door for the use of biomass for electricity production. The biomass resource estimate that we use in the article (1.4 billion dry tons) is from the Perlack et al. 2005 study and the link to the study is below. "
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA436753& ...
I could not open that link but found the report at;
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pd ...
This 2005 report claims that 190 million dry tons of biomass provided 2.9 E 15 BTU, (2.9 quad) in 2003, 3% of all U.S. energy consumption. The report claims that we can ramp up annual biomass collection to 368 million dry tons from our forests and 998 million dry tons from agriculture, for a total of 1.37 billion tons per year, equivalent to 2.09 E 16 Btu (20.9 quad), enough to replace 1/3 of our oil consumption.
If we convert all of that biomass to natural gas with a conversion efficiency of 85% it will have a heating value of 1.78 E 16 Btu / year. If we divert all possible biomass energy to the solar CAES system it can provide only 20% of the required heat.
The rest (4.2 times the amount of natural gas we are burning now) will have to come from natural gas or dedicated agricultural production.
With a nuclear powered grid we could use all the biomass for other applications such as making liquid fuel for difficult transportation applications such as aircraft, ships at sea and off road vehicles.
My questions are;
a) Where do the authors propose to come up with the remaining 17 quad of required gas?
b) What area of land is required to produce the additional amount of biofuel required to drive the CAES systems?
c) Link to a map showing where all this unused land is.
d) What will it cost to build all the new infrastructure for the new bio fuel system, power lines, pipelines, water lines, roads.
e) What will the bio fuel cost?
f) Is that cost included in the published cost estimate of 11 cents per kWh?
g) How much water will be needed to grow and process all that biogas?
4 If we can produce that much bio gas in 2100 at an affordable price then the smart move would be to produce 29% more bio gas which would allow us to eliminate CAES completely and replace it with 60% efficient gas turbines. This would allow us to;
A) Eliminate the entire cost of the CAES system.
B) Reduce the size and cost of the solar collection systems by 70%.
C) Reduce the capacity of the HVDC power lines by 70%.
D) Provide a distributed array of gas turbines resulting in a stiff reliable grid, highly resistant to the threat of terrorism and natural disaster.
My question is; What are the authors thoughts on this change?
5 Under the solar plan the local utility will buy solar power at 11 cents per kWh corrected for inflation to the present.
Power from new nuclear plants is expected to cost about 5 cents per kWh until the plants are paid off, then much less, so the difference is at least 6 cents per kWh.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
The U.S. consumes over 4000 TWh now. The authors project that it will be 29,000 TWh by 2100, letâ€TMs assume an average of 10,000 TWh from now till then.
With a difference of 6 cents per kWh, the solar option will cost consumers $600 billion more than the nuclear option each year.
Over the next 92 years solar will cost consumers $55,000 billion more. That is 131 times the $420 billion subsidy called for in the paper. The subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming an average population of 350 million the average additional cost of solar will be $1,710 per year per person, $6860 per year, every year, for a family of four.
Poor people will not be able to pay these energy cost increases. They will need energy subsidies, so if you are rich or middle class get ready for a double whammy.
That $6860 per year per family is going to come out of other parts of their budget, health care, education, nutrition, heating and cooling. They will have to drive a cheaper, older and less safe car.
Expensive energy is dangerous and uncomfortable.
My questions are;
a) If congress proposed a bill to raise taxes on a middle class family of four by $6860 per year, every year, to pay for the marginal cost of solar, how far would it get?
b) Is it ethical to tell people solar is a one time cost of $420 billion spread over 12 years when actually that is a tiny fraction of the real cost?
6 With 20,000+ Americans dying each year from coal, and considering the threat of global warming, waiting 20 years for solar to reach take off speed does not seem reasonable.
The report claims that by 2020 the cost of reliable solar kWhâ€TMs may drop as low as 11 cents per kWh, if the improvements in solar cell efficiency and energy storage and transmission line cost advance according to projections.
Let us start providing 11 cents per kWh for any low emission electricity sources now, wind, solar, nuclear, wave, tidal, sequestered coal, geothermal etc. This will speed up the reduction of carbon emissions dramatically, and if solar is a good way to go it will acquire its fair share.
My questions are;
a) Do the authors support this recommendation?
b) If not, why not?
7 I see no discussion of backup power plant capacity or its cost. Suppose a large winter cold front settles in over the desert SW cutting off most of the energy. The compressed air runs out.
My question is; What happens next?
" why introduce nuclear risks unless we have no other option for energy. "
Realistically, what is the other option? Perhaps Green Freedom.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_O ...
In reality reducing U.S. emissions now is of minor importance. If we eliminated all of our greenhouse emissions tomorrow, the developing world will gobble up the savings in a relatively short period of time.
The most important goal for the U.S. should be to use our technical capacity to develop technology that is so inexpensive it can be implemented quickly all over the world.
Expensive boutique energy systems will not curtail world CO2 emissions. We need huge sources of cheep low carbon energy. This is why my energy paper recommends that the US increase R&D spending for non fossil energy sources from $2.09 per person per year to $200.00 per person, $60 billion / year. If some technology emerges that can generate more energy than fission at a lower price, that will be great.
It is amazing how people can compare theoretical idealized future wind solar and biofuel technology with reactor designs from the 1960â€TMs and call it fair and balanced. How many new reactor designs has the DOE tested since the Ford administration? Even so, the nod goes to nuclear if we ever get serious about closing coal power plants.
A gold plated GSP will not solve the worlds energy problems.
--
Edited by BILL HANNAHAN at 02/29/2008 2:19 PM
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:41 pm
17 Oct 2008
Please, go ahead and pat yourself on the back for throwing out a ton of numbers and convincing yourself you're right. The only problem is, you completely failed to address the specific point of my post. This is the typical response of someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for making an incorrect statement.
You made a statement that I think was incorrect, silly and certainly incomplete: "Nuclear power is the only non fossil technology with the proven ability to supply unlimited amounts of reliable dependable electricity at an affordable cost."
What you should have said was this: "Nuclear power is a non fossil technology that can potentially supply very large amounts of reliable dependable electricity at what is currently a fairly low cost. We're still working on ways to improve safety issues and address long term storage concerns. We're not entirely certain of the final energy cost, because there are numerous long term costs that aren't known for certain and haven't all been factored. Mining of the feedstock also causes some serious concerns that are being worked on. Nevertheless, nuclear energy could be a very large source of non fossil fuel energy in the near term future."
Your statements about biomass obviously reflect your bias against it and for nuclear power. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. If there comes a time when I get any indication you are really willing to listen openly to other positions, I'd be happy to engage in a conversation with you then. Until then, I have no interest in debating the matter with you.
Beyond that, I have provided many details in previous posts here at Grist on the matter of producing the equivalent energy of 200 1GW nuclear plants from sustainably grown biomass. You are free to review those and ask specific questions about the points in those posts, if you wish.
Finally, I have made my position clear many times before. Solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, tide energy and nuclear... in addition to energy efficiency... are all important parts of the new energy future. All must prove their long term viability, safety and near term costs. My specific area of interest is biomass, but I'm in favor of promoting every technology that works to its maximum potential.
Richard
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:18 pm
17 Oct 2008
And how is a plutonium based fuel cycle:
Proven
Affordable
-David Ahlport
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:45 pm
17 Oct 2008
There is an optimum level of safety for each technology. Take airlines for example. Each time the FAA ratchets up safety with a new regulation, it raises the ticket price which shaves off a thin slice of customers.
Suppose you have a daughter in college, she wants to surprise you on your birthday, so she goes on EBay and buys an unused business class ticket for 1/3 the normal price.
Wait, Bill Clinton's photo ID bill makes that impossible, so she gets in her car after classes, drives all night, falls asleep and rolls it six times and dies. The accident report does not report the cause as the photo ID bill.
How many terrorists can put a symtex bomb in a working transistor radio, yet are unable to come up with a fake ID. I believe several people die each year, and tens, maybe hundreds of thousands have a lower quality of life just so Clinton could have a talking point.
Every safety regulation should have a risk benefit analysis that calculates its total impact on society, not just the impact within the specific agency.
Next generation plants are designed to contain a full meltdown. We could have a meltdown every week and kill fewer people than the routine operation of one coal plant.
Maryland Power Plants Linked to 700 Premature Deaths Per Year
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-15-02.asp ...
It makes no sense to spend an extra $2 billion per plant to reduce the probability of a $5 billion dollar accident that kills no one by 1 chance in 10,000. Emotions aside, thousands of people die each year because nuclear plants are way too safe and way too expensive and take way too long to build already.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1016-hance_quaranda_intervi ...
Cellulosics could be the next huge energy boondoggle.
And how is a plutonium based fuel cycle:
The Russians have been running a fast reactor for years. Our primitive steroidal sub reactors can get the job done for 400 years, plenty of time to develop better technology.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:25 pm
17 Oct 2008
If you're going to continue throwing out silly news headlines like this one: "Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.", I'm going to continue taking you less and less seriously. I thought you were someone I could have an intelligent debate with, but I guess I was wrong.
Do you know how many news headlines I could throw at you that make nuclear sound like the most dangerous and expensive energy technology on the planet? I know you do. But I won't do that, because both of us know there's little or no value in a news headline alone.
Step it up, please Bill? I know you can offer more than this.
Richard
Permalink
anyone Posted 12:12 am
18 Oct 2008
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_1 ...(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...
According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
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
Permalink