California Energy Commission shows new nuke electric $0.17-0.34kwh + up to $3.40kwh for insurance

[kristopher]

...The detailed study considered three forms of ownership: merchant plant, investor-owned utility, and publicly owned utility. Merchant plants are built to serve deregulated markets and assume a high degree of market risk. They may not be able to sell all their electricity at any one time if their price is too high. Investor-owned utilities are the traditional private companies serving a regulated market. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison are investor-owned. Publicly owned utilities are municipal utilities, like SMUD. Publicly owned utilities pay fewer taxes and have access to lower cost financing than either investor-owned utilities or merchant plants.

The CEC's 186-page report, "Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation" , found that a 1,000-megawatt pressurized water reactor would generate electricity in 2018 from as little as $0.17 per kilowatt-hour to as much as $0.34 per kilowatt-hour. These results are startling: Most renewable technologies today, even solar photovoltaics (PV), generate electricity for less than that. Only a municipal utility could generate nuclear electricity for less than the cost of solar PV.

Currently, Germany pays between $0.31 and $0.41 per kilowatt-hour for electricity from solar PV, which means that the cost of solar-generated electricity today is equivalent to the cost estimated by the CEC for a nuclear plant beginning operation in 2018. And all observers, even critics, expect the cost of solar PV to continue declining during the next decade.

And what about insurance?

In an unrelated study for the German Renewable Energy Association, consultants found that nuclear reactors are effectively uninsurable. The 157-page report by Versicherungsforen Leipzig estimated that the premium necessary to insure a nuclear reactor from accident would cost from $0.20 per kilowatt-hour to a staggering $3.40 per kilowatt-hour...

http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-04-nuclear-power-i...

[bananas]

1. No surprise it's already been unrecced.

They are fast!

[Gregorian]

2. Good find.

Insurance is expensive for a reason. What a joke. Engineers are enamored with nuclear because in theory it is truly elegant. In practice it's Godzilla.

[kristopher]

3. It reenforces another study that has been neglected as an outlier...

This is Joe Romm's introduction to the 2009 study by Craig Severance, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power.

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today — and ten times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?“).

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance 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.

This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power — transparency. Severance explains:

All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.

As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not ...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/01/05/202859/study-c... /

You can download the study directly with this link:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/n...

There is a follow-up article from Severance brought about by a debate between the Nuclear Energy Institute (which is a lobbying agency) and Severance. It includes a working link to the NEI discussion.
http://energyeconomyonline.com/NEI_Debate_Continues_.ht...

[Gregorian]

4. We learned to take the whole picture into consideration in college.

I remember lectures where we discussed the efficiency of petroleum from the wellhead to the wheel. And it always seems to be the case that when someone is trying to pull of a project that isn't as feasible as it should be to only show part of the picture.

That link to climateprogress doesn't work.

We're at a point in time when I believe it's far easier to put down a gigawatt of photovoltaics than the equivalent nuclear facility. Sure there are major differences between the two, but not ones that can't be overcome. We're close to a number of means of dealing with the weaknesses of solar. The one thing I picked up on in the article is the time frame of a nuclear facility. Let's say it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant. Think of how many gigawatts of solar and wind we could have in that same period of time. I think this is a significant fact.

The sad part is that it took the threat of planet ruination in order to even seriously entertain other means of generation.



edit- It's amazing that this thread has been unrecc'd to zero.

[SpoonFed]

5. It's not really that surprising...

that this is unrec'ed, I mean, what else do the pro-nukes have to do all day, they can't very well stick their heads out in the recent 4Sv/h or 720PBq water threads, now can they?

[bananas]

7. They merged climateprogress.com into thinkprogress.com last weekend

and naturally some of the links don't work right.
Also apparently the comments for the old posts weren't carried across.
They're trying to fix it.
Joe Romm describes some of the new website problems here: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/04/236575/new-fea... /
and here: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/31/231233/comment... /

[bananas]

8. archive.org has a copy of the pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20090124104234/http://climat...

I hate it when they "upgrade" something and it doesn't work anymore.

[Gregorian]

9. They confirm what I was saying about short lead time construction of solar/wind

They aren't subject to the escalating costs of longer term projects like nuclear. And that is really going to be the case now that we're just beginning our inflationary period.

I don't understand the appendices though. The cumulative cost tables make no sense to me. It's just my lack of understanding them.

Thanks for posting that. I just wish I knew where to invest my money. That is when I have money. Someone is going to get very wealthy off solar investing.

[kristopher]

10. That is a year by year total of interest costs.

They aren't producing income but they are borrowing money, so the interest accrues as a part of the debt structure. It is similar to the interest that accrues on an unsubsidized federal student loan, if that helps.

The solution they propose is to start charging ratepayers for the projects from the beginning. That is called a Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) charge. It is also known as "corporate welfare" in some circles.

[Gregorian]

11. Thanks.

No wonder the numbers were crazy. Einstein was right about loans.

I can see that with photovoltaic facilities property taxes would be somewhere around double that of nuclear. But then wind facilities would be next to nothing, considering their footprint.

It's a really interesting time. I only wish I were settled enough to be a part of it, and to start my own private facility. I've been buying and selling ranches not as a means of making money, but as a way of finding a place to call home. I'm pretty hopeless right now. Stuck on a ranch with no one buying. But my dream is only a few miles away. A beautiful piece of land with level areas. No power even possible. I'm dying to start my own little generation plant. I'm running out of time. I'm 55. And feeling it. But I digress.

[kristopher]

17. That's a good point about solar's property taxes.

When considering the total long term impact of taxes, it is probably helpful to remember that there are currently 3 or 4 different venues for solar projects - each with its own tax implications.

large integrated projects with no specific user attached -this could be in either rural areas or unused industrial areas
commercial users
industrial users
residential rooftop


Also just FYI:
"Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities."

From "Myths about Solar Power"
Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

[txlibdem]

14. CWIP would take away the incentive for whackos to file frivolous lawsuits that slow construction

It should come as no surprise to you that I am a proponent of CWIP charges.

Citing "corporate welfare" as evil when it benefits nuclear but vital to our nation when it benefits natural gas, coal or oil is pure sophistry.

[kristopher]

18. It has nothing to do with lawsuits.

The Bush Administration eliminated your right to challenge nuclear projects in court with the 2005 Energy Act.

CWIP isn't a factor for petroleum or natural gas, but it might conceivably benefit coal plants or transmission projects. Coal plants are not being built in the US, however, so that is unlikely. The difference in transmission and nuclear is that with nuclear there is a well established history of ECONOMIC failures that have ended up saddling rate payers with billions in charges for absolutely nothing.

[bananas]

37. The bans on CWIP were a result of nuclear boondoggles

People realized that if a project was economically viable, it should be able to attract private financing, and CWIP would be unnecessary.
Now the nuclear industry says they can't build without CWIP - that is a clear sign these projects are not economically viable and will become boondoggles.
Nuclear lobbyists are buying politicians to overturn the CWIP bans.
Ratepayers will now be on the hook for the inevitable cost overuns.
CWIP also makes the cost overruns more likely because it removes accountability - ratepayers have little oversight of the project - it's a moral hazard:

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

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

Economists explain moral hazard as a special case of information asymmetry, a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. In particular, moral hazard may occur if a party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

[kristopher]

40. txlibdem has abandoned the principle of reality based argumentation...

...and decided to just make it up as he goes along.

[txlibdem]

49. CWIP discourages cost overruns and encourages renewable energy production

http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/constructi...

construction work in progress (CWIP)

Term used to refer to a fixed facility used for generation, transmission or distribution services which is under construction or not yet in service. This special classification has traditionally been used in energy industry accounting to classify costs associated with CWIPs. Under most conditions, these costs cannot be factored into customer rates until the project is complete or in service.

CWIP rate exemptions are likely to become less common in the future as the nature of the energy industry changes. The enormous cost of plant construction and re-engineering of transmission corridors is likely to force regulators to rethink this policy and allow at least some construction costs to be passed on to consumers prior to completion. The energy industry may, in turn, be required to produce more renewable or pollution-free energy to qualify for the right to charge customers for costs incurred prior to completion of their projects.

So you anti-nukers are fighting against something that will increase renewable energy production. What???

[kristopher]

54. No, it doesn't.

Your post 16 this thread (just below) says:
"txlibdem 16. The nice thing about solar farms and wind farms: they can start producing before they're 100% finished.
One downside of a nuclear power plant is that it won't generate a single electron until construction is finished, then it's fueled and passed by inspectors, then there is a shakedown period of several months, etc.
Wind farms can feasibly begin selling power after the first wind turbine has been constructed, solar plants also, though to a lesser extent."

CWIP saddled millions of people with billions of dollars in stranded costs for nuclear plants that were never completed or that went bankrupt. The present economic climate guarantees that this is exactly the same thing that will happen if we proceed with the current proposals that have been floated. The Congressional Budget Office forecast a greater than 50% probability of bankruptcy for new nuclear plants when their price was projected to be $2000/kwh. Since then the price has surged to around $8000/kwh; meaning of course, the probability of backruptcy has also escalated well beyond 50%.

Renewable projects do not need CWIP. It was designed specifically for large facilities like nuclear and coal.

[txlibdem]

16. The nice thing about solar farms and wind farms: they can start producing before they're 100% finish

...finished.

One downside of a nuclear power plant is that it won't generate a single electron until construction is finished, then it's fueled and passed by inspectors, then there is a shakedown period of several months, etc.

Wind farms can feasibly begin selling power after the first wind turbine has been constructed, solar plants also, though to a lesser extent.

[txlibdem]

6. Insurability? I'm not insurable, same as tens of millions of Americans

Insurance is a scam, nothing else to call it. Insurance companies only want to insure the things that will never cause them to have to pay out.

Since you anti-nuker crowd types make it almost impossible to actually build a nuclear power plant it's no wonder insurance companies are hesitant to underwrite those policies. When the rules can change on a daily basis, even after construction has started; the rules can even change after construction has finished but the final sign-off hasn't yet been received. That's no way to build widgets, cars, TVs or anything else. And it's especially no way to end our dependence on fossil fuels. The rules should be set before construction begins and lawsuits should be allowed only prior to the start of construction.

[diane in sf]

12. Oh please, what bs. You want to pay out on the Fukishima or Chernobyl diasters?

[txlibdem]

13. My point is that insurance companies are out to make profits - not to pay claims

So the observation that insurance companies don't want to insure anything anymore means nothing. They don't want to insure your health, they don't want to insure *anything* that has even a tiny chance of ever requiring them to pay off a claim.

Have you ever tried to get a private insurance company to give you a flood insurance policy? Guess what. None of them will. Flood insurance is a government program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_insurance#In_the_Uni...
"Insurers in the US do not provide flood insurance coverage due to the hazard of flood typically being confined to a few areas. As a result, it is an unacceptable risk due to the inability to spread the risk on a wide enough population to absorb the potential catastrophic nature of the hazard. In response to this, the federal government created the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968.<3>"

[kristopher]

31. You don't have a point that applies to the OP.

The risk is real, and insurance companies charge based on potential gains/losses across an entire industry. The fact that insurance would be up to $3.40 per kilowatthour of electricity generated is a direct measure of the relative risks of using nuclear technology to generate electricity.

[txlibdem]

32. You do not know how the insurance industry works - Just try to get a private FLOOD ins. policy

Guess what? You can't because the insurance companies will never insure your home for flood damage. You have to go to a "GubMint" supported flood insurance program.

Until Pres. Obama and the congressional Dems forced the health insurance companies, your newborn child could have been uninsurable (now illegal), you could be denied private health insurance based on your health history (will be illegal soon).

Your lack of knowledge about the disgusting antics of the insurance industry does not score you any anti-nuker points.

And, just in case you missed it earlier:

Climate change no-go areas

Parts of the world could become uninsurable if climate change was not checked, the head of the insurance industry’s international ClimateWise initiative said on Friday. Andrew Torrance, the chief executive of Allianz Insurance told a UN Environmental Programme conference that climate modelling clearly predicted that global warming would increase the frequency and severity of weather catastrophes. Insurers were taking an active and public role in climate change talks, he said. – SAPA.

http://www.fossilfuel.co.za/News-Flash-2-November.aspx

Nuclear power is not causing global climate change and the huge losses that will result -- YOUR fossil fuels are.

[kristopher]

33. You think nuclear power is like a natural disaster?

A solar plant poses no risk that the public needs to underwrite.
Wind farms pose no risk that the public needs to underwrite.
None of the renewable technologies pose a risk that the public must accept liability for.

Coal emissions, fracking for natural gas, and petroleum spills however, are examples of where the fossil fuel industry is really keen on shifting the risks they pose onto the public's shoulders.

The approach you endorse for nuclear is like the fossil fuel approach but that isn't surprising.

Your facade of concern about anything other than the welfare of the nuclear industry is slipping.

[txlibdem]

34. Hey! You read 1/3rd of my post. That's an improvement. But please do better next time

I've never posted against giant solar power plants in the desert southwest.
I've never posted against wind farms along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts as well as an area that stretches from West Texas to Canada.
I've never posted against geothermal power plants.
I've never attempted to spread FUD on the topic of energy storage for renewables.

Whose facade is slipping?

[kristopher]

41. I did just fine that time.

Your facade is slipping.

[txlibdem]

43. I'm sorry, Sir, I am unable to change your grade. It has already been recorded: 1 out of 3

My post discussed
1. Flood insurance
2. Health insurance
3. The ability to get insurance at all for those parts of the world hard hit by global climate change

I gave you credit for 1 out of 3. You won't find a better deal out there.


PS, I repeat:
Nuclear power is not causing global climate change and the huge losses that will result -- YOUR fossil fuels are.

[kristopher]

44. California Energy Commission shows new nuke electric $0.17-0.34kwh + up to $3.40kwh for insurance

"The CEC's 186-page report, "Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation" , found that a 1,000-megawatt pressurized water reactor would generate electricity in 2018 from as little as $0.17 per kilowatt-hour to as much as $0.34 per kilowatt-hour. These results are startling: Most renewable technologies today, even solar photovoltaics (PV), generate electricity for less than that. Only a municipal utility could generate nuclear electricity for less than the cost of solar PV.

Currently, Germany pays between $0.31 and $0.41 per kilowatt-hour for electricity from solar PV, which means that the cost of solar-generated electricity today is equivalent to the cost estimated by the CEC for a nuclear plant beginning operation in 2018. And all observers, even critics, expect the cost of solar PV to continue declining during the next decade.

And what about insurance?

In an unrelated study for the German Renewable Energy Association, consultants found that nuclear reactors are effectively uninsurable. The 157-page report by Versicherungsforen Leipzig estimated that the premium necessary to insure a nuclear reactor from accident would cost from $0.20 per kilowatt-hour to a staggering $3.40 per kilowatt-hour..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[txlibdem]

45. Duplicating your previous post does not make it accurate - and I oppose boiling water reactors

Check my previous posts (I know it's not necessary as I also know that you know very well my opposition to the Gen III and Gen II and Gen I reactors. Fukushima had Gen II reactors -- built in 1971 and 1974, designed in the 1960s. Yet your anti-nuker thralls and clones cannot stop posting about the Fukushima disaster as if that is an indictment against new nuclear power plants.

As to the insurance issue, please read my previous posts on this topic:
1. You cannot get a private flood insurance policy. Period. They will not do it. You have to go to the government backed insurance program.
2. Before HCR became law: your newborn child could be uninsurable from birth, you could be denied private health insurance if you were ill.
3. Continued use of fossil fuels will make vast areas of the world 100% UNINSURABLE.

Your post is nothing but a red herring.

Please become a thinking human being. We need smart people like you fighting FOR a solution, not fighting for the status quo. Stop flinging your poo at nuclear power --which DOES NOT cause global climate change-- and stop supporting fossil fuels which are the sole cause of anthropomorphic global climate change.

[kristopher]

Taken as a whole your posts are "peculiar" to say the least.

[kristopher]

46. Taken as a whole your posts are "peculiar" to say the least.

[txlibdem]

51. It's called "humor" -- I'm sure you have a dictionary available to you somewhere

[txlibdem]

15. Time magazine: no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget

Is that the fault of the technology? Or is that the fault of ignorance on the part of local utility officials for signing a contract that allowed delays in construction to translate into higher pay for the construction company? Or is it the fault of the construction company - who has every incentive to cause delays or make mistakes that need to be torn apart and done again? Or is it the fault of anti-nuker zealots whose prime focus is to make it as difficult as possible (or to make it impossible) for any nuclear power plant to actually get finished and then come online?

There is enough blame to go around but I believe the nuclear construction industry bears the brunt of the blame. This is why I am a proponent of mass produced reactors such as MSRs, LFTRs, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, Traveling Wave Reactors and other designs that are small enough to be built in factories, under 100% quality control and supervision of every worker's productivity.

I want the ripoff construction companies to go out of business due to fact that it is their greed that has damaged the nuclear power industry equally as much as the anti-nukers have.

[SpoonFed]

19. you're treading water really hard

to keep your believe alive about nuke power.
too bad there is so much inconvenient bits of reality that show that nuke power
is a massive scam and that better, cheaper alternatives exist.

a) gov subsidies
b) effectively no insurance
c) deadly forever pollution

[kristopher]

20. It is because nuclear power is dangerous.

It is priced out of the market by the attempt to make it safe.

It typifies the worst judgment that unfettered capitalism is responsible for.

[txlibdem]

22. "To make it safe" accounts for only a small percentage of Nuclear plant cost increases

"Regulatory ratcheting" is the nuclear apologist term you're looking for, by the way.

Here's an article by a nuclear construction industry apologist that attempts to deflect the blame for the massive, huge cost increases away from themselves by indicting regulatory ratcheting, inflation, increased materials costs, increased labor costs, interest on loans, Michael Dukakis, and delays in the approval process for the incredible jump in nuclear power plant construction costs. But when you read the entire article, it doesn't add up. The only thing not considered is greed on the part of the nuclear construction companies. Only the final example shows a company not being greedy at all, every other example is outrageous, obvious greed on the part of the construction companies. (bold added for emphasis).

Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier. Inflation, of course, has played a role, but the consumer price index increased only by a factor of 2.2 between 1973 and 1983, and by just 18% from 1983 to 1988. What caused the remaining large increase? Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency, sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents. The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s.

For example, Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW — a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period. Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years.

Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the second of its two Limerick plants, completed in 1988, cost $2.9 billion — 7.6 times as much. A long list of such price escalations could be quoted, and there are no exceptions.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
... Only one company -Philadelphia Electric Company- kept construction costs pretty much in line with the external cost drivers (well done PEC!!!!).
... read the entire article at the link, see if you can add up 10x to 30x the price. You win a cookie if you can...

[kristopher]

25. Those are second order effects of the danger inherent to the technology.

In other words, industry excuses for lowball estimates used to lock in projects that experienced (predictable) skyrocketing costs related to safety requirements after a huge commitment of public funds made walking away impossible. They tried it again beginning in 2002 but they are not succeeding with the hype nearly as well this time; too many people are still paying for the past go-round.

...From the first fixed price turnkey reactors in the 1960s to the May 2009 cost projection of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the claim that nuclear power is or could be cost competitive with alternative technologies for generating electricity has been based on hope and hype. In the 1960s and 1970s, the hope and hype analyses prepared by reactor vendors and parroted by government officials helped to create what came to be known as the “great bandwagon market.” In about a decade utilities ordered over 200 nuclear reactors of increasing size.

Unfortunately, reality did not deliver on the hope and the hype. Half of the reactors ordered in the 1960s and 1970s were cancelled, with abandoned costs in the tens of billions of dollars. Those reactors that were completed suffered dramatic cost overruns (see Figure ES-1). On average, the final cohort of great bandwagon market reactors cost seven times as much as the cost projection for the first reactor of the great bandwagon market. The great bandwagon market ended in fierce debates in the press and regulatory proceedings throughout the 1980s and 1990s over how such a huge mistake could have been made and who should pay for it.

In an eerie parallel to the great bandwagon market, a series of startlingly low-cost estimates prepared between 2001 and 2004 by vendors and academics and supported by government officials helped to create what has come to be known as the “nuclear renaissance.” However, reflecting the poor track record of the nuclear industry in the U.S., the debate over the economics of the nuclear renaissance is being carried out before substantial sums of money are spent. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, when the utility industry, reactor vendors and government officials monopolized the preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent energy analysts have come forward with much higher estimates of the cost of nuclear reactors.

...Even though the early estimates have been subsequently revised upward in the past year and utilities offered some estimates in regulatory proceedings that were twice as high as the initial projections, these estimates remain well below the projections from Wall Street and independent analysts. Moreover, in an ominous repeat of history, utilities are insisting on cost-plus treatment of their reactor projects and have steadfastly refused to shoulder the responsibility for cost overruns.

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economi...



See also:
"Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest," Science and Engineering Ethics, 17:75-107.
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-chang...



If nuclear plants didn't have such tremendous potential consequences attached to failures they would, indeed, be inexpensive to build and operate. But you can't spin those consequences away or blame their existence on irrational fear - they are real and they are what drive the design, construction, operation, decommissioning and regulatory processes.

[txlibdem]

27. Why bother responding when you obviously didn't read the link

What's the point in even wasting your time typing?

The article I linked to shows unequivocally that "making it safe" added comparatively very little to the massive increase in nuclear power plant construction costs. Even just looking at the bolded portions of my quote will lead you to the conclusion that the rise in costs was more a function of corporate greed than anything else.

It is the nuclear construction industry that will pay the ultimate cost for their greed -- and deservedly so.

[Nihil]

35. That's stretching a point ...

> What's the point in even wasting your time typing?

... to call ^V ^V ^V <click> typing ...

[Kolesar]

36. I am really happy that "anti nuker zealots" delayed construction of Perry Nuker plant

...While they forced First Energy to install safer control systems.

[bananas]

38. If you're concerned about greedy construction companies, you should be against CWIP

CWIP removes accountability and creates an incentive for delays and overruns - you should do some reading on the history of CWIP and why it was banned in so many places.

It's like giving a stack of blank checks to the construction company - if there are overruns, they just write a bigger check for themselves from your bank account; if there are delays, they just write more checks every year; if the project ends, they are out of work and have to look for another job. CWIP creates an incentive for overruns and delays.

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

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

Economists explain moral hazard as a special case of information asymmetry, a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. In particular, moral hazard may occur if a party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

[txlibdem]

47. CWIP puts the monetary burden where it should be - onto the anti-nukers trying to slow down or stop

CWIP puts the monetary burden where it should be - onto the anti-nukers trying to slow down or stop nuclear plant construction -- for the sole purpose of raising the costs. I don't blame you for hating it. It will alienate the citizens from the anti-nuker zealots attempting to cost them money.

CWIP takes away one of your talking points. Or at least puts the truth out there as to exactly who is attempting to raise families' electric rates. I can't wait for the blog posts: "anti-nuker zealots just added $20 to your monthly electric bill --do you like their actions?"

[kristopher]

21. "consultants found that nuclear reactors are effectively uninsurable"

I'd like to get a copy of that report in English.

[txlibdem]

23. Is Climate Change a Catastrophic Downside Risk?

From the article: The Catastrophic Downside Risk of Nuclear, Oil, and Coal
Posted April 20, 2011 by Chris de Morsella

I would make the argument that the downside risk of climate change should also be included in this category. The continued burning of carbon based fossil fuels has the potential to drive a process of rapid climate change that will have global impact and will cause unspeakable disruption to ecosystems and human settlements. It is a risk that is seemingly endlessly debated (with much of the opinion minimizing this risk being generated by an archipelago of carbon polluter funded think tanks), but it is a risk that has the potential to transcend our understanding of what catastrophic means if for example the great ice sheets melt.

...snip...

When I hear anyone mention that nuclear or coal electricity is cheap they are ignoring the catastrophic potential costs that are associated with each of these energy systems. Just because our society chooses to try to ignore these costs and to sweep them under the carpet does not mean that they go away and cease to be a factor in reality. Especially nuclear but also as the BP oil spill has shown deep water drilling can fail in catastrophic ways. AND fossil fuels in general expose the entire planet to the various potentially catastrophic risks associated with rapid climate change.

These costs should be factored into the price of this energy. If I or you were to produce and market a product that had the potential to wipe out an entire region or even to send the entire planet into a turbulent rapid climate change we would at the very least be required to build the actuary risk into the price of our product. It is far far more likely that we would be prohibited outright from ever putting our potentially catastrophic product onto market.

Why is it different for energy? Why can the nuclear sector as well as the coal, oil & gas sectors offload these costs onto our backs and force us to bear them while they continue to pocket the products from their artificially less expensive energy products? Shouldn’t the producer pay the true cost of the product that they produce? Why should we have to own the risk so that a few politically powerful energy oligopolies can continue to make immense profits?

http://theenergycollective.com/cdemorsella/55974/catast...

Nuclear
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas

We must end the use of all of them, starting with the greatest danger, fossil fuels Coal, Oil and Natural Gas!

[kristopher]

26. Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same coin.

Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern
AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory
DOCUMENT ID: S10-02
YEAR: 2010
DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article
PUBLISHER: RMI

In this essay Amory Lovins discusses the problems of proliferation, oil, and climate. These three formidable problems, though treated as distinct, share common causes and solutions. New energy and climate solutions can strengthen security and prosperity by shifting strategy for the NPT Review Conference. Nuclear power’s astonishing eclipse by cheaper, faster, more climate-protective competitors—if acknowledged and exploited—can simultaneously bolster nonproliferation, energy security, global development, and climate protection, all at a profit. Foreign Policy published a condensed version of this paper, "On Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern" (RMI document ID 2010-03) in January 2010.
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2F2010-02_ProliferationO...

[txlibdem]

28. One side of that "coin" causes global climate change, the other side DOESN'T

You keep singing the same ole tune but no sane person is going to believe you.

It's just as ludicrous as saying that Cows and Pecan Trees are two sides of the same coin. One contributes to global climate change: the other does not.

[bananas]

39. No, they both cause global climate change

Nuclear causes climate change because it's expensive and takes a long time to build,
you would get more emission reductions by spending that money on efficiency and renewables,
and you would get the emission reductions faster, too.
You have to keep burning coal while you're building the reactors,
and there's only a fifty-fifty chance the thing will ever be completed before the cost overruns cause it to be cancelled;
then you're back to burning coal.

[txlibdem]

42. That's just plain wrong, we both know it

"Nuclear causes climate change because it's expensive and takes a long time to build,
you would get more emission reductions by spending that money on efficiency and renewables,"

It takes just as long to built a 1 GW solar farm or multiple wind farms whose actual output would be 1 GW. And you're still burning coal while building that as well.

As to the 50-50 chance of being built, blame people like yourself for the cancellation of all new nuclear power plants for over 3 decades --which has been proven to cause more coal to be burned-- and therefore being an anti-nuker means that you have directly caused global climate change.

[kristopher]

48. Not even close.

For the price of one nuclear plant we can build about 15GW worth of solar manufacturing plants. We can build those plant in one year. The average time for planning and building a nuclear plant is 12 years. That means that those solar factories could crank out 165 gigawats worth of panels in that time, all of them producing electricity (some for more than a decade) before the NPP produces its first watt.

As for cost, see the OP.

[txlibdem]

50. You've included no link to prove your assertion of that (incredibly) fast construction time

Please enlighten us with a link to a solar power project that took only that amount of time commensurate with its percentage of 15GW/12 year actual output. Heck, I'd even give you browny points if you show me one that equalled it with nameplate capacity.

Link requested, please.

[kristopher]

53. You're confused (again).

Do you understand the difference between 1) a big building where they make panels and 2) open air location where panels are placed to harvest sunlight?

If you want to know how long it takes to build either, do some research. However, the panels that are manufactured every year are installed in roughly that same period of time - they do not accumulate in the warehouses for several years.

As for factories, look at the capacity that China has built since 2007. In the middle of last year they provided load guarantees of $17B for more solar factories and all of them (15GWp+)are expected to be online making panels by the end of this year.

[txlibdem]

24. Parts of the world could become uninsurable if climate change not checked

Climate change no-go areas

Parts of the world could become uninsurable if climate change was not checked, the head of the insurance industry’s international ClimateWise initiative said on Friday. Andrew Torrance, the chief executive of Allianz Insurance told a UN Environmental Programme conference that climate modelling clearly predicted that global warming would increase the frequency and severity of weather catastrophes. Insurers were taking an active and public role in climate change talks, he said. – SAPA.

http://www.fossilfuel.co.za/News-Flash-2-November.aspx

Anyone who dislikes zero-carbon energy sources should rethink their position. Fossil fuels must be stopped first.

[kristopher]

29. Yes carbon emissions are the biggest threat; that is why nuclear is a bad choice.

Hyping third rate solutions like nuclear is how to address climate change, it is how to build market share for Exelon and Halliburton.




Mods this is the abstract that appears in its original form in italics afterwards. This is a single paragraph and is not the full article. I have broken it apart for ease of reading since, as you can see, it is information dense:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?d...

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/...

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.S...

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

Abstract
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.

As originally published:
Abstract

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 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/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.

[txlibdem]

30. 1+1=5???

Your post makes no sense. Please clarify how you got to 5.

[slackmaster]

52. My rooftop solar power system should work out to about 20 cents/KWH over 10 years

Which means it will pay for itself before that, assuming modest annual rate increases by San Diego Gas & Electric. If the Sunrise Powerlink project has cost overruns, I'll be in really good shape (relative to the situation if I hadn't gone solar.)