Nuclear Reactors, Dams at Risk Due to Global Warming

[jpak]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-water-energy-climate-change-dams-nuclear/

As climate change throws Earth's water cycle off-kilter, the world's energy infrastructure may end up in hot water, experts say.

From hydropower installations in the Himalaya to nuclear power plants in Western Europe, energy resources are already being impacted by flooding, heat waves, drought, and more. (Explore an interactive map of global warming effects.)

Traditionally power plants and energy facilities have been built for the long haul—the circa-1936 Hoover Dam in Nevada is still a major hydroelectric generator.

But in a rapidly warming world, a site that looks ideal when it's built may be in a much different environment 50 years later. For instance, a facility built on permafrost in the Arctic may collapse due to the melting tundra. (See Arctic warming pictures.)

<more>

[timeforpeace]

1. Build reactors, lower carbon emissions, slow global warming which endangers reactors.

[kristopher]

2. Except that reactors cost far more and are far slower to build than wind or solar.

FINDINGS

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows:

• The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s.

• The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections.

• There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society.

• The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.

• Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.

• The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.



Whether the burden falls on ratepayers (in electricity bills) or taxpayers (in large subsidies), incurring excess costs of that magnitude would be a substantial burden on the national economy and add immensely to the cost of electricity and the cost of reducing carbon emissions.
-(page 5)
THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE?

MARK COOPER, SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
JUNE 2009

[timeforpeace]

3. But they provide all the power you need, all the time, like we have now. Snowmageddon would have

proven wind and solar useless with the weeks long overcast and no winds.

[kristopher]

4. That simply isn't true.

You have no analytic basis for that claim because close analysis shows it to be false. All power sources are intermittent and there is a well known strategy for integrating renewables to provide all the 24/7 power we need.

Perhaps you would like to delve more deeply into the topic.

[timeforpeace]

6. Not really. Just don't believe you.

[Tesha]

5. No wind? You must have lived through different storms than we just had.

Our on-going Nor'easter has produced winds of 91 MPH at
Portsmouth, NH.

Tesha

[timeforpeace]

7. No, the biggie a couple weeks ago, periods of low to no wind with overcast skies=no power generation

via solar/wind. Fact. You folks woulda been screwed, peoplesickles all over. Go Nuke.

[Tesha]

8. John Lennon would be so pleased with you! You must be proud!

You evidently haven't considered that renewable generation would be
hooked to a wide-area grid, just like the nukes you love so much.
It is a rather rare occurrence that *NO* area in the grid is able to
generate either sun, wind, hydro, tidal, OTEC, or biomass energy.

Oh, and did you see the story about pneumatic storage that Duke
Energy is experimenting with? That may be useful. Pumped storage
hydro, of course, already exists as a proven technology. Utility-scale
battery prototypes are operating, and even the possibility of hydrogen
conversion exist.

There's also this cool technology called gas turbines, used quite
commonly today for "peaking power" and, occasionally, baseload
power generation.

Nobody's going to freeze in the cold just because we don't build
your precious nukes.

Tesha

[timeforpeace]

9. Thank goodness President Obama is behind nuclear power plant construction so you don't freeze.

[Tesha]

10. You really don't have any facts, do you? Just "Rah, rah!"

Is your job dependent on nuclear power? Is that your motivation?

'Cause you sure seem to be lacking any technical reasons for holding
the position that you do.

Tesha

[kristopher]

14. Don't you love the way they run from one piece of bullshit to the next...

They play whack-a-mole better than climate deniers.

[Statistical]

13. It isn't that the grid will produce no power. That is an impossible red herring.

It is what happens when the grid produces LESS power.

You either need
a) to massively build out the grid so that when renwables are running at say 20% of peak that still produces 100% of demand. That is a massive amount of extra capacity that is wasted most of the time.

b) accept rolling blackouts

c) fire up some for of energy you can control (dispatchable) like fossil fuels

d) store enough energy to ride out the period when renewables generates less than demand.

Sure you can do it with 100% wind and solar but it is stupid to even try. The cost are so massive that nobody in any country is even considering that.

The reaility is everything has a place. A grid that is 30% nuclear, 50% renewables, 20% natural gas turbines and is large enough and robust enough to replaced 50%-70% of fossil fuel vehicles with EVs and hydrgogen* would actually be possible in the next 20 years.


* Sure hydrogen is expensive but you are never going to run passenger jets or semitrucks on batteries but you can run them on "liquid battery" = H2.

[kristopher]

15. You mean like the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF EXTRA CAPACITY WE NOW REQUIRE?

Our grid ALWAYS has massive "overbuilding of capacity, and you know it. We don't need ANY additional nuclear. The ONLY reason to have it at all is that it is already installed so, since it is producing low carbon emissions,it should be the last dirty technology to phase out.

There is zero justification for building more. Your scenario totally ignores the fact that the current grid uses the STORED energy of fossil fuels and the existing natural gas capacity will ensure the continued functioning of the grid and maximization of renewable capacity as we ramp it up. As the carbon costs steadily increases the costs of natural gas, the replacements (of which there are many) will find their way into the individual niches on an "as required" and "most suitable" basis.

Building additional nuclear will do nothing but slow that process do and saddle the country with a significantly higher price to gain absolutely nothing.

[Statistical]

18. Carbon costs absolutely nothing.

I could burn oil for fun if I wanted. Emitting a ton of carbon = $0.00.

All your "logic" and assumptions are based around this world where carbon will get very expensive. Guess what it isn't and I doubt Congress has the will to impose any substantial carbon tax on anything in any form in the next decade.

Get a $50 per ton tax on carbon (with no offsets, no free credits, no sliding scales) and we can revisit the issue.

Utilities are building a token amount of renewables. Nowhere enough to replace fossil fuels. Removing nuclear from the mix would simply result in the small amount of renewables that have been constructed being used to replaced lost generation from nuclear (like in Vermont).

As long as fossil fuels are cheaper than wind/solar they will make up the majority of generation. Nuclear at least comes close. If we didn't have nuclear for last 30 years we would have nearly double the number of fossil fuel plants today.

[kristopher]

23. Then nuclear is an even worse value.

The ONLY analysis that predict nuclear as a good value for energy tie it DIRECTLY to increased carbon costs - without exception.

There are NO independent analysis that conclude nuclear is economically viable EVEN WITH carbon taxes.

Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh. This high cost may destroy the very demand the plant was built to serve. High electric rates may seriously impact utility customers and make nuclear utilities’ service areas noncompetitive with other regions of the U.S. which are developing lower-cost electricity.

2009, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, Craig A. Severance,

Craig A. Severance CPA is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

[Statistical]

25. MEH wholesale power is auction based (part of deregulation)

If nuclear honestly can't produce power for less than 25 cents per watt it won't get bought. Other providers will issue lower bids and their bids will be selected and nuclear plants will be unprofitable.

Utilities are in the business of making $$$$$ and making as much of it as humanly possible. They see nuclear as a tool, not a religion. If nuclear doesn't perform they will stop buying them.

The fact that 28 reactors are under consideration would indicate 30 cents per kwh is pure fantasy.

[kristopher]

27. FALSE

Public risks, private profits...

If you bothered to read anything besides your own propaganda...

Utilities are concerned with being able to make a profit and as long as they can pass through the costs they don't give a fig about unless the regulators MAKE them care. Considering a large chuck of the costs are shifted to the public with things like government loans and the loan guarantees, then there are very real incurred costs that are not included in the utilities prices. Then you have the insurance we subsidize:

Taxpayer Subsidies for Nuclear Costs
Consider first the way that most nuclear-cost studies ignore taxpayer subsidies that cover many nuclear costs. The largest of the ignored subsidies is for nuclear insurance. The European Commission (consistent with the WNA and Cato-Institute figures) recently showed that, if commercial reactors had to purchase full-insurance liability coverage on the market, this would triple nuclear-generated-electricity prices (European Commission (EC) 2003; World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Heyes 2002). Yet a majority of the nuclear-cost studies exclude full-insurance costs, presumably because they are not market costs but mainly government/taxpayer subsidies. Without these subsidies (and liability protection), however, utilities agree they would never use risky atomic energy, e.g. (Scully Capital Services Inc. 2002; Heyes 2002; Spurgeon 2008; Slocum 2008; American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2005; Rothwell 2002; Energy Information Administration (EIA) 1999; Brownstein 1994).

Why not? Insurance rates reflect this high risk, given that the government-calculated, lifetime-core-melt probability for all US-commercial reactors is 1 in 5 (Makhijani 2007; Smith 2006; Shrader-Frechette 2007).

Reflecting various responses to this core-melt risk, commercial reactors fall into three camps regarding liability coverage. The vast majority of reactors are in the first camp (e.g., in China, India, Iran, Pakistan), where operator nuclear liability is 0. One-third of reactors (many in western Europe and the US) are in the second camp, where operator liability is minimal. US reactors have the highest (minimal) liability, $10.8 billion—roughly 1.5% of government-calculated, worst-case-accident damages of $660 billion (Smith 2006; Shrader-Frechette 2007). The third camp includes 13% of reactors (in Germany, Japan, Switzerland), all having government-guaranteed, unlimited liability (World Nuclear Association (WNA) 2008; Schwartz 2006). All countries thus reduce nuclear-industry risks/costs by transferring them to the people, either directly, to those who live nearby, or indirectly, through taxpayer/government subsidies (Energy Information Administration (EIA) 1999).

Because a majority of the 30 nuclear-cost studies (mentioned above) trim taxpayer- subsidized, nuclear-liability-insurance costs from their energy-cost calculations, they may encourage flawed economic signals, inefficient markets, questionable research ethics, and unequal treatment. It seems inconsistent and unethical for assessors to trim (and not disclose) full-nuclear-liability costs that increase taxpayer risks (Heyes 2002; UK Department of Trade and Industry (UK DTI) 2007), while because of the associated financial risks, the US Securities and Exchange Commission requires disclosing lack of nuclear-liability limits to investors (Brownstein 1994).

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Page 3

[Statistical]

30. That is a major reason why they like wind and solar right now.

On per energy unit basis the subsidies for wind and solar are 15x nuclear (and any other fuel source).

I will be all for dropping all subsidies on nuclear if we do the same thing for all forms of energy. That combined with carbon tax makes nuclear a clear leader in both price and reliability.

[kristopher]

33. At 30 cents a kwh nuclear cannot be sold.

With its risk profile it cannot get insurance.

With it's capital costs it cannot get built.

Wind, without subsidies, is already at parity with coal.

[Statistical]

36. Then there is no problem. First thing you have said that isn't propoganda.

At 30 cents per kWh energy can't be sold PERIOD. Doesn't matter how you made it.

It won't ever be sold so if the best nuclear can do is 30 cents per hour you go nothing to worry about. The first couple reactors going online will be economic failures, the rest of the 28 will be canceled and that will be all she wrote.

[kristopher]

37. More spin...

As I stated clearly all of that isn't in the wholesale price. If we get rid of all subsidies however, it WOULD be.

[Statistical]

39. Well the DOE says otherwise. I will trust the DOE before a study by an aniti-nukker.

Wow an anti-nukker reached the conclusion that nuclear is too expensive. STOP THE PRESSES that is utterly amazing.

Next you will be telling me a climate change denier release a study saying climate change isn't true, or the banking industry released a study saying that high bank fees are good for the economy.

[kristopher]

40. So you can't argue the specifics in the paper as untrue

And you have to resort to that reply?

You'd better put me back on ignore, you did better when you didn't try to respond.

[Statistical]

42. Wind is at parity with new coal but not old coal.

The bad news is coal is insanely cheap (since the true cost is not included).

At 35% thermal efficiency 1 ton of coal (Northern Appalachia) contains 200 kwh of energy.
13,000 BTU per pound * 2000 pounds / 3412 BTU per kwh * 0.35 = ~2700 kWh/ton

Current market prices put coal at $60 per ton.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html#spot

The low cost and high energy of coal is why it makes no economical sense to make plants more efficient. Natural gas is expensive (in terms of BTU per $$$) so there has been a lot of work at making nat gas plants more efficient.

$60/2700kwh = $0.02. So the fuel cost for coal power plant is about 2 pennies per kwh. Throw in another penny for transportation, maintenance, and labor and coal marginal cost is $0.03 to $0.04 per kwh.

Now this excludes the plant construction and interest cost but for EXISTING plants those are already sunk costs. The plant has either already been paid for or if case of existing loan shutting down the plant doesn't make loan go away.

Wind being cheaper than "new coal" is good thing likely means no (or few) new coal plants will ever be built in US however "old coal" (marginal ongoing cost) being cheaper than wind means that existing plants won't be shut down.

Of course carbon tax could change this as could legislation but I don't Congress will do either. It is an important milestone that wind is cheaper than "new coal". You are completely wrong about solar. It is substantially higher than cost of coal (even new coal plants).

[Statistical]

22. One other point. Fuel costs.

Our grid has overcapacity but most of that overcapacity is from power stations that have fuel costs.

They have low capital cost combined with higher marginal (per unit of power) costs.

This is why when supply exceeds demand it is fossil fuel plants not nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal that go offline.

Nuclear, wind, hydro, geo all have high capital cost and low marginal cost.

If these types of powers have to drop offline because you need to overbuild the grid then that massively increases the cost of power. See a solar plant or wind plants has no fuel cost so there is no cost savings when it goes offline it simply generates no revenue to meet interest costs on the capital costs.

[kristopher]

26. ROFLMAO

Sure they do... That is really an explanation as to why we need more nuclear power to deliver electricity at 30 cents a kilowatt hour.



:rofl:

[Statistical]

28. 30 cents is utterly ridiculous .

I get my power mostly from Surry nuclear power plant (plus some coal). My bill from dominion works out to about $0.10 per kwh. Still the $0.10 includes taxes, transmission, and generation. The generation portion is 3.6 cents per kwh. They have a fuel surcharge right now of another 2.8 cents per kwh.

So how come I am not paying this magic 30 cents per kwh?

Please don't say subsidies. Subsidies for nuclear un about $1.80 per MWh. That's $0.0018 per kWh. So 3.6 cents + 0.18 cents = 3.78 cents per kWh.

Real world 3.78 cents (WITH SUBSIDIES) vs 30 cents magical nobody on the planet has every paid that much scare mongering nonsense.

[kristopher]

32. The total costs of nuclear are not on your bill...

They are spread out in a dozen different ways. The study documents the TOTAL costs so let's see you prove it wrong.

[Tesha]

16. Funny -- The Europeans are taking alternative A); It's a shame we're no longer capable of...

such projects, ehh?

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/transmission/cnn/europes-green-energy-supergrid/index.shtml

Getting connected: Europe's green energy 'supergrid'

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/plans-for-a-super-grid-across.html

Green 'super-grid' could let Europe harness African Sun

> Sure you can do it with 100% wind and solar but it is stupid to even try. The cost
> are so massive that nobody in any country is even considering that.

Would you care to restate this point now?

Tesha

[Statistical]

20. Europes supergrid will contain FOSSIL FUELS and NUCLEAR.

Because it is utterly stupid to try to build a grid large enough and with so much overcapacity so that demand can always be met by energy sources that are variable and can't be controlled.

[Tesha]

21. Did you even read the referenced articles?

> The super-grid would connect the big European nationals like Germany,
> France and the UK with big sources of green energy, like Iceland with its
> geothermal and hydroelectric power and the countries of North Africa
> with their vast solar energy resources. The grid could potentially link
> Minsk with Madrid, Casablanca with Stockholm, and Cairo with Reykjavik.

[Statistical]

24. That is telling the truth but not the whole truth.

There are no plans for Europe to stop generating power by fossil fuels and nuclear. So while the super grid will carry electricity from wind, solar, geo, hydro it will also carry fuel from coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear.

[kristopher]

29. "There are no plans for"

You have GOT to be kidding me. THAT is your response? To deny that the goal of all the climate change policy is NOT to eliminate fossil fuels?

You are SERIOUSLY asserting that without SPECIFIC plans to shut down SPECIFIC plants then no such plans exist?

Riiiiiight...

[Statistical]

31. CO2 emissions in Europe have risen every single year for last 3 decades except...

in 2008/2009 due to the recession.

I will believe it when I see it. Even the massive buildouts in Spain & Germany are only enough to keep up with rising energy demand. Solar/wind are preventing MORE fossil fuels from being burnt but not shutting them down.

[kristopher]

35. As the industry ramps up it will start shutting them down.

The EU has only been on this path 10 years and the price reductions they've achieve are nothing short of remarkable.

In the same time period the costs of nuclear have escalated what, 500-600%?

[Tesha]

34. But the point is that they are making a firm commitment to massive generation using renewables.

The very thing you and others are arguing can't be done. And the
thing that you claimed no nation was doing.

Renewables are the future, at least until fusion power becomes
practical. Fission is a technology that has passed its "sell by" date.

Tesha

[Statistical]

38. They are not considering a grid that runs ONLY on renewables.

Never said it can't be done just that it would be stupid as there are better ways to resolve the problem.

Overbuilding renewables reduces the amount of power each plant is paid for and reduces capacity factor (which is already low for renewables except geo and hydro). This creates an economic disincentive to build more renewable.

Nobody anywhere is seriously considering renewables making up more than 30%-40% of electrical energy usage in our lifetime. Nobody except academic types who think pie in the sky and want to shut down all nuclear and build trillions of dollars worth of renewables.

Europes stance should be aplauded and we should follow their lead. I am all for MASSIVELY increasing installed capacity of wind and solar. I think we can get to 20%-30% in next two decades (compared to 3% now). Still that doesn't change the fact that 20-30 years from now the majority (as in at least 50%+) of electrical power will be non-renewables.

Zealots want to pretend it isn't true but it is. The amount of energy we use is staggering and it took us a century to build that much capacity. So I am just a realist. I see nuclear as the best choice given the real world we live in.

[kristopher]

41. An attack against academics ala the Limpballs school of persuasion?

Renewables can work and it isn't just "academic types" that know so.

Back up your statements with some analyses that support those very absurd assertions. You KEEP insisting renewables CAN'T do it, so let's see you PROVE IT.

[malakai2]

11. You know of some turbines that produce at 91 mph?

.

[Tesha]

17. That wasn't my point and I'm sure you know that.

My response was to the post stating that the recent storms
seemed to bring an inability to generate wind-power. I was
making the point that it hasn't been calm during this most-
recent storm, but that 91 MPH gust was, well, a gust.

Here in New England, we have off-shore conditions that are
very favorable for wind-farm development, even if a few
rich people on the Nantucket Sound seem to disagree.

Tesha

[Statistical]

12. Well 91 MPH will not generate any power either. Turbines have max speed rating

When wind gusts (doesn't even need to be sustained winds) exceed that the turbine disconnects from the blades to prevent damage.

[Tesha]

19. See my reply immediately above. (NT)

[NNadir]

43. Yeah. National Geographic also told us that Amory Lovins would have hydrogen HYPErcars

in showrooms by 2005.

Um, where are they?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

I note, with due amusement, that the solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels industry combined - which actually consume more energy advertising themselves than they produce - have never produced as much energy as the hydroelectric industry, although I would agree that the hydroelectric industry is not sustainable.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Thus it is obvious that without hydroelectricity, the renewable industry would be even more insignificant than it is today, and it is insignificant.

In fact, the anti-nuke industry's pals in the gas, coal and oil industry routinely ignore the fact that their pet industries also obey the second law of thermodynamics.

This is because the anti-nuke industry - which is anti-science and rather like creationism - consists entirely of people who don't know the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't actually approve of desalination technology, but it must be said that for many years the world's largest desalination plant was the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which to this day produces more energy than all of the solar facilities in the state of California combined, on a few acres of land, with almost no destruction - from a land use perspective or any perspective - to the environment.

[kristopher]

44. ROFLMAO

Poor little feller just ain't got a clue...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=233339&mesg_id=233485