Five Myths About Nuclear Energy - Myth 2

[kristopher]

Myth 2. Nuclear Energy Is Inexpensive

Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs—to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes—currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies.

After energy-efficiency programs, wind is the most cost-effective way both to generate electricity and to reduce greenhouse emissions. It costs about half as much as atomic power. The only nearly finished nuclear plant in the West, now being built in Finland by the French company Areva, will generate electricity costing 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Yet the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calculated actual costs of new wind plants, over the last seven years, at 3.4 cents per kilowatt- hour. Although some groups say nuclear energy is inexpensive, their misleading claims rely on trimming the data on cost. The 2003 M.I.T. study, for instance, included neither the costs of reprocessing nuclear material, nor the full interest costs on nuclear-facility construction capital, nor the total costs of waste storage. Once these omissions—from the entire nine-stage nuclear fuel cycle—are included, nuclear costs are about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The cost-effectiveness of wind power explains why in 2006 utility companies worldwide added 10 times more wind-generated, than nuclear, electricity capacity. It also explains why small-scale sources of renewable energy, like wind and solar, received $56 billion in global private investments in 2006, while nuclear energy received nothing. It explains why wind supplies 20 percent of Denmark’s electricity. It explains why, each year for the last several years, Germany, Spain and India have each, alone, added more wind capacity than all countries in the world, taken together, have added in nuclear capacity.

In the United States, wind supplies up to 8 percent of electricity in some Midwestern states. The case of Louis Brooks is instructive. Utilities pay him $500 a month for allowing 78 wind turbines on his Texas ranch, and he can still use virtually all the land for farming and grazing. Wind’s cost-effectiveness also explains why in 2007 wind received $9 billion in U.S. private investments, while nuclear energy received zero. U.S. wind energy has been growing by nearly 3,000 megawatts each year, annually producing new electricity equivalent to what three new nuclear reactors could generate. Meanwhile, no new U.S. atomic-power reactors have been ordered since 1974.

Should the United States continue to heavily subsidize nuclear technology? Or, as the distinguished physicist Amory Lovins put it, is the nuclear industry dying of an “incurable attack of market forces”? Standard and Poor’s, the credit- and investment-rating company, downgrades the rating of any utility that wants a nuclear plant. It claims that even subsidies are unlikely to make nuclear investment wise. Forbes magazine recently called nuclear investment “the largest managerial disaster in business history,” something pursued only by the “blind” or the “biased.”

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884

[Dogmudgeon]

1. I know it's supposed to be reserved for ethanol production, but ...

:popcorn:

--p!

[bananas]

2. k&r nt

[madokie]

3. Quite the disparity there I would say, 165 billion to 5 billion

I'd love to set back here in my all knowing and know that we have an infinite and cheap power source in atomic energy but I would only be lying to myself, something I strive to not do.

First things first and a level playing field is on top of the list of must haves when it comes to our energy policies.

For a while there I was starting to question my beliefs concerning the nuclear waste and what to do with it but now I can see that if it was a fair game being played on a level field it would not even be a worry as we would not be bothering with using nuclear energy at all.

rec

[Dogmudgeon]

4. What does our money really buy? And how much?

Here's the catch: it's not for the same amount of energy.

$165 billion for how much (nuclear source) energy

vs.

$5 billion for how much (soft source) energy.

This money was granted, lent, and/or guaranteed for the prospect of a profitable return.

How much does a soft watt cost versus a nuclear watt?

This formula can be applied to subsidies and actual market costs -- any kind of price analysis, in fact. It's one of the fundamentals of accountancy.

I know the (approximate) answer, but no matter what I say, I will be attacked for it, so I'll let those who would like to "rip me a new one" go first. That way, they can post all the Damned Good Reasons and appeals to outrage and get them out of the way up front. I have no interest in doing all the math for either side. Energy costs what it costs.

--p!

[madokie]

5. Well OK

I kind of see what you're saying. I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and, but I do have questions and I come here to find answers as there is a few here who I have the utmost respect for and several others who I am gaining respect for, I just don't do bullshit very good plus I don't like the smell. At the end of the day I like to think I come away a little better informed, a little wiser if you will. After its all said and done we're all in this together.
Peace and have a great day :hi:



Its a shame that there is any "rip me a new one" on this board or that its tolerated here at all.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. I've got to agree with that

(Sorry for my long delay in replying ... the day got busier than the forums!)

I try to be as well-informed as possible, too. I've found this issue to be radioactive in itself. But in spite of my present conclusions about nuclear energy, my ideas are not fixed. I still spend a lot more time looking for anti-nuclear arguments than pro. I've been at this, off-and-on, since 1977.

Ultimately, I won't support something that just ain't so. No BS, no spin, just give me the math and the facts unvarnished. I can live with that, no matter which "side" it favors. Sadly, that approach is lost on many people. They are also usually surprised to hear me agreeing with them over Yucca Mountain, the Navajo uranium miners, and the scope of the Chernobyl disaster (if not the eventual body count). I actually do think that nuclear energy is the way to go, at least until fusion arrives, but I know could still be wrong. Until I find otherwise, I'll try to present the case as clearly and well as I can.

We're basically only a dozen people or so, split about half-and-half, all of us with big egos, too much free time, and a taste for a brawl. (That "us" does not include you!) But nothing ever progresses. I don't mind fighting, but very little new information has been developed. We could all be doing this kind of thing for bigger kicks bashing Bush and McCain on FreeRepublic. And I completely agree on being part of the same team. We have an election to win, and then we MUST turn our attention to energy and environmental issues. Even in disagreement, we can get more done than we are doing now.

So, thanks for your words of support. They really have been a welcome break today. I'll do my best to make that at least some of my postings stay informative.

Well ... my 5-year-old nephew is here ... too young for climate change, but quite happy to help put up signs for Mr. Obama. He even learned to spell his name. He's up to C-L-I-N-T, too, but only M-C-A-N, and he can draw a W in a circle with a slash. But it's still only June!

:hi:

--p!

[madokie]

11. As a wise old man said to me one day when I was a young kid

son you have to believe in something before you can ever be anything. I took it to mean that I am to believe in something and when I have been shown or I can see that thats not the way it is then accept the new with the same vigor as the old was. I take a lot of comfort in being able to make changes as my knowledge base expands as I feel that with an open mind good things can and sometime do happen.

[kristopher]

6. If you mean what you wrote, I don't think it's correct. (surprise?)

"This money was granted, lent, and/or guaranteed for the prospect of a profitable return."

The money used to subsidize a technology isn't usually considered to be invested for a "profitable" return (as the term would generally be used).

It is designed to provide the needed research, product development, and market development for infrastructure that existing market forces do not incentivise, but are deemed necessary for society's long term welfare.

I don't think it is possible to do the type of comparison you seem to be hinting at since one policy has been receiving strong support for 50 years, while the other has seen little support except for a short burst thirty years ago that lasted maybe 5 years. The only way a comparison such as you are proposing (based on $input/production output(?)) would be meaningful is if there were similar political and financial forces backing both policies. You could account for some differences, for example if two similar policies were being compared but one had been in effect 7 years and the other had been in effect 12 years, but I don't think a simple formula could possibly be meaningful in this instance.

[Dogmudgeon]

33. Agreed: We need more detailed analysis

Your viewpoint on the reasons for subsidies is more inclusive than mine, but I don't think it invalidates the idea that the state supports ventures in hopes of achieving greater public good than market forces can. Considering that the contentious issue is over money, I didn't take too much of a liberty by tightening my focus that much.

I agree with the need for more in-depth comparisons, but it was only after looking into the anti-nuclear movement's claims that I found how weak and deceptive the "nuclear Goliath" story was. A simple formula doesn't cut it for many reasons -- for example, how soft energy was kept on life support, even during the radical free-enterprise Reagan Administration. Personally, I'm glad that it was kept alive, and I think you'll find most pro-nuclearists agree. But it wasn't a freebie.

The federal wind subsidy has amounted to >$23/MW-h since 1983. (There are similar supports for solar and "clean" coal.) That's about $14 going to wind for every $1 for nuclear energy, and the support nuclear energy gets is reduced because the military uses the Department of Energy to fix their own nuclear mistakes, like Hanford.

Before these particular subsidies, came others, but if you look at the history of soft energy R&D, you'll see that it was never suppressed -- it simply didn't exist on a big enough scale to be its own, defined, industry. Imagine a critic crying "scandal!" that the semiconductor industry received a mere pittance in subsidies during WW2. Yet that's exactly what the anti-nuclear movement is doing here.

There are adjustments that could be made to all analyses, which is why I'd also like to see better, independent comparisons, to winnow out as many methodological and ideological biases as possible.

I'll be posting my source for this in its own thread. It is the 2007 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf">Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets report, an overview of the entire business of energy and its subsidies -- a 274-page wonk's delight with an 8-page Executive Summary. There are several earlier and supplementary reports, too. I am certain there will be joy and pain to be had by all.

--p!

[kristopher]

36. Who said freebie?

The OP asserts a 33:1 disparity in subsidies between the two technologies, so following your (misleading) logic I have to ask why there is only a 14:1 advantage in the production statistic you have arrived at? If the policy supporting nuclear were actually being successful it would have a ratio of subsidy to production that exceeds the differential between to two fields being compared. The fact is that even after massive subsidies devoted to creating a large nuclear power industrial infrastructure, the return on investment in terms of both energy (EROI) and money (ROI) are poor.

What I see when I compare ratio of relative industry subsidies (33:1) to the result you cite (14:1) is a hint that if the subsidies had been comparable, wind would have generated 2.4X the amount of electricity that nuclear has. I wouldn't accept that number as valid however, since the basic infrastructure of wind would yield even greater results due to its ability to deliver on economy of scale in a way that is impossible for the the nuclear priesthood to match.

[Dogmudgeon]

40. My logic is fine.

The ratio of cumulative industry subsidies as asserted, but not supported, by Prof. Shrader-Freschette, may indeed be 33:1, but the 14:1 ratio illustrates that nuclear energy has returned 14 units of energy per dollar for each ONE unit of wind energy per dollar.

I believe that you have mixed up the mathematical terms or possibly the methodology. You've brought up a few different kinds of (otherwise relevant) analyses, but this one is simply the raw "efficiency" of the subsidy. The DoE has calculated what it costs to produce one megawatt-hour of energy.

I argue that a) nuclear energy is an excellent value, b) we have actually been biased toward soft energy in order to merely keep it alive (which I also support), and c) Prof. S-F is misleading us -- curious behavior for an ethicist. I hope I have misunderstood her intention.

Please refer to the http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf">Executive Summary for Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007; Table ES5. Subsidies and Support to Electricity Production: Alternative Measures. If you divide FY 2007 Subsidy and Support into FY 2007 Net Generation, you get the result shown in Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production.

All I have done is to have compared two different results shown in Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production in ratio form, but an expanded explanation may be useful.

• The total amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants was 794 billion kWh; the subsidy amount was $1,267 million (~$1.3 billion); this came to $1.59 per megawatt-hour.
  
  
• The total amount of electricity generated by wind energy was 31 billion kWh; the subsidy amount was $724 million (~$0.7 billion); this came to $23.37 per megawatt-hour.
  
  
• The total amount of electricity generated by solar energy (PV and thermal) was 1 (one) billion kWh; the subsidy amount was $14 million; this came to $24.34 per megawatt-hour.
  
  
• The MWh subsidy ratio is $23.37/$1.59 or 14.7 wind-to-nuclear, and $24.34/$1.59 or 15.3 solar-to-nuclear. Soft energy is subsidized about 15 times as heavily, watt-for-watt, as nuclear energy, though coal and hydroelectric alike are even less subsidized.
  

All of those figures are for FY 2007.

This is the true, unadjusted apples-to-apples comparison. It omits everything except for categorization, electrical energy and subsidy money. And it is for subsidies and "market intervention" only; the actual costs of making the energy are not analyzed. Secondary subsidies and costs are also omitted. More details may be found in the http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/srcneaf(2008)01.pdf">full report.

I do not consider this to be a useful way of evaluating the benefits and biases of different forms of energy production. It's probably good for propaganda, but little else. And in a few years, it will have no anti-nuclear propaganda value left whatsoever.

So why do the anti-nuclearists think this is a good argument -- as they have since at least 1992?

--p!

[kristopher]

41. As you say, it is for 2007 only

That is hardly an apples to apples comparison.

You are acting as though the cumulative subsidy support is irrelevant, and that is so fallacious it is hard to imagine you don't realize it. I don't know what you know about energy policy but renewable energy has been sabotaged at every turn since Reagan took control.

You assert that the report you link to is the definitive analysis of the topic, however there is little evidence that this is true. As with the omitted costs in the MIT report there is the matter of peer review that is yet to be accomplished. You are quoting a report from an agency under the control of an administration that is dedicated to opposition of renewable energy and they have proven repeatedly that they are willing to falsify data to achieve their goals.


And one final remark - you absolutely have not proved that subsidies are biased towards renewables. All you've done is cherry pick two years out of nearly 40 years of relevant policies and pointed to that as indicative of the whole. That is an absurd claim that labels your ethical foundation clearly.

[Dogmudgeon]

44. First things first

If this is just another DU E/E exercise in public puffery and ego-strutting, then I'm finished here, and you can take a victory lap or do the happy dance or whatever.

If it's a dialog and you just got temporarily carried away with yourself, point out your arguments and I'll address them.

--p!

[kristopher]

42. To your original point

I'll be posting this to its own thread, but wanted to link it with your comment about profit.

GE says U.S. renewables tax credit pays for itself
Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:00pm BST

BOSTON, June 18 (Reuters) - General Electric Co (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) released a study on Wednesday arguing that a U.S. tax credit for renewable energy projects generates more revenue for the federal government than it costs.

The study by United States' leading maker of electricity-generating wind turbines found that wind farms built last year that benefited from the credit will generate $250 million more in tax revenue over their lifetime than the program cost.

The tax credit, intended to encouragement investment in sustainable energy projects like wind farms, which currently represent about 1 percent of overall U.S. electricity production, is due to expire at the end of this year.

The latest effort to renew the credit failed in the Senate on Tuesday.

Steve Taub, senior vice president of investment strategy at GE Energy Financial Services, who did the analysis, said it showed that the credit pays for itself over a 25-year time period.

"There is a time element here, but over time you could almost look at this as an investment, you essentially give some tax breaks up front to get the payoff later," he said.

GE's $250 million payoff assumption assumes it takes about two years to build the wind farms and that they run for 20 to 25 years. It does not take into account taxes paid to state or local governments or environmental benefits.

The tax credit currently runs for 10 years and is worth 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour of power generated. It lapsed in 1999, 2001 and 2003 and each time was followed by a drop-off in the number of new wind farms built.

A study by the American Wind Energy Association found that U.S. wind power grew by 45 percent last year, to 16,818 megawatts -- enough to power about 4.5 million homes.

GE has forecast that its 2008 wind revenues will hit $6 billion. Its competitors in the wind turbine market include Germany's Siemens AG (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS.CO: Quote, Profile, Research).

[TheWraith]

7. Nonsense.

This cherry-picks statistics and mixes them with misinformation and outright lies. For starters, all subsidies aside, all you have to do is calculate the price of construction and maintainence amortized against the life of the facility. By this calculation, nuclear is quite competitive with wind power, and much more so than solar.

It also perpetuates the nonsense that no new US nuclear reactors have been ordered due to cost reasons, which is both false and, well, false. For starters, nuclear reactor production was halted because anti-nuclear groups (covertly funded by fossil fuel companies, natch) spread enough propaganda and raised enough paranoia that it became nearly impossible to get a plant sited.

Second, it's not true that no new reactors have been ordered. A bunch of new plants are being planned and set up right now. Why else do you think we've seen a sudden return of the anti-nuclear scaremongering?

And finally, Amory Lovins is NOT a "distinguished physicist." He's not even a physicist at all. He's a professional greenwasher, who's paid by corporations like Walmart to make it look like they're environmentally friendly. To call him anything other than a shill for a feel-good version of the status quo is nonsense.

[kristopher]

8. You're entitled to your opinion...

But your cost analysis is childish at best.

[NNadir]

10. "Distinguished physicist?"

Here is the number of papers that Amory Lovins has published in physics journals:

Zero.

That's remarkably close to the number of exajoules of "cheap" wind energy produced on the entire planet, out of the 500 exajoules used by humanity.

Wind can't even cover its own spinning reserve.

[bluedawg12]

13. Here's a look at Lovins OP w/ critique

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/5/lovins-dismisses-nuclear-power.cfm

Lovins Weighs in on Nuclear Power
May 29, 2008


Amory Lovins is the granddaddy of renewable energy. During the 1973 energy crisis, he started advocating ‘soft energy paths.’ Soft energy sources are solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy sources. And Lovins focuses on micropower — essentially community energy to cut down on electricity wasted in transit. He simply isn’t a fan of big power plants.

So it comes as no surprise that he has an article in Newsweek about energy — nuclear power in particular. In “Missing the Market Meltdown,” Lovins' agenda is to shoot down recent claims that nuclear energy is experiencing a revival, of sorts. And his arguments are solid.

$71 billion in private capital for renewable energy last year and none for nuclear
Rising nuclear fuel costs
Distance that nuclear plants must be placed from populations, and the resulting grid costs
21 percent of nuclear plants are simply abandoned as failures
But I can’t help thinking that Lovins is a little too broad in his dismissal of nuclear energy. There is no question that renewable energy sources are ideal for a wide variety of situations, but there are some levels of energy use that continue to remain outside the reach of renewable energy sources. We simply can’t convert over to renewable energy fast enough to eliminate the need for big power plants. Despite that $71 billion in renewable investments that Lovins cites, renewable energy represents just 5 percent of global power capacity. According to the UN Energy Program’s 2007 Global Power Report, the world’s renewable energy capability is growing by leaps and bounds — wind power by 28 percent, for example. But there is still a huge need for power that renewable sources haven’t caught up with and will continue to be filled by power plants for years to come. Nuclear energy happens to be a bit more ideal for filling that big power plant need than a coal-burning facility spewing carbon emissions into the air.

I would love to see a solar panel on every roof and I doubt that I’ll ever want to live next door to a nuclear power plant. If I need to augment my micropower source, though, I’d prefer that the electric company piped me nuclear energy instead of electricity produced from burning coal. Despite our renewable energy ideals, I just don’t think that we can boil down energy policy to ‘nuclear is bad.’ There are a few sources that it’s at least somewhat ‘better than.’

I believe that moderate position on nuclear policy is necessary. While there are problems with nuclear power, investing in nuclear research could still provide useful results. Lovins, in a 2006 interview, pointed to “promised low costs already have failed to materialize for next-generation light water reactors.” But research and development present the opportunity to build towards those promised low costs.

Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it can help keep down carbon emissions while we get renewable energy right

[bluedawg12]

14. This link will take you the Lovins paper

http://www.rmi.org/

The Nuclear Illusion - the link is pdf. and at the top of the page.

[kristopher]

15. Why do you say this?

"Nuclear energy happens to be a bit more ideal for filling that big power plant need than a coal-burning facility spewing carbon emissions into the air.'

There is no reason to think that we could bring nuclear power online faster than we can upgrade the grid and bring renewables online. The money you propose being spent on nuclear will have a much greater long term payback if it is invested in improving the manufacturing base needed to more rapidly expand renewables. For starters, we need lots and lots of Li bttery factories yesterday. We don't need to get renewables right, they already are plenty right enough - we just need to get them deployed NOW.

[bluedawg12]

18. kristopher- I posted a blog in response to Lovins article

and I posted a link to Lovins article, itself.

I should have done Lovins link first, then the blog. However, that's the sequence I found them in- and so I posted them.

I didn't say anything about this. I am trying to understand the issues in this forum.

I must have missed some early discussions about the basics of nuclear energy as an option or not for the current energy shortage.

I am trying to catch up--just filing in info. that you all seem to know already.

So as long as I have you--what the hell does upgrade the grid mean? Is that the infra structure for electricity. Power stations, lines, hardware?

Next, you said, "The money you propose being spent on nuclear will have a much greater long term payback if it is invested in improving the manufacturing of renewables..."

By renewables you give an example: Lithium battery factories.

OK, back up a second-- as I understand it we have needs for residential and commercial energy. Those are big energy generating plants. Currently: coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solarand I suppose somewhere in the world Iceland(?) geothermal.

Is that correct?

We also have need for transportation- currently via petroleum.

Is that correct?

The debate about nuclear facilities versus coal, for example, or versus wind, or solar is for large scale energy like cities and industry.

Batteries are for what--cars? Transport.

Aren't batteries and nuclear for different sectors?

I don't understand why we need batteries?

Thanks.

[kristopher]

23. Energy storage is the key element

That is why coal and petroleum are so valuable - they give us lots of energy stored in a very small weight and volume.

Compared to them nothing but nuclear comes close. However, comparing them to fossils or nuclear is the wrong way to set up the problem in order to solve it. We need to start with existing technolgies and compare those with our needs, then figure out how to mtch those in the most efficient and least polluting way possible.

Let's say there are 150,000,000 electric plug ins on the road and each vehicle has a 25kWh battery pack. To demonstrate the resource assume they average 80% charge to capacity so each one is storing 20kWh. The average driver will only use a small portion of that daily for transportation; most people basically drive to and from work with an average daily commute of 30 miles. So let's deduct another 10kWh for that and say that all those vehicles have an 80% charge and want to retain at least 40% of battery charge to meet their expected needed. Remember these are statistical averages - some will be less, some will be more. These drivers plug their vehicles basically whenever they are in a formal parking area. This allows automatic refueling and WITHDRAWAL of the electricity stored in the batteries. The average amount with current technology (this is expected to increase 8-10Xwithin the decade) that is available to be used by the grid at any given time is thus 150 tera watt hours of electricity.

Modern computer technology enables that two way process. The electrical grid (as is) has the capability to act as a transmission system for hi-volumes of information technology - it flows right through the same wires that carry the electricity. But we need to put in the IT portion of the system to enable the our "Smart Grid" to do what needs to be done automatically. Instead of balancing a demand and supply that is centered around fossil fuel characteristics, the Smart Grid is able to balance a demand supplied by intermittent wind and solar, backed up and stabilized by the huge reserve in the batteries. Since the renewables portfolio will soon grow to include more stable sources such as wave/current/tidal and more and more geothermal the intermittency situation improves with time.

As it is now, battery electric drive is the technology with the most significance. Switching to that will improve the energy efficiency of personal transportation dramatically. I don't think anyone would argue that we can reduce our overall national energy consumption by a full 20% just with that move alone. Concurrently we proceed with building wind and solar as fast as possible. It is a trite phrase overused in business but this gives 'synergy' a new basis in reality.
The bottleneck to accomplishing this cheaply is investment in the facilities to manufacture the components of these technologies - demand is outstripping supply by 3 years right now and is expected to continue to increase.

One last point - this doesn't happen overnight. I know you are concerned about industry, but that is a question to be addressed on a case by case basis. In most cases, industries either generate their own electricity or they get it off the grid. A grid powered by renewables can supply industrial needs just as well as a grid powered by fossil fuels - if it is designed properly.

[bluedawg12]

24. OK- to make sure I understand

Investing in technologies acorss the board is a priority.

That means:

Components for power generation (wind and solar) for residential and commericial use.

Batteries for transportation.

Is that a correct summary?

If it is, there should be no debate, as I see it, because manufaturing components for alternatives like wind and solar are market driven and will respond to need. Esepcially as they are not subject to special regs like nucelar.

Whereas nuclear energy is different. it requiries societal approval. One, to simply have locals agree to a nukeplant in their region and two, because of regulatory issues.

That leaves me with one question: all that aside, can wind and solar (market driven) produce sufficient energy to meet the needs of this nation?

Comparing nuclear to wind and solar- how much cost diffrential to build the needed nuke plant vs. the alternative sources?

How much time diffrential: how long would it take to convert to sufficient nukeenergy vs. wind and solar?

Thanks.

[kristopher]

37. Close, but no.

Batteries are for both transportation and grid storage (read up on 'vehicle to grid' or V2G). Right now we have a great deal of storage built into the system in the form of fossil fuels that remain unburned because the need they would have met was instead met by wind. Since the capacity to meet that need with fossils is already in place, that is considered 'storage' for intermittent generation (all forms of generation are to some degree intermittent).

As penetration of renewables increases the inherent storage built into the system will be challenged. Most experts consider the point where additional storage need becomes significant to be when wind hits about 20% of total generated power. Given the ramp up rates and given the demand for an electric alternative to gasoline in the personal transportation sector the ramp up rate for batteries will meet the grids needs as the penetration of renewables proceeds.

The problem is advancing technologies. There are major improvements for Lithium batteries in the pipeline, so one major obstacle is getting the battery manufacturers to invest in plant capacity that will become outdated in as little as 5-10 years. That is one example of where Federal support for deployment of new infrastructure is important. There is a need to ensure a ROI for these early technology plants; a need that could probably be met by something as benign as more aggressive depreciation schedules for investments in current technology plants.


"...all that aside, can wind and solar (market driven) produce sufficient energy to meet the needs of this nation?
Yes, many times over.

"Comparing nuclear to wind and solar- how much cost diffrential to build the needed nuke plant vs. the alternative sources?"
It is difficult to quantify exactly; mostly because the waste disposal costs and the costs of nuclear proliferation are not able to be adequately quantified. However, what we KNOW is that nuclear energy has a low return of energy for energy invested. To get 100 watts of energy out of a nuclear plant, I have to invest 20 watts. Wind on the other hand is known to be around 10X that and rising. Let me make that clear: nuclear is 5:1 and declining as the easy to mine uranium deposits are exhausted, while wind is about 50:1 and rising as new technologies and economy of scale are making their presence felt.

[NNadir]

32. There is a far less benign criticism of Lovins. He is a dangerous fossil fuels greenwasher.

He is PAID highly by dangerous fossil fuel companies, and that is no wonder.

This is not a subject of debate, since he brags about this subject on his website.

In general, I am of the opinion that all anti-nukes are dangerous fossil fuel apologists.

I have encountered hundreds of them, and every single one of them - 100% - spend half their time ignoring the vast tragedy of dangerous fossil fuels and the other half railing irrationally against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

In general the idea that solar energy will have a lower external cost than nuclear energy is very, very, very, very dubious.

The reason the external cost of solar energy is overlooked is that solar energy is a trivial form of energy. The profile of solar energy waste will look very much like the waste profile of electronic waste.

[Systematic Chaos]

21. Save your strength, Nnadir.

Apparently there are going to be five of these ridiculous clusterfuck threads before all is said and done.

:eyes:

[chknltl]

12. Well done again kristopher. Thank you.

bookmarked

[Nederland]

16. What about France?

I notice that all your information is based on US statistics. What about France? Their nuclear power infrastructure was state created by the state, not private corporations, and they seem to be doing rather well with it. They have a streamlined approval process, consistent designs that lower the costs of running and building plants--all the typical benefits of centrally created system. I suspect many over there are laughing pretty hard at us, given that we mocked them for years while now it looks like they made the right call.

[bluedawg12]

19. Nederland- a question.

Nederland- a question.

If France has 59 power plants, the US being larger- how many nuclear plants would the US need ideally?

How many do we have, do you know?

How long to build such a plant, currently- time wise?

Thanks-

BD12

...........
This is all pretty new to me--so here is some info on France in case anyone is in the same boat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Fusion_reactors

In France, as of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants.
Drawing such a large percentage of overall electrical production from nuclear power is unique to France. This reliance has resulted in certain necessary deviations from the standard design and function of other nuclear power programs. For instance, in order to meet changing demand throughout the day, some plants must work as load following plants, whereas most nuclear plants in the world operate as base load plants, and allow other fossil or hydro units to adjust to demand. Nuclear power in France has a total capacity factor of around 77%, which is considerably low due to load following, but availability is around 84%, indicating excellent overall performance of the plants.

The first 8 power reactors in the nation were gas cooled reactor types, whose development was pioneered by CEA, but, coinciding with a uranium enrichment program, EdF developed pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology which eventually became the dominating type. The gas-cooled reactors located at Brennilis, Bugey, Chinon, and Marcoule have all been shut down.

All operating plants today are PWRs with the exception of the Phénix, which was part of an initiative to develop sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor technology. The Superphénix was a larger, more ambitious version, but was shut down.

The PWR plants were all developed by Framatome (which is now Areva) from the initial Westinghouse design. All of the PWR plants are one of three variations on the design, which have output powers of 900 MWe, 1300 MWe, and 1450 MWe, giving France the largest degree of nuclear plant standardization in the world.

Historically, nuclear power was supported both by the Gaullists, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. A 2001 Ipsos poll found that 70% of the French population had a "good opinion" of nuclear energy in France and 63% want their country to remain a nuclear leader.<6> According to reporter Jon Palfreman, the construction of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was welcomed by the local community in 1997:

In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.<7>

A variety of reasons are cited for the popular support; a sense of national independence and reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gases, and a cultural interest in large technical projects (like the TGV and Concorde).<7><8>

At the time of the 1973 oil crisis, most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. France was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, but had few indigenous energy resources,<2> so the French government decided to invest heavily in nuclear power, and France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years.<7> President of Electricite de France Laurent Striker said, "France chose nuclear because we have no oil, gas or coal resources, and recent events have only reinforced the wisdom of our choice".<9>

Areva NC claims that, due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants.

[Nederland]

26. Response

The US currents has around 64 operating nuclear power plants. (I found conflicting numbers, some sources were as low as 61, high of 67. I believe the difference comes from the time of the study and anticpated decommissionings). As you say, France has 53 plants. Given that the population of the US is almost 5 times larger, producing a similar percentage of our power from nuclear would mean the construction of hundreds of nuclear plants. If we had started to undertake this back in the late 1970's when the French did, it would have been perfectly possible. Unfortunately the political environment in this country prevented that type of solution from being pursued. We pay the price for that error now.

[bananas]

27. France has 59 reactors, the U.S. has 104

Those numbers come straight from the IAEA: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html

[bluedawg12]

28. Accepting that the US has 104 nuke plants-how many would we need

to get away from coal?

Are there currently any power plants operating on something other than coal- on a large scale?

I guess, what I am asking, are there any plants operating on some form of fossil fuel like oil?

I am aware of hydroelectic plants, and of course some energy is currently being added from wind and solar.

But staying with nuclear power--how many are best guess estimates to meet all our needs , how much is the cost of building one plant and how long does it take to build a new one to go on-line and function?

Thank you.

[Nederland]

31. A few answers

First of all, the US does not have 104 nuclear plants, it has 104 nuclear reactors. Most plants have more than one reactor.

New nuclear plants can be built in 18 months, with the total order to completion time ranging from 42 to 60 months. The price to build a new plant ranges from 3000 per KW to 6000 per KW. Let's do a worst case analysis: convert the entire US grid to nuclear. In 2006, the US generated 4 million MWH of electricty. At 6k a KW, that's 24 trillion dollars. If you only want to replace the coal plants, cut that in half to 12 trillion dollars. For a sense of the scale, the GDP of the US in 2006 was 13 trillion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

On edit: These types of numbers are complicated and hard to determine accurately. For example, I just found this link on Westinhhouse's new reactor, the AP1000. It generates 1117 MWe, and China just contracted to have 4 of them built for 8 billion dollars. Now if you do that math with those numbers you end up with a cost of only 712 billion dollars to convert the US grid. No idea what the correct answer is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

[bluedawg12]

34. What ever the exact number it would be costly- so about funding

new nuclear plants ( just realized they are made up of reactors- thanks!)

How do proponents of nuclear energy envision funding such construction?

Private funding? A blend- government subsidy and private investors? Floating bonds- like muni type investments?

"New nuclear plants can be built in 18 months, with the total order to completion time ranging from 42 to 60 months - Nederland"

It seems like a very complicated issue for the average person to fully understand, very costly, but--at least the time to completion is a lot better (shorter) than I had imagined.

Public perception can be changed- that is a matter of information and education - both ways, pros and cons. Clearly from the comments here the issue has a strong emotional component--no need to go further, the issues are well known, safety, the word "nuclear" - but not insurmountable.

I think funding seems to be the biggest potential barrier. I posted something about that yesterday- where investment firms are expressing an apetite and up grading nuclear facility invetmentment as a favorable rating.

[Nederland]

39. Funding is the biggest hurdle

Privatization is what really killed nuclear--it simply can't compete on a level playing field, and the playing field isn't level. Coal and oil receive far more government susidies than nuclear. Sad really, considering that those are far worse for the environment.

[bananas]

43. Federal loan guarantees for 100% of debt with "well above 50 percent" risk of default

Loans where taxpayers are on the hook for 100% of the debt (80% of total cost).
The CBO says these loans have "well over 50 percent" risk of default.

But it’s far from clear that this new round of plants will ever be built. Even if all goes as proponents hope, the first plants won’t come online before 2014 and will cost an estimated $4 billion each. Before ground is broken for the first new plant, the power industry will have to convince state regulators and investors that the numbers add up. To do that, they face several important hurdles.

Most of these projects are expected to be financed by bonds. To help reassure investors that the bonds are a safe investment, Congress has provided loan guarantees for 80 percent of the financing for the first several projects to win NRC approval. But that critical guarantee has already hit a serious snag.

Typically, these projects would be financed with 80 percent debt and 20 percent cash or equity put up by the owner of the plant. But federal officials in charge of loan guarantees have interpreted the law to mean that those guarantees apply only to the debt portion of the financing package. Using that math, the loan guarantee — 80 percent of 80 percent — will only cover about two-thirds of the total cost. That could be more risk than Wall Street is ready to assume — especially for the projects that go first.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/

Since that article was written, the loan guarantees have been corrected so that it is 100% of debt, the first plants won't come online until 2016 or later, and the cost estimates are skyrocketing so fast it's hard to to keep track.

These loan guarantees would put taxpayers – rather than investors – on the hook to pay back the loans should any of the plants default. According to a May 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the risk of default on loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.”

“With those odds, U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars when the nuclear utilities default on their loans,” said Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “This outrageous demand from the already highly subsidized nuclear industry amounts to highway robbery of U.S. taxpayers.”

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2488

So expect more than half of the new plants to have a financial meltdown before they're even turned on.
With no accountability for the debt, and a high expectation of cost overruns and financial default, it's a moral hazard for contractors and engineers, a gravy train with no brakes and a drunken conductor.

[Nederland]

30. Correct

My number was the number of nuclear power plants. Most nuclear plants have more than one reactor.

[bananas]

29. The 1973 oil crisis is what killed nuclear power in the U.S.

Al Gore explained it when he appeared before Congress last year:
"after the OPEC oil crises of '73 and '79, the projection for electricity demand went from 7% annualized compounded, down to 1%"

They started cancelling reactors in 1974, immediately after the 1973 oil crisis.
Download NUREG-1350 and look at the dates in Appendix C, "Canceled U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors"
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/

Here's a chart of reactor orders - dropped like a rock right after the 1973 oil crisis:


Thanks to Pidgwidgeon for transcribing some of Al Gore's testimony:

(2:05:53) You mentioned nuclear -- uh, I'm sure that'll come up again, I'm not, I'm not an absolutist in being opposed to nuclear, I think it's likely to play some role, I don't think it's going to play a major role, uh, but I think it's going to play some additional role, and I think the reason it's going to be limited is mainly the cost. They're so expensive and they take so long to build, and at present, they only come in one size, extra large, and people don't want to make that kind of investment in an uncertain market for energy demand.

<snip>

(2:18:59) I'm not opposed to nuclear; I have deep questions about it, I'm concerned about it; I used to be enthusiastic about it.

Back when I represented Congressman Gordon's district, TVA had 21 nuclear power plants under construction; and then later I represented Oak Ridge where we're immune to the effects of nuclear radiation, you know (laughter) so I was very enthusiastic about it. But, but uh, 19 of those 21 plants were canceled, and I'm sure Bart (?) gets the same questions I used to get about whether those partly finished cooling towers might be used for a grain silo ... but people are upset, still, that they have had to pay for 'em and not be able to get electricity for 'em ...

And I think the stoppage of the nuclear industry was really less due to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and environmental concerns, and more due to the fact that after the OPEC oil crises of '73 and '79, the projection for electricity demand went from 7% annualized compounded, down to 1% and, and when energy prices are going up, the uncertainty over how much they can plan for also goes up.

Now electricity ought not follow the price of oil, but it does, because there's just enough, uh, fungibility between oil and coal on the margins that electricity chases oil. Now oil's back at $60 a barrel; where's it gonna be a year from now? We don't know, but the fact of the uncertainty is itself the reason why these utilities do not want to place all their chips in one large bet that doesn't mature for another fifteen years at a very expensive cost. The new generation, there may be smaller incremental power plants, standardized, safer, more reliable; perhaps we may get a solution to the long-term storage of waste issue -- I'm assuming we will; reactors are ... (chair interrupts at 2:20:52)

[bluedawg12]

35. That is counter intuitive- but interesting

"the stoppage of the nuclear industry was really ...due ... the fact that after the OPEC oil crises of '73 and '79, the projection for electricity demand went from 7% annualized compounded, down to 1% and, and when energy prices are going up, the uncertainty over how much they can plan for also goes up. Pres. Gore."

I wonder who, or whom, made that prediction back in '73 and '79?? When has energy demand ever gone down as a trend? not doubting Gore, just wondering which interest group pickled that data back when...? Coal?

..........
In case anyone else was wondering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.

Fungibility versus liquidity
Fungibility is different from liquidity. A good is liquid and tradable if it can be easily exchanged for money or another different good. A good is fungible if one unit of the good is substantially equivalent to another unit of the same good of the same quality at the same time and place.

Fungibility does not imply liquidity, and liquidity does not imply fungibility. Jewels can be bought and sold (the trade is liquid), but individual diamonds are not interchangeable (diamonds are not fungible). Zimbabwean dollar bank notes are interchangeable in London (they are fungible there), but they are not easily traded there (they are not liquid in London).


Fungibility in economics
Examples of highly fungible commodities are petroleum (gasoline), electricity, precious metals, and many currencies.

Fungibility has nothing to do with the ability to exchange one commodity for another. It has everything to do with exchanging one unit of a commodity with another unit of the same commodity.


Fungibility in international relations
In international relations, the term fungibility is usually applied to the power of states. International relations theorists who believe that power is fungible see different types of power as reinforcing each other. By way of analogy: with power as a fungible commodity, a state may translate its economic power into military power (e.g. buy some tanks, military aircraft, and armaments) and vice versa (sell some tanks and aircraft). A major debate in international relations is the degree of fungibility between hard power and soft power.


Fungibility in law
In legal disputes, when one party is compelled to remedy another party as the result of a ruling or adjudication, the appropriate legal remedy may depend on the fungibility of the underlying right, obligation or property interest that is intended to be restored.<1> Depending on whether the interests of the aggrieved party are fungible (a determination made by the trier of fact), the appropriate remedy may change. For example, a court may require specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract, instead of the more favored remedy of monetary damages.<2>

Fungibility in science
In Does God Play Dice? The New Mathematics of Chaos, the mathematician Ian Stewart argues that fungibility applies to science as well. The example he uses is that subatomic particle theory is fungible when studying molecules "provided it led to the same general feature of a replicable molecule."

Another example is the concept of mass, either gravitational or inertial mass. Mass is fungible in all observationally consistent theories of gravitation. All compositions of matter fall identically in vacuum, including binding energies.

Perhaps the ultimate example of fungibility in science is that of identical particles. In quantum mechanics, two elementary particles of identical mass, charge, and spin can be interchanged without any discernible effect. In fact, it is impossible to discern between the particles even in principle. This 'mandatory fungibility' leads to some surprising conclusions, such as the Pauli exclusion principle.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Is there is correlation between the love Russert threads and the love nuke posts

at DU these days? Just asking, since General Electric makes billions each year off nuclear reactors and it also employed Tim Russert and so if GE had moles posting on DU about how gosh darn GREEN nuclear power plants were they would also be posting about how much they miss Tim Russert.

There is a very good reason we have built no nukes in decades and I will say the forbidden word.

Chernobyl

And guess what the next plane load of terrorists is going to ram their jet powered fuel tanks into? One of our twenty or thirty new nuclear power plants that no one will want to have protected because it will cost money and scare people.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-09-04.asp

"But nuclear power plants in today's security environment should be regarded as strategic targets in the United States with the fullest protection the federal government can provide," Leventhal said. "They should be protected with ground to air missiles integrated into both the military and the Federal Aviation Administration systems with careful command and control systems. There may have to be permanent troops or special federal protection forces."

But Leventhal says the industry opposes the federal government stepping in because it might alarm the public into recognizing that nuclear power plants are vulnerable. "So you have nuclear power plants protected by rent-a-cops."

The retired military guys are all for nukes because they can get free federal money to build them thanks to Cheney's energy bill---and they can stop fighting wars for oil in the middle east too. But no country whose capitalists build things based upon the bottom line with no pride in their accomplishments only their profits and no care for worker safety and no effort to get the workers invested in the project and no sense of community should ever attempt to do what western Europe and Japan do--those places have businesses and workers that actually give a damn about the quality of their work and therefore they can be trusted to do nuclear energy right. Everything in the US is designed to fail the moment its warranty expires and any part that is not visible is put together with spit and any corners that can be cut will be cut and if it is cheaper to bribe the inspector than to do it right, the bribes will be paid. And we will all glow in the dark.

You won't have that kind of problem with wind, solar and geothermal, because they are not as dangerous in the hands of money grubbing American businessmen.

If the United States was a different kind of country or if nuclear plants were nationalized, maybe. Maybe if we go into a Second Great Depression, the feds can build some fusion plants as part of the new Works Project Administration. But we are talking the Ionization of America if we let GE and Exxelon have their way. And I am sure the Saudis will find a way to nose in, too. After all, it won't be their country that becomes radioactive.

[bluedawg12]

20. McCamy Taylor, can wind, solar and geothermal provide

enough energy for the US?

Are they, with our current technology simply a question of choosing the right one- but all provide equivlent capacity?

I don't have a handle on this- just trying to figure out- assume for a moment all other things are equal can they just be interchangable?

[Nihil]

22. Ignoring your flame-bait title and addressing some of your mistakes instead ...

> There is a very good reason we have built no nukes in decades
> and I will say the forbidden word.
>
> Chernobyl

I disagree. There is a very bad reason we have built no nukes in decades
and that is the stupidity that associated the word "Chernobyl" with
"Oh My God Nukes Are Killing Everyone".

If you want to see a really deadly word you should learn "Banqiao" ...
Far more people died - 26,000 people died from flooding and another
145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine.

Far more people were impacted (*) - about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed
and 11 million residents were affected.

(*) = by the event not the subsequent hysteria

This is the reason why nobody builds dams any more.
Oops ... my bad.

As for the "terrorist risk", consider that the bombing of dams has been
an element of war for ages yet, again, they are still built today and
have far less security in place (real or rent-a-cop) than any nuclear site.

> If the United States was a different kind of country or if nuclear
> plants were nationalized, maybe.

Now here I totally agree with you! The US is not as good a place to
build nuclear power stations as many other countries as it is largely
corrupt, run by oligarchies for profit & greed purposes and full of
ignorant people who believe everything they see on the idiot box.

This is *not* the ideal place to build & operate a *safe* nuclear power
station but the only (safer, non-polluting) alternative to this is to get
the American people to consume less power ... good luck with that!

[bluedawg12]

25. Nihil- your position is that the country is so corrupt and the polity

so uninformed that we can't take a chance on American businesses to build nuclear plants responsibly?

Others here, have alluded to this, and while I surmise from their comments that they would be in favor of nuke plants theoretically they allow that in places like France, it has worked because it was government run--while at the same time pointing out that our government does not have a good track record - again, due to corruption ( look at the KRB fiasco in Iwreck) so even if nukes made sense, not for this nation, it doesn't.

Is that correct?

[Nihil]

38. Not completely

> even if nukes made sense, not for this nation, it doesn't.

I think that nuclear power generation makes sense regardless of the country
involved BUT I am losing heart in trying to justify it to Americans.

> the country is so corrupt and the polity so uninformed that we can't
> take a chance on American businesses to build nuclear plants responsibly?

I can see why they are so scared (the combination of their media and their
history of corporatocracy over-ruling not just environmental issues but
also basic safety ones too) and I can even see why they are so defensive
(US-centric superiority is ingrained from birth so the "if we can't do it
properly, no-one can" meme tends to stick). I know that the people here
are not representative of the wider American public (else the world would
not be in quite such a state!) so please understand that I am not aiming
these comments at DU E/E readers (well, with maybe a few exceptions :P)
but there seems to be a MAJOR discontinuity with regards to the scale of
the problems of the coming 5-10 years.

The ideal alternative is to get the American people to consume less ...
but I would put that sadly low on my list of things that I expect to happen
in the next few years (even below "increased subsidies for solar & wind"
and much lower than "US/Israel attack on Iran", "major terrorist event in
mainland USA" and "thousands of homeless climate refugees starve").

:shrug:

[Livebyyourfoma]

45. Why are we always comparing Nuclear Power to Renewables?

Considering that OIL and FOSSIL FUELS comprise almost 80 percent of our current energy production, and two-thirds of our electricity production, why don't we spend more time comparing Nuclear to Fossil Fuels, and Wind to Fossil Fuels, so we can cut down on the 80 percent of our energy portfolio that we should be achieving differently, rather than focusing on the twenty-percent we have in nuclear.

By and large, the vast majority of people are being absurd by assuming that we can entirely invest entirely in renewables, minus nuclear, and somehow fix the problem. I understand your enthusiasm for wind, and would also understand similar enthusiasm in increased spending in geothermal, biomass, some biofuels, and even some tidal power.

But, why always bashing on nuclear... when it currently provides twenty percent of our electricity without having opened a SINGLE plant since 1996?! Get it? No plants since 1996, and STILL it is twenty percent of our electricity supply. Tremendously impressive, and while imperfect, especially compared to wind, it is still vastly superior to fossil fuels and a useful way to focus our attention away from those fossil fuels.

You said that:
"It explains why, each year for the last several years, Germany, Spain and India have each, alone, added more wind capacity than all countries in the world, taken together, have added in nuclear capacity."

While most countries haven't opened hardly any new plants and in the last several years and America made NONE. That's certainly an apples and oranges comparison.

You also said that:
"It also explains why small-scale sources of renewable energy, like wind and solar, received $56 billion in global private investments in 2006, while nuclear energy received nothing."

Why would people be privately investing into a plant that isn't going to be operational for ten or more years? Again, this is very much apples and oranges. You know there are external reasons which make the comparison meaningless, and yet you use it anyways. Pointless.

All in all, the majority of your arguments are comparing apples and oranges. Spend a few more minutes looking into the benefits of Nuclear V. Fossil Fuels and get America on the right track, with a diversified energy plan for the future, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and beat people over the head with shoddy numbers. You'll win over more hearts that way.