Nuclear pork: enough is enough
No more subsidies for nuclear power, McCain et al 34
-
Posted 3:22 PM on 10 May 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 9:33 am
10 May 2008
For instance $35Billion for Lawsuits to pay for dry-cask storage.
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html?_r=3&th& ...
Or how about the $20.5Billion in Loan Guarantees in the 2007 energy bill
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclearloans.png
Or the $1-$5.7Billion Production Tax Credit program, along with an extra $2Billion to protect against cost overruns.
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-73782 ...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electri ...
Or the $0.5Billion for annual membership in the NRC and IAEA
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staf ...
http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html
Also looks like EPRI is asking for the Fed to kick in another Billion or so for Light Water reactor research.
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2008-02-05.shtml
_____
As for annual Nuclear subsidies, I'm not sure I can pin a good number on it. But $1.4Billion/Annually, as the DOE press releases say, would seem to be an extremely charitable underestimate.
http://greyfalcon.net/2009budget.png
http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2008/02/nuclear-subsidi ...
Just adding the obvious waste programs alone doubles that figure.
http://www.doe.gov/news/5920.htm
(Been putting off going through these with a fine toothed comb)
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Start.htm#Detailed ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/ ...
___
Personally, I still feel like I haven't quite done enough digging on these nuclear subsidies yet.
Sure I could turn up a couple more billion here and there.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 9:39 am
10 May 2008
A 1.5 GW solar plant that puts out 1.5 GW at noon on a clear day is better than a nuke plant that puts out 1.5 GW all the time, I don't think so.
Show us a cost estimate for a 1.5 GW solar or wind plant with reliable dispatchable power and a 0.95 capacity factor. Now show me a cost estimate for the same plant east of the Mississippi river. How many such plants are in operation now? Where can we review their performance, construction cost, O&M cost, reliability, capacity factor and cost per kWh?
Show us a cost and reliability estimate of the required grid for moving the energy from where wind and solar sources are best to where most people live.
Power Point technology is almost always better than proven technology, but in this case, 1970 nuclear reactor technology is a bargain even at the highest cost estimates.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/75132/75324/#43 ...
Increase R&D to $90 billion per year (only 2.5 cents per kWh), build prototypes of everything, eliminate all other subsidies, let the utilities and individual home and business owners choose the best technology.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:11 am
10 May 2008
That $74Billion for 1948-1998 figure only includes R&D expenditures There's far more subsidies to the Nuclear power industry just R&D.
For instance the financing of building Nuclear power reactors is all thanks to gigantic federal financing, power purchase agreements, and huge bankruptcies.
http://nirs.org/neconomics/utstatelegislativepresentation ...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:45 am
10 May 2008
What does that term mean?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:55 am
10 May 2008
google.com/search?q=%22some+of+my+best+friends+are+black%22
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:46 am
10 May 2008
I may be wrong 'bout this, but power plants are typically classified by their average power outputs, not maximum potential outputs, correct?
1.5 MW wouldn't be a peak, it would be an average.
I also guess ya haven't heard that certain types of solar plants can store power (or rather hot water that used to make power) so that it's available even at night.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:56 am
10 May 2008
For instance $35Billion for Lawsuits to pay for dry-cask storage.
http://nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/17nuke.html?_r=3&th& ...
How could that be a subsidy, when the money would ultimately be coming solely from the nuclear-industry itself? Did you read the article you linked-to, GreyFlcn? It says, "If the repository opens in 2020, the damages would come to about $11 billion [...] and for each year beyond that, about $500 million more."
About $30 billion is currently in the industry-paid-for spent-fuel-dispensation fund. 30 minus 11 leaves $19 billion left over. How could that be a subsidy? As for the $500 million per year (which is a high estimate) ongoing cost, the nuclear-industry currently pays $800 million per year into the fund. 800 minus 500 leaves $300 million. How could that be a subsidy?
When money is being taken away from -- rather than given to -- an industry, GreyFlcn, that is not a subsidy. It is a tax.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:03 pm
10 May 2008
Fully uprated Nuclear power plants barely get past 90%.
The "record breaking" industry average in 2007 was only 91.8%
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1339027/record_perf ...
New-builds would be closer to the 75-85% capacity factor.
(Slide 19)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:06 pm
10 May 2008
It's that the Nuclear industry is shedding full liability of dealing with the waste, and in turn paying less than it costs to deal with the waste.
Kind of like how the logging industry pays the US forest service next to nothing to chop down all their trees that they so painstakingly and expensively maintain.
Me personally, I see that as a net-subsidy.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:07 pm
10 May 2008
You are indeed wrong.
Tasermons Partner wrote: 1.5 MW wouldn't be a peak, it would be an average.
That is untrue.
Tasermons Partner wrote: certain types of solar plants can store power (or rather hot water that used to make power) so that it's available even at night.
Bill's point was actually that power stored still has to be produced. Solar power plants only produce continually-average about one watt per square meter, regardless of storage capabilities. Dispatchable-electricity costs come to at least $1/kWh.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:17 pm
10 May 2008
New-build would involve third-generation reactors, GreyFlcn. South Korea uses a lot of third-generation reactors:
world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html
In 2005 the capacity factor for South Korean power reactors averaged 96.5%
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:19 pm
10 May 2008
In what way?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:22 pm
10 May 2008
According to the DOE we're looking at a price tag of over $80 Billion.
http://www.grist.org/news/2007/10/05/yucca/index.html
Especially when you factor in that, as planned, even if they built Yucca Mountain, it would be booked full on day 1. So they'd either need to build even more, or build somewhere else. Costing even more.
Who's gonna pay for all this?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:34 pm
10 May 2008
That link says:
Constellation assumes 95.3% capacity factor
[...]
Keystone high value is [...] 90%
Afer that, it says "Harding views 75-85% as reasonable for new build."
Who is "Harding"?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:47 pm
10 May 2008
PDF page 37
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:49 pm
10 May 2008
I think it would cost in the ballpark of one-tenth of a penny per kWh. It depends upon a number of factors, though, as Richard Garwin has pointed out. According to Garwin, the longer repository-space is delayed, the cheaper it is, since the thermal-power of the spent-fuel drops over time ("100 years [...] gives a further factor 10 decay"), and since capital is worth less in the future. With a century of delay, I would expect a repository to cost only one-hundredth of a penny per kWh.
How much do you think it would cost, per kWh?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:59 pm
10 May 2008
Did you know that the nuclear-industry pays for it to the tune of $800 million per year? If the nuclear-fleet capacity is doubled, that turns into $1.6 billion per year. $1.6 billion times 100 years is $160 billion. Adding interest might bring the total to several trillion dollars.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:07 pm
10 May 2008
His PowerPoint presentation (PDF file) starts off with a comparison of the rhetoric and the actual outcomes of government support policies for the two industries, and then turns to a discection of the planned new 1600-MW nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:14 pm
10 May 2008
What two industries?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:36 pm
10 May 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:50 pm
10 May 2008
gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/9/12502/69812#14
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:04 pm
10 May 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:36 pm
10 May 2008
sais-jhu.edu/centers/fpi/ieep/Turnage.pdf
From that, it can be gleaned that the total 4.3 cent/kWh subsidy is only active for the duration of the dept-repayment period.
Page 13 lists the myriad enhanced-safety-features of the particular ultra-expensive reactor that Constellation chose, the US-EPR. Do you think it would be helpful if Constellation chose a cheaper reactor featuring less safety, Ron? That way, the ratepayers could save a few dollars during the debt-repayment period.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:59 pm
10 May 2008
A tax neutral source for direct subsidies to consumers who invest in renewable/conservation energy technology.
A 50 billion dollar stimulus of the economy, right where it's needed.
BTW, you guys need to adopt the nuclear compromise strategy. Don't fight with nukers over trivial talking points like capacity factor or their lame claim Yucca Mountain has already been paid for by consumers.
Just put the compromise up in their faces. Watch them back down.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:02 am
11 May 2008
BILL HANNAHAN wrote: Power Point technology
What does that term mean? "
A high tech slide show sometimes used to depict someone's view of the future, often based on unproven assumptions that support the author's point of view.
" $1.6 billion times 100 years is $160 billion. Adding interest might bring the total to several trillion dollars. "
Good guess Nucbuddy. Assuming a present value of 30 billion, annual payment of .8 billion, 6% rate, the fund will be at 14,900 billion in 100 yrs. In reality the payments will grow rapidly as nuclear power grows.
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_ca ...
When breeder reactors come on line the 80 year lifetime production of high level waste will go from 20 pounds of spent fuel from first generation reactors, to six ounces of fission products dissolved in a few pounds of glass, of which only 0.7 ounces will still be radioactive at end of life.
" Well also of course, Bill is BSing on the 95% capacity factor. "
" Limerick Unit 2 led all Exelon units on the list with a gross capacity factor of 101.67 percent.... Byron Unit 2 in Byron, Ill.; LaSalle Unit 2 in Brookfield Township, Ill.; and Limerick Unit 2 near Pottstown, Pa. All had capacity factors greater than 100 percent, which means the generators produced more electricity than they are theoretically rated to produce by their manufacturers. "
http://www.exeloncorp.com/aboutus/news/pressrelease/power ...
Our 1960's design nuclear power plants rarely achieve 95%, but we are not comparing them with 1660's era solar power plants.
Next generation reactors take advantage of the lessons learned from first generation plants. They have reduced the number of components and use inherently safe systems vs. active safety systems. Capacity factor should improve.
Liquid fuel reactors will be continuously refueled eliminating refueling outages.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:25 am
11 May 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:31 am
11 May 2008
inspi.ufl.edu/icapp07/program/abstracts/7578.pdf
The U.S. EPR is an evolutionary 1600 MW PWR design that represents the U.S. element of AREVA NP's global EPR fleet. Based on intensive R&D and the operating experience of nearly 100 nuclear power plants worldwide, the U.S. EPR embodies economical, state-of-the-art technology. One key focus of the U.S. EPR design is improved economic performance. Design features such as an enhanced online maintenance capability and simplified component design produce an average plant capacity factor in excess of 94% and scheduled refueling outages of less than 16 days.
A 15-day refueling outage every 1.5 years would equal a 10-day refueling outage every year, which in turn would imply a capacity-factor of 355 / 365 = 97.3%. If that refueling outage were once per year, the capacity factor would be 350 / 365 = 95.9%. Adding a day (to make it a 16-day outage) makes that 349 / 365 = 95.6%.
Constellation claimed it can expect an average capacity-factor of 95.3% (Slide 19), which is not only in the ballpark, but is on the conservative side. Doug Koplow seems to be wrong in regards to his statement (Slides 18 and 19) that Constellation's capacity-factor assumption "is aggressive".
b
GreyFlcn, the MIT, Keystone, and "Harding" studies are not directly relevant unless they are specifically, and only, examining the US-EPR -- a new, and explicitly high-capacity-factor, design.
Permalink
dkoplow Posted 3:44 am
12 May 2008
Nuclear power has the benefit of being relatively low carbon. It is also large scale, which has pros and cons. Thus far, however, it has been mostly given a pass in terms of economics. Is it the right choice for dealing with climate change and energy security as the industry claims, or not? Based on my own work, I doubt nuclear would be competitive. Under any circumstance, nuclear should be forced to compete as one of many solutions to these problems, rather than simply being granted subsidy after subsidy by political interests. We will save money, and they (the industry) frankly will be forced to deliver a better product than that we are now seeing with the TVO plant in Finland, where not even the concrete has been done correctly.
If nuclear is a good solution to address greenhouse gas emissions, it should be able to deliver reductions quickly and at a reasonable cost. I believe it fails in both of these areas. For example, I estimate that subsidies to new nuclear reactors alone are at least $80 per mt of CO2e displaced. And this is if the reactor displaces coal; the cost-efficiency of displacing other resources such as natural gas or efficiency is much worse. Fully loaded costs -- public subsidies plus private money, are at least $120 mt/CO2e displaced. Full cost rather than subsidies alone is the proper metric to evaluate when comparing societal investments in GHG abatement.
This is not a particularly good deal. It is well above a large range of abatement options developed by McKinsey & Company earlier this year, and well above the market value of carbon reductions on the Chicago Climate Exchange (roughly $4/mt CO2e) and the European Climate Exchange (roughly $28/mt CO2e).
True, nuclear build costs could fall dramatically -- though this is unlikely, and the Keystone report actually suggested later build reactors could be even more expensive than the first wave. The question here is whether cost of nuclear will fall more sharply than the cost of other technologies that could also be deployed to deal with climate change.
The industry may argue they are competitive because the cost of carbon could rise steeply as controls begin to bite, making $80 or $120/mt CO2e look cheaper. But surging carbon prices would provide strong incentives for thousands of changes in how we run our societies, and many of these are likely to be quicker, cheaper, and less financially risky than large scale nuclear reactors.
A couple of the comments on this post involved projections on subsidies associated with Yucca Mountain. Often, the positive cash balance in the waste management account is pointed too as evidence that there are no subsidies on waste management. Just as with pension liabilities in private firms, the waste repository is a large scale, long term commitment for which accruals may or may not be sufficient. Pension fund accruals may seem adequate at one point in time; inadequate at another. Low collections or high balances need to be evaluated in the context of whether they will compound to levels sufficient to cover the liability for which they were created. Based on experts I've spoken to, many expect that current funding rates for funding Yucca will be insufficient to cover the full provision of the service.
There is a second, and perhaps more important issue as well. That involves the shifting of fuel cycle risks from the private investors to the public. In a normal market, the complex, long duration risks associated with managing production waste, such as those associated with nuclear waste, triggers research and innovation into alternative technologies that can deliver a similar product (energy services) without the same waste management complexities. When the government absorbs this risk in return for a small variable payment, the incentive to seek out those alternative technologies is greatly reduced.
Price Anderson caps on nuclear accident liability create similar problems for the incentive structure of firms, and for the comparative economics of various energy choices by artificially reducing reactor operating costs. The private sector already purchases far more insurance coverage at reactor sites for on-site damages and associated business interruption than it is mandated to buy for all offsite damage to people, property, and natural resources. At the very least, ramping up required private coverages for these potential damages could address part of this distortion.
Nucbuddy's comment correctly points out the financing subsidies to Constellation and other recipients of the federal loan guarantees last only as long as the debt. However, the terms for this program allow the debt to go for up to 30 years. The reduced interest rates are so beneficial that if I were a reactor builder, I would pay off this particular loan last.
There are challenges to building complex, large scale capital and these exist well beyond the energy sector. However, introducing massive federal loan guarantees, and to do so in a politically motivated way, is not likely to end at all well for the taxpayer. Nor is it likely to buy the best energy options for the country. There are ways to spread risk without relying on the federal taxpayer as the investor stooge in these complex deals, and these should be pursued.
The firms in both the nuclear and coal sectors are large, financially strong, and sophisticated. If they believe technically that they have a great product, and that costs will really come down after they build 5 or 10 units, it is not too much to ask them to use that sophistication to syndicate the risks without massive taxpayer subsidy.
Finally, the "Harding" referred to in my presentation is Jim Harding, who did much of the economics evaluation that went into the Keystone report and has done a number of presentations on nuclear sector economics since that time. Nucbuddy says that the Harding or Keystone analyses of capacity factors are relevant only if they address solely the US EPR design. I guess I admire Nucbuddy's optimism that new designs can so seamlessly be brought into production and trouble-free operation. I doubt any of the reactor manufacturers are aiming for low capacity factors, but stuff happens and will undoubtedly happen with the US EPR as well. More power to Areva if it can get the lifetime capacity factors above 95%, but I don't think we should rely on that goal as a core input on which to base national policy.
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:57 am
12 May 2008
Permalink
advancednano Posted 5:19 am
12 May 2008
Coal, natural gas and oil still have big subsidies.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-extern ...
So the cutoff at 10% is just an arbitrary rule, since it has not been applied to coal or natural gas.
Some info on feed in tariffs. although renewablews are still less than 10%. I guess the more than 10% rule is to support the underdogs that are not actually delivering that much yet.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/feed-in-tariffs-support- ...
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 9:22 am
12 May 2008
" Under any circumstance, nuclear should be forced to compete as one of many solutions to these problems, "
I agree, but what are the many solutions that can provide 1.5GW of reliable dispatchable power 24 hours a day?
Show us a cost estimate for a 1.5 GW solar or wind plant with reliable dispatchable power and a 0.90 (to eliminate the debate) capacity factor. Now show us a cost estimate for a plant east of the Mississippi river with the same specifications. How many such plants are in operation now? Where can we review their actual performance, construction cost, O&M cost, reliability, emissions, capacity factor, life expectancy and cost per kWh?
Show us a cost and reliability estimate of the required grid for moving the energy from where wind and solar sources are best to where most people live.
" Based on experts I've spoken to, many expect that current funding rates for funding Yucca will be insufficient to cover the full provision of the service. "
Very improbable since the waste quantity and decay time diminishes as reactor technology improves. Burial in deep sea bed mud would be much cheaper. Adding another 0.1 cents per kWh would double the money supply and that is insignificant compared to the rate increase if we require fossil fuels to pay for the damage done by their emissions.
Start by accessing the $175 billion per year death fee for coal. That adds 8.8 cents to each coal kWh, add in the non fatal health effects of coal and call it 10 cents per kWh. Add a CO2 global warming fee of 3 cents per kWh to coal making it 13 cents per kWh. Assume coal now costs 4 cents per kWh at the buss bar, 8 cents per kWh delivered. With the new fees coal power will cost 21 cents per kWh.
Now let the utilities choose whatever they want to build that is less expensive than coal.
" There is a second and perhaps more important issue as well. That involves the shifting of fuel cycle risks from the private investors to the public. "
I agree. It would be better if the government had given the industry the authority to develop the waste solution under appropriate supervision. Imagine what would have happened to the oil, gas and coal industries if they were required to pay the government to dispose of their wastes, including atmospheric dumping, which are actually produced in huge volumes vs. 20 pounds of high level nuclear waste per 80 year lifetime.
This is a golden opportunity for some country with well educated populace to acquire a huge cash cow by taking advantage of our irrational fear and offering to bury the worlds spent fuel. At 0.1 cents per kWh we would pay them $10,800 to bury our 20 pounds of fuel rods, which decay in a short span of geologic time. Meanwhile we are left with huge amounts of lead arsenic mercury cadmium etc, which have an infinite half life, and go into shallow landfills that will in many cases wash out in a very short span of geologic time, just as toxic as the day they went in.
" Price Anderson caps on nuclear accident liability create similar problems for the incentive structure of firms, and for the comparative economics of various energy choices by artificially reducing reactor operating costs. "
We should eliminate Price Anderson and treat the nuclear industry the same way we treat all other industries, corporations and individuals, none of which are covered for the worst event anyone can imagine.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/75132/75324/#co ...
Coal plants are killing over 20,000 Americans each year. That is a $175 billion loss each year that the coal plants are not paying for, a virtual subsidy.
http://michigan.sierraclub.org/traverse/coalproblems.htm
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_data.htm ...
" There are challenges to building complex, large scale capital and these exist well beyond the energy sector. "
Agreed. That is why we should increase R&D to $90 billion per year (only 2.25 cents/kWh) and push every technology as hard as possible. That would include building at least one full scale commercial size plant of every promising technology. Actual performance data would give companies and individuals confidence to make large scale investments rapidly in new and proven technology. This would accelerate the introduction of practical solutions and is much more sensible than providing feed in tariffs to mass produce expensive immature impractical technology that raises cost enormously while remaining largely dependent on fossil fuel, as Denmark and Germany have proven with electricity costs around 30 cents / kWh.
Permalink
dkoplow Posted 2:29 am
13 May 2008
At the time AT&T was broken up, could you have predicted the transformations that have occurred with communications technology? Why then do you think it is incumbent on us to predict the ultimate winners of the next two generations of energy technological development? My view is that the role of government should be to fix problems in market structure so the advantages and disadvantages of the various energy solutions can be seen much more clearly than they are seen now.
Is large scale generation the solution most appropriate to the future as you suggest, or something with a larger number of smaller scale options for load management -- on both the supply and the demand side? France built so many nuclear plants that they had to export power very inexpensively. To promote domestic demand, they encouraged and subsidized the use of electric heat. Yet, according to work by Mycle Schneider, the result was to exacerbate peak loads, which could not be well serviced by their baseload nuclear. So they are exporting baseload, importing peak. Not a great value proposition. (See slides 14-17):
http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single& ...
If you do nodal pricing in grids, you might also find that some of the centralized plants aren't quite so attractive as you thought, because they need to ship through high congestion points.
I think your R&D example is quite far off-base. You have unquestionably linked government spending to research success, which in my view is far from a given. The core strength of our system of venture capital and private equity in this country is its ability to align incentives for success better than governments can do; and to pull funds from unpromising projects when needed. I'm interested in how you'd plan to work out the incentive problems in your big happy socialized energy sector so that it become an effective plan rather than just a massive pork barrel project.
Glad to hear you favor eliminating Price Anderson. Your posting indicates you think the nuclear industry shouldn't have to insure against a worst case scenario. What value do you think they should be responsible for?
No argument from me that coal should pay its way in terms of damages to the environment and human health. That would certainly help the relative economics of nuclear to coal, but probably still wouldn't make it economic. You've got some pretty high numbers attributed to the coal industry, though not much documentation. I also can't tell if you are talking national or global values here. Perhaps you can post more of the details behind the numbers at some point.
I'm also interested in your views on the link between nuclear power and weapons proliferation. There's interesting testimony on this topic by Sharon Squassoni of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (and formerly with the Congressional Research Service) here:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?f ...
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:07 am
13 May 2008
...Posted many times, in many places:
google.com/search?q=%22BILL+HANNAHAN%22+%22fig+leaf%22
From Bill's webpage:
The United States is in a position to do for world energy what Boeing and Lockheed did for world transportation. By taking the lead in the production of floating nuclear power plants we can make clean safe inexpensive energy available all over the world. We can have the high paying jobs and control the technology. We can design the plants to be highly resistant to acts of terror and the diversion of nuclear material. We can insist that plants be subject to international inspection as a condition of sale or lease. We can sell or lease these plants at a cost that is much lower than traditional construction methods, eliminating the fig leaf of energy production to hide a nuclear weapons program.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 7:02 am
13 May 2008
" At the time AT&T was broken up, could you have predicted the transformations that have occurred with communications technology? Why then do you think it is incumbent on us to predict the ultimate winners of the next two generations of energy technological development? "
How on earth did you come to this conclusion, it is the exact opposite of my position. Romm argues that we need 700 GW of reliable high capacity factor generation. I don't care if it comes from 100 huge plants or 100,000,000 small sources, as long as it is reliable and affordable.
" My view is that the role of government should be to fix problems in market structure so the advantages and disadvantages of the various energy solutions can be seen much more clearly than they are seen now. "
I agree completely if by that you mean level the playing field. In addition we should raise R&D to $90 billion per year to maximize our options. Wind and solar buffs want to spend big bucks implementing existing technology, which will take us down the road behind Germany and Denmark, to high energy prices. Each one cent / kWh increase will cost Americans $40 billion per year.
Fossil fuel is still abundant, and will be so for many years. They provide over 70% of our electricity, 85% of all the energy that supports our lives.
Romm says we don't need more R&D, we should start building expensive wind and solar now. If we follow that advice we will be in huge trouble down the road when fossil fuel is really running out. We may have to buy expensive floating nuclear plants from other countries, with severely inflated dollars. I would rather be selling those plants to other countries.
My recommendation maximizes the probability that we will develop better technology than fission, which makes it the most anti nuclear of all.
" France built so many nuclear plants that they had to export power very inexpensively. "
So customers in surrounding countries get a break on clean cheap nuclear power, good for them. Fuel cost is only a half cent per kWh, so France does ok as well.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...
If we build enough wind and solar arrays to achieve 99.9% reliability (8.7 hours of blackout per year), we will have excess capacity 99.8% of the time. When wind and solar conditions are good and demand is low during spring and fall, we could have two or three time the energy we are consuming. What will we do with all that energy?
" Glad to hear you favor eliminating Price Anderson. Your posting indicates you think the nuclear industry shouldn't have to insure against a worst case scenario. What value do you think they should be responsible for? "
The existing $10 billion is plenty.
" I'm also interested in your views on the link between nuclear power and weapons proliferation. There's interesting testimony on this topic by Sharon Squassoni "
Here are some comments;
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Technology/Grand ...
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...
Additional comments on security and solar power are listed here.
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...
http://science-community.sciam.com/profile/Hannahan/30000 ...
Nucbuddy, thanks for the fig leaf note.
The main problem I have with Sharon's comment is that she assumes there is some other technology that can replace fossil fuel at an affordable cost.
Reducing U.S. emissions is not important. Developing a low cost replacement for fossil fuel that the entire world can afford should be our goal. Wasting money on mass production of impractical expensive systems is counterproductive.
What are the many solutions, distributed or point source, that can provide 1.5GW of reliable dispatchable power 24 hours a day?
Show us a cost estimate for a 1.5 GW solar or wind array with reliable dispatchable power and a 0.90 (to eliminate the debate) capacity factor. Now show us a cost estimate for an array east of the Mississippi river with the same specifications. How many such arrays are in operation now? Where can we review their actual performance, construction cost, O&M cost, reliability, emissions, capacity factor, life expectancy and cost per kWh?
Show us a cost and reliability estimate of the required grid for moving the energy from where wind and solar sources are best to where most people live.
Permalink