Max8806’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Amory, you've now repeated a couple claims here in the comments that really ought to be substantiated by some numbers and sources to be taken seriously. I looked through your technical paper attached to try and find more support on these particulars and did not find any, though admittedly I might have missed something. You've been impressively responsive so far, maybe you can clear these up. First, you've said here (and in the technical paper) that 2005 EPAct nuclear subsidies exceed the full capital cost of building a plant. I personally cannot fathom how you make the numbers work for that one, unless you count the value of loan guarantees as just grants. Or perhaps you're counting Price-Anderson as some sort of infinite subsidy--I've seen that claim on grist before-- despite the fact that it imposes on the industry a duty to maintain around $9Billion in pooled liability coverage, and has never imposed upon the public purse (even after TMI). So perhaps you could give a clearer accounting of the missing several billion dollars. Second, and related, is your claim that subsidies for nuclear are greater than for renewables, even greater than PV according to your technical paper. Just a little back of the envelope arithmetic here: a 1.2GW nuclear reactor with a 90% capacity factor would produce about 9,461 Million KWh's in a year. (365 days * 24 hours * 1.2Million KW * .9 Capacity Factor). If you offered nuclear a $0.30/kwh tariff for power, which is not even particularly generous by PV FIT standards, that nuclear plant would rake in over $2.8 Billion (with a 'B') in just the very first year of operation! How expensive would you have to figure the plant is for those numbers not to sound like a good investment? So I think its hard to argue that nuclear gets this level, or more, government support. On the EIA report on government subsidies, you're right it was commissioned by Lamar Alexander, but I've read the analysis request letter and its not stacked to get predetermined answers at all. I believe what you are referring to is the request specifically for "subsidy per kwh," but that's only an unfair framing if you don't ask "how many tomatoes" to someone who offers to sell you "tomatoes" for $10. Wouldn't you ask how many tomatoes? I would. And while it doesn't include historical spending on R&D, that seems to have had an incredible social return. While I certainly would be the last one to ignore the role of market liberalization and utility divestiture in increasing nuclear capacity factors, its hard to imagine all that R&D didn't help. And the knowledge about how plant components hold up to significant radiation exposure, simulating years/decades in a reactor, have certainly contributed to the NRC's ability to extend licenses an additional 20 years. So while "evil, corporate" nuclear subsidies overwhelmingly go to the broad-based social good of public R&D, "altruistic" renewables insist on having their subsidies paid personally, in cash and upfront for each specific installation. Perhaps this is why we get so many fewer kwh's out of our public renewables subsidy dollars. I think if we're honest nuclear takes its subsidies in a much more socially welfare-enhancing form. Finally, just a general remark about your refrain that nuclear gets no "private capital investment" while renewables and micropower are killing it in the global marketplace. Obviously Japan, Korea, Russia and parts of Europe never stopped building nuclear power plants, and yet you still feel confident arguing wherever these investments crop up its just because of government support. But I'm pretty sure you don't take all the renewables that get super-high FIT's out of your database. So to me at least, I've always found it difficult to take your proclamations seriously because it seems like an awful double standard. There's no point in drumming up this huge distinction you like to draw in whether capital is "private" or "at-risk" if its offered a tariff at 3-4 times the market rate.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Amory, summarizing MIT's 2003 report on nuclear power, then saying offhandedly that since then things have gotten worse for nuclear so now it needs $100/tonCO2 to compete with coal... WHILE IGNORING THE 2009 MIT UPDATE TO THAT SAME REPORT that puts coal and nuclear at 8.3 and 8.4 cents/kwh respectively with just a $25/tCO2 price is the definition of cherrypicking.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  BioD, I think the real issue here is that running out of U235 is somewhere between not a real concern at all and get-back-to-me-in-a-hundred-years-and-we'll-see. As has been pointed out before on this thread, fuel is such a small part of nuclear fuel costs that even if Uranium prices shot up permanently, reprocessed fuel and seawater uranium would cap the price spike before it actually made a material difference for the economics of nuclear. You would be hard pressed to find a nuclear physicist who would tell you that in 100 years there won't be thorium nuclear plants or more reprocessed fuel plants (a la France) or breeders or seawater uranium extraction. This stuff isn't around now because mining it is currently cheaper, not because its so scifi.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Hasn't anyone noticed that nuclear plants aren't renewable?" So what? Corn ethanol is clearly "renewable," but its not sustainable and its terrible for the environment and people everywhere who like to eat. Nuclear energy is sustainable, inexhaustible, and carbon-free, which is what counts. "Exchange Saudi oil sheiks for Russian mineral and mining czars?" Global Uranium Supply is produced largely by allies. (see table) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html "Doesn't this indicate that the amount of uranium a plant needs over time dramatically increases, even if power output remains relatively unchanged?" No, power output has dramatically increased, due to increased capacity factors (less downtime) and power uprates. This is why nuclear's share of US electricity generation has remained pretty stable at around 20% for the past 20 years without new plants coming online. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_5.pdfOn Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  JB943, is it the nuclear advocates or the renewables advocates who want, on top of a price on carbon, a MANDATE that each utility dedicate a certain percentage of their generation portfolio to their technology? Is it the nuclear or the renewables advocates who keep pushing for feed-in tariffs for their technology way above market prices? Just back of the envelope: a 1.2GW nuclear reactor with a 90% capacity factor would produce about 9,461 Million KWh's in a year. (365 days * 24 hours * 1.2Million KW * .9 Capacity Factor). If you assume 5-6 cents per KWh, since large merchant power plants are selling wholesale, that's looking like $473-568Million per year. If you had the crazy opinion that nuclear power deserved the same public support as, say, solar power and offered it a 30 cent tariff (far from the highest available to solar around the world), now that same nuclear plant makes over $2.8 Billion(!) just in its very first year of operation. How expensive would you have to figure the plant to be for those numbers not to sound like a good investment? This is why to maintain that government policy (e.g. subsidies) distorts the market in favor of nuclear relative to renewables is nonsense.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 159 Responses