Environment America today released a new report looking at the environmental implications of John McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and 100 over time. Their report concludes that McCain's plan would be "an economic and environmental disaster."
Environment America, which has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election, found that the 45 reactors would cost taxpayers $315 billion, because most of the funding would have to come from taxpayer-backed federal loans. They also found that expanding the nuclear industry would create less than a quarter of the 700,000 jobs that McCain promised in the first presidential debate. And since the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association, estimates that it takes about 10 years to bring a new nuclear power plant online, it would do little for short-term energy concerns. Nuclear power is also resource-intensive -- 45 nuclear power plants would use between 200 billion to 350 billion gallons of water per year. And, of course, there are the outstanding concerns about safety, storage, and disposal.
"America needs a new direction on energy, but Senator McCain's plan would be serious setback to our economy and to prospects for clean energy," said Anna Aurilio, the director of the D.C. office of Environment America. "These 'McNukes' would super-size our tax bills, our energy bills and our nuclear waste problems."
Their report concludes that McCain's nuclear plan "fails to take advantage of cleaner, cheaper alternatives" like wind and solar, which "can deliver more energy much sooner than building new nuclear power plants, and create more jobs at a lower cost to taxpayers -- without the risks."
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
Comments
View as Flat
Atomicrod Posted 5:21 pm
14 Oct 2008
Until that happens, there is a lot of guesswork involved.
Nuclear power is often projected as getting increasingly expensive in the future, while wind and solar are often projected as being cheaper sometime in the future. Kate Sheppard seems to buy into that model of future costs.
When we take a look at current costs for operating power plants, there is a completely different picture. In the US, for example, essentially all operating wind and solar plants receive direct government subsidies in the form of production tax credits that amount to more for each kilowatt-hour (1.9 cents) than the total operations and maintenance cost for an kilowatt-hour produced in an average nuclear power plant (1.76 cents). That nuclear kilowatt-hour is available for an average of 7900 hours per year on a planned schedule while kilowatt hours from wind and solar are dependent on the weather.
The subsidies for the wind and solar plants do not stop with the PTC. Many states have additional subsidies and an increasing number also have renewable portfolio standards that REQUIRE a utility to purchase a certain amount of power from wind and solar plants no matter how much it costs.
When I provide the cost per kilowatt hour for operating nuclear power plants, I often get an immediate response from anti-nuclear activists who shout that I have ignored the capital costs from the mostly fully amortized (paid off) nuclear plants.
That is a true statement, but think about it for a moment - how did those plants get paid off? How long did it take? How many years worth of operational time - at low operating costs - are left on the plant?
In rate regulated markets, where about half of the plants operate, those low costs directly benefit consumers. (That average cost of 1.76 cents per kilowatt hour includes the following: purchasing of uranium, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication services along with storage and shipment costs, and inventory (including interest) charges less any expected salvage value, labor, material & supplies, contractor services, licensing fees, and miscellaneous costs such as employee expenses and regulatory fees.)
In addition to a low total operating cost, nuclear plants also provide significant resources to their community by paying local, state, and federal taxes amounting to tens of millions of dollars per year for each reactor.
Finally, they provide excellent, long term, often union employment. The average nuclear plant in the US employs a permanent labor force of between 400-600 people with an average salary of $65,000. There are no multi-million dollar executive salaries in that number to bulk up the average.
Talk to people who live new wind and solar installations and find out what kind of impact they are making for their host community. Then talk to one of the many communities near operating nuclear plants and find out why they are often very excited about the possibility of hosting more.
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Permalink
David Bradish Posted 9:07 pm
14 Oct 2008
the 45 reactors would cost taxpayers $315 billion, because most of the funding would have to come from taxpayer-backed federal loans.
Taxpayers do not fund nuclear projects. Investors or ratepayers will. The loan guarantee program Enviro Maine is referring to guarantees plant financing, not funds it.
The only way taxpayers would pay for a plant is if a utility gets partway through construction and defaults. The government then decides if it wants to complete the project or not. If it decides not to, then taxpayers don't pay anything. If the project is completed, then that's when taxpayer dollars may be used. We believe the likelihood of defaults are very small.
One more thing. The loan guarantees are also available to wind, solar, biomass and anything that "avoids, reduces, or sequesters air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases".
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
15 Oct 2008
Water we don't have. All the water conservation efforts possible are necessary just to stop the depletion of aquifers and rivers, nothing is left over for nuclear power except desalination.
And much like coal with CCS, that puts another whole efficiency burden on nuckes. Much of the power produced by nukes or clean coal would need to be used to desalinate water, and in the case of CCS, pump CO2 underground.
Actually all forms of combustion based power have this problem. Burning biomass takes water too.
Which technology, that can backup renewables, does not take water? Biogas from waste used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogenerators. these distrinuted generators use hot gases frm the fuel cell (800 degrees) in the gas turbine, no steam.
In fact it would save water, reclaiming waste water normally flushed into waterways. No more manure run off, for instance. Manure into energy, water recycled.
It recycles fertilizer too, from the waste stream to the fields. Saving a whole other stream of GHG and natural gas consumption to make ammonia fertilizer.
Saving natural gas saves aquifers that are being wrecked by natural gas drilling. Thanks to Cheney's eco-chicanery (hehey), Wyoming's ground water is being devestated by drilling.
Furthermore, an affordable GHG offsetting distributed backup power source for renewables allows a smart grid to run mainly on wind and solar power. Eliminating water use from combustion and nuclear power plants.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:52 am
15 Oct 2008
This produces a lot of excess fresh water that can be diverted to cities.
The looming water scarcity problem is one reason why we would need nuclear power (albeith in a smart way).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
happyplanet Posted 2:41 am
15 Oct 2008
~Who doesn't want a happy planet?
Permalink
raphsperry Posted 5:55 am
15 Oct 2008
You ask, "how did those plants get paid off? How long did it take? How many years worth of operational time - at low operating costs - are left on the plant?" but don't answer it. How much does it cost to pay off a nuclear power plant? Unless it costs less than $0.14 per kWh, then when added to the $1.76 O&M cost per Kwh nuclear is higher than the $1.90 PTC you criticize renewable power for (which of course isn't the full costs of power form those sources either).
But let's dig a little deeper. How about the costs of disposing of nuclear fuel and providing catastrophic accident insurance? You don't mention these two key factors in accounting for the costs of nuclear power. If nuclear power is used, these costs will be paid. If plants are uninsured and an accident happens, then the catastrophe costs are paid by the residents and future generations (or, quite likely, by taxpayers, through FEMA, ex post facto). In the case of nuclear waste disposal, it's already clear that taxpayers will foot the (ever increasing) bill for Yucca Mountain or, if it never happens, something else to replace it. If the renewables have similar cost burdens, let's factor those in, too - although I am not aware of any. But let's compare apples to apples.
As a reasonable person one of the things I like about the competitors to nuclear power is the absence of these hidden risks and costs. Sure, something could go wrong with a wind or solar installation, but it won't pollute thousands of square miles for tens of thousands of years, or instantly convert a multi-billion dollar asset into a liability. I think the nuclear industry owes the public an accounting of these risks, rather than hiding behind generic claims that their plants are now "safer" than older versions, or "safe" in general.
Raphael Sperry
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:21 pm
15 Oct 2008
Water turns to a vapor at a given heat energy per unit of mass, the waste heat is less than the heat used to produce steam for the turbine.
This is going to come up short of water and cause extra cost. Just like recycling the water with condensation heat exchange would.
This is why a water saving solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine at 70% even beats combined cycle. Combined cycle still takes water for the primary energy cycle, a steam turbine.
Furthermore fuel cell/turbine systems can be sized to fit a car, a home, or a shopping mall. To provide distributed grid backup and cogenerated heat.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
anyone Posted 7:04 am
16 Oct 2008
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1554 ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8916 ...
After 60 years of massive public funding, it's time for nuclear to learn to walk on its own feet.
Btw, wind power is growing by 7,500 MW in 2008 alone (an increase of 45% compared to 2007)
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_ ...
If wind only grows 12% annually for the next decade that'll lead to over 200 GW by 2020 (while the new nuclear power plants still haven't generated one single kWh). And windpower is not asking ratepayers to pay in advance.
Permalink
David Bradish Posted 11:35 pm
17 Oct 2008
You're right, they're asking taxpayers.
Permalink