Citigroup reports on Nuclear Economics – the "corporate killer"

[bananas]

Citigroup reports on Nuclear Economics – the”corporate killer”



New Nuclear – the Economics Say No 14 November 09 Citgroup’s new report called ‘New Nuclear – The Economics Say No’ describes the financial risks of building new nuclear reactors as ‘Corporate Killers’. ‘
“…..
• We see very little prospect of construction costs falling and every likelihood of them rising further.
• We calculate that a new nuclear station will require €65/MWh (?8.5/MWh) in real terms year in year out to hit its breakeven hurdle rate.
• The returns for new nuclear development will need to be underpinned by the government and the risks shared with the taxpayer / consumer.
• Evidence to date suggests time delays in new nuclear construction can be significant.
• Construction delays and planning problems have led to a 77% increase in construction costs at the Olkiluoto site .
• In a purely merchant market (such as the UK) where wholesale power prices need to cover construction costs over the life of the project, there is no active way for a developer to recover cost overruns.
• Neither the UK nor the US have yet approved any designs and although it will be a lengthy process anyway, amendments and additional configurations for each country’s demands could be highly problematic………..

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nexus7]

2. Common knowledge: Nuclear power is dead

I'm surprised at the vehemence of your posting, when even a casual search will reveal many links showing nuclear power is way too expensive, to the point that wind and solar energy is cheaper (after counting cost of storage). See for example, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/#story_full_05963e67720d408c4997399b1f703baf.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nexus7]

6. Too bad reality is inconsistent with your position

The facts do not support your position. You can and have abuse as much as you like, reality does not change.

Kapish, a'hole?

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Ahh, I love irony.

I hope it was intentional.

[madokie]

8. Do you just stay drunk all the time?

or is it just a mental problem you have going on there big guy?

[HamdenRice]

9. Actually if "name removed" is who I think it is, he's confessed it was a mental problem

In his own words, self description:

For the months I've had this diary around - I originally constructed it to apologize to Meteor Blades and Adam Siegel not for my ideas, but for my tone - it has been called "The Nuclear Shill Apologizes."

Here is the problem with my tone: I am extremely arrogant, extremely conceited, dismissive, insulting, fierce and rude. Other than those small drawbacks, I think I'm a nice guy. I have, I think, a number of strengths, but modesty and grace aren't necessarily among them, even though by any independent standard, I'm no great shakes. I do not accumulate honors and awards; I am not famous; I am not rich; I am not more powerful than my ideas. I am the son of a laborer who did not finish the eighth grade, a man who needed to do some street fighting, and I have never completely escaped my roots.

...
In full exercise of my inflated ego, I say that the diaries I write are not fluff. Although almost all of my diaries are about nuclear energy, I claim that I also include subtexts about the entire range of human experience, including history, war, suffering, injustice, poverty, science, art, failure, triumph, deceit, honesty, philosophy, faith, cynicism, betrayal, loyalty, suspicion and trust. I write about love and death and language and about meaning. I do this when I write about nuclear energy because I say that the decisions we make about nuclear energy right now will define the fate of humanity itself and thus all human issues and traits.

The person who suggested that I was crazy - she knows she says that I am crazy because she has a "friend" who is a "clinical psychologist," she says, who read my comments - does not really write diaries about the most profound human struggles.

...

I had in preparation here a diary - not to be published ultimately - called "A Snarling Pack of Uneducated Malcontent Dogmatists Mocking A Disease" which was about schizophrenia, but could have been about the disease obesity, which is now an international epidemic.
...
While that web page is just me complaining about being extremely ugly - also a genetic condition...

[madokie]

10. So sad

:cry:

what a waste of a sharp mind

[kristopher]

3. Piss, whine, moan and gnash your little teeth all you want, the fact is

The fact is nuclear power isn't the future.

Our Choice A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis - Al Gore

“Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.” — M.I.T.

In the world’s debate over how to produce electricity without generating massive quantities of greenhouse gas pollution, there is a radioactive white elephant in the middle of the room: nuclear power. Nuclear power, once expected to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-cost electricity, has been an energy source in crisis for the last 30 years.

Two problems are primarily responsible for blocking the once hoped-for expansion of nuclear power.

First, the driving force that has converted once vibrant nuclear dreams into debilitating nightmares for electric utilities has been the grossly unacceptable economics of the present generation of reactors. Second is the deep concern about nuclear weapons proliferation.
http://ourchoicethebook.com/chapter8/

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[jpak]

4. How much does your molten salt breeder reactor cost?

:rofl: