OK fine, if we build traditional power plants we may see the same poor business proposition that we saw in the 70's

But nuclear power doesnt have to come in this form. we can decentralize it, much like we can decentralize solar or wind power.

when we do that, the costs are about the same between nukes and solar (a very coarse analysis, granted)

Here's the same comment I made over at Climate Progress:

This is clearly a biased study and after reading it twice, I'm having a tough time understanding some of the reasons for Mr. Severance's calculations. Not only that, the results differ drastically from at least one of the studies he references.

I understand how he gets capital costs of $10,553/kW for a new nuclear plant. All he did was take FPL's overnight costs ($4,070/kW) and then apply a few overly-conservative financial assumptions to calculate that number. Okay fine. What I don't get is how this calculates to 22 cents per kWh as supposedly explained on page 18. For instance, what's this "capital recovery factor" that's used on page 18 and why isn't it explained elsewhere in the report? Also, when comparing Mr. Severance's results to the Lazard study he cites earlier, how come the results for nuclear are drastically different?

Here's the Lazard study (pdf) Mr. Severance references. The Lazard study assumes a range of "total capital" costs for nuclear of $5,750-$7,550/kW (page 12, this is equal to Severance's "All in estimated construction cost"). Lazard calculates nuclear's "total capital" costs to range from 9.1 - 11.9 cents per kWh (pages 8 and 9). Yet somehow at only $2,500/kW more, Severance gets a number of 22 cents/kWh for a levelized capital cost, nearly twice Lazard's number. Either some cherry-picking is going on here or someone made a calculation error and I doubt it was Lazard.

Joe, you claim that Mr. Severance's study "fills a critical gap" in the debate over nuclear power because it's transparent. Yet the study provides no more transparency than FPL's study or some of the studies Severance references. All of yours and Mr. Severance's base assumptions come from nuclear industry studies. So I don't get how this study is any more transparent. Also, where did you get the four paragraphs you quote in your blog about this "Black Box" approach? It's nowhere mentioned in Severance's study.

Here's one of the flawed parts of Severance's study. Page 10 claims that "Important studies have concluded that several already existing technologies have significantly lower cost per kWh than new nuclear power - including technologies fully compatible with a carbon reduced future, such as wind power, biomass, land fill gas, and natural gas combined cycle." The only study Severance mentions is the Lazard study. What's unique about the Lazard study is they showed that if you take away the tax incentives from renewables, they're just as expensive as nuclear, see page 5 of Lazard. So I'd say Severance's study is a bit disingenuous to claim renewables are cheaper when government subsidies are factored in...don't you think?

but because of nuclear energy, we are living in a carbon reduced present. That seems to ignite a blue fire of fury in the hearts of these former civil servants and their "leading experts".

I don't mind living near nuclear installations -- Cameco, Darlington -- but they would mind living near the large gas pipelines they would have the rest of us live near.

--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)

http://www.renewableenergyinternational.com/technology

REI combines existing, proven technologies with innovative designs and proprietary controls to provide its customers with integrated, turnkey systems. The core technologies employed include:
Hydrogen gas separating from water
Hydrogen gas separating from water

    * solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, including architectural BIPV (built-in-photovoltaic)
    * wind turbines
    * biomass
    * hydro turbines (for generating electricity)
    * solar thermal collectors (for space and water heating)
    * geothermal heat pumps (for heating and cooling)
    * hydrogen electrolyzers (to generate gas for excess power storage, direct combustion)
    * fuel cells (for reconverting gaseous hydrogen into power)
    * hydrogen refueling stations (for appliances and vehicles)

...if there are self made Purgatories, then we all have to live in them.
--"This Side of Paradise", TOS

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

In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm

Thinfilm photovoltaics will 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.

Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.
http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html

92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone.
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 ...

China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.
http:/www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.
http:/www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&D according to MIT.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...

Needless to say, that there is still
biomass http://www.jenbacher.com
wave http://www.pelamiswave.com/
tidal
small hydro
and most importantly: Efficiency

However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.