The NYTimes finally reports the economic disaster of new nukes

[ensho]

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2009/1748


In a devastating pair of financial reports that might be called "The Emperor Has No Pressure Vessel," the New York Times has blazed new light on the catastrophic economics of atomic power.

The two Business Section specials cover the fiasco of new French construction at Okiluoto, Finland, and the virtual collapse of Atomic Energy of Canada. In a sane world they could comprise an epitaph for the "Peaceful Atom". But they come simultaneous with Republican demands for up to $700 billion or more in new reactor construction.

-snip-

The fiascos in Finland and Flamanville have thrown Areva into economic chaos now being mirrored at the Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited. Once touted as a global flagship, AECL sucked up 1.74 billion Canadian dollars in subsidies last year and has been a long-term money loser which the government has now announced it wants to sell.

-snip-

AECL's natural uranium/heavy water design has flopped in the world market. "Design issues" with its installed plants require heavy maintenance. AECL's Chalk River research facility, which suffered a major accident in 1952 (in which former President Jimmy Carter served as a "jumper") needs 7 billion Canadian dollars for clean-up work. Its 51-year-old medical isotope facility recently popped a major leak that may close it forever.

The Paris-based energy expert Mycle Schneider reports that of 45 reactors being built worldwide, 22 are behind schedule and nine have no official ignition schedules.

Despite the torrent of bad economic indicators, Republicans like Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) continue to demand massive government funding for new reactor construction. Alexander says he wants the US to build as many as 100 new reactors here, even though the private sector won't finance or insure them. The media is citing the idea as a $700 billion package, but in fact the project price of building new reactors is on the rise, and by some estimates has already exceeded $10 billion each. The Department of Energy has cited four finalists for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees voted in with the 2005 Bush Energy Plan. Florida and Georgia have raised rates to pre-pay proposed new reactors.

But Missouri has turned down a proposed rate hike for a new Areva project. And green activists have three times beaten proposed $50 billion federal loan guarantee packages to fund "new generation" construction. Grassroots battles are now raging to prevent the re-licensing of aging reactors like Vermont Yankee and New York's Indian Point.
-snip-
---------------------------


no more nuke plants. we will play hell dealing with the ones we have now.

[Tikki]

1. ensho...thank you for the article and link...

I save all these articles, you know...I guess I should
start one of those journals with all the info I have..


Tikki

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Nuclear technology is evolinbg and with out it NYC will freeze in the dark

Cites need energy...lots and lots of it. Older, poorly maintained cites like NYC, need even more. Regional solar, wind etc will not be enough to cover NYC. They will need generators. Coal has major issues as does peak oil which leaves modern nuclear. We may not like it but its the lesser of the evils if we want large cites.

NYC like most major cities exports it pollution in terms of generation and garbage to other areas, from which it also steal water. Makes the major cities self supporting and then lets talk

[MadHound]

4. Nuclear tech is nothing but a rathole that we keep throwing money into

The fact of the matter is that with a decentralized energy generation model using wind, solar and other clean renewables, we can indeed supply enough power for all of our needs. An average single family house requires 31 kWh's of electricity per day, and your average rooftop solar array (19m2) supplies 78-130 kWh/day. That's a lot of energy that can be used and stored. Not to mention the fact that with new wind breakthroughs, you can generate electricity, using an array at any ground level, that can generate 2.4 kWh/day in windspeeds as low as 4 mph (go research windbelts for further information).

But the fact of the matter is that corporate America is stuck on the old central power generating model, where they control the flow and reap the profits. That's the whole kicker. If we went to a decentralized model, they wouldn't be reaping the profits, but rather you and I, the little people, would be reaping the profits.

So we have two options, either continue to fly in this death spiral, riding on that old centralized generation model, or pull out of it, tell the power companies to go to hell, and revitalize our country using a decentralized model. It's that simple.

As far as nukes go, come up with a way to make nuke plants completely free of human error, find a solution as to what to do with the waste(sorry, burying it, dumping it in the sea, and "recycling" aren't options, they're chimeras), and finally find some private insurance company who will write policies for every single nuke plant rather than having them continue sucking down our tax dollars, then we can talk nukes. Until then, they need to go on the dust heap of history.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Energy densities are such that renewable only sources would mean the death of large cities

and the emptying of much of the northeast. High density population require generators and nuclear is the least of the evils.

I live in the CA desert. Maximum solar country and I have run a grid tie solar. It paid for itself already and I generate slightly more than I use (you don't get paid for any surplus). But I live out in the twigs.

San Francisco bay area can never generate enough renewable power to cover itself, Altmont Pass not withstanding. SFOI, NYC, WashDC Atlanta, Detroit etc all need generating stations of some kind.

[MadHound]

6. I beg to differ

A 1991(using '91 wind tech) DOE survey found that there is more than enough wind energy to power the US. Again, the key here is a decentralized power grid, where each individual house or building generates its own power, and then ships the excess to where it is needed.

I've spent years on this, running the numbers forwards, backwards and sideways, and we can do this. However it means that we have to do away with the central power generation model, which corporations don't want to do. Thus, in the process they publish bullshit and propaganda purporting to show how we "need" central power generation. Don't fall for it. If you don't believe me, then run the numbers yourself, it's all out there on the net, the DOE and other places.

You don't even need to live in "maximum solar country" to be self sufficient. In fact, outside of places like the Pac NW or Alaska, the entire US receives enough solar to power itself. Combine this with new tech, like windbelts, thin film photovoltaics, etc. and we can certainly switch over to clean, green renewables.

And again, solve the big three problems facing nuclear, waste, human error and private insurance, then maybe we can talk nukes. Until then, all nukes are is a moneymaking pit for the few subsidized by the rest of us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. The issue is that the decentralized model fails in the cites and around heavy industries

Apartment building in the Bronx can never generate enough power to be anywhere self sufficient. Same goes with most tall office buildings. The energy demand is just to high in dense populations so the cites either rot (more) or suburbs and outlying areas will have to generate power for them (and accept their trash and give up their water). If we want cites and the efficiencies that go with them like mass transit or the ability to bicycle to work, we will have to have large central generators.

The DOE study you cite is flawed since it does not account for economical extraction and distribution. Yes there is enough renewable power, but most of it is not economically extractable and its not near enough to the population centers to economically supply them. Aggregating things presents a false picture of practicality.

The answer is a mix and will have local and regional variations.

[MadHound]

8. Actually you need to check out windbelts,

Easy, compact, and can work well with solar units to provide even tall buildings with enough kWh's to power themselves.

The DOE study I cited is not flawed, not as you make it out to be. It actually states up front that the figures it is using are based on the amount of wind energy that can practically be extracted, it's not pie in the sky, and even the deadest wind states can still generate a substantial amount of electricity. And again, remember, this is with '91 wind tech, things have improved vastly in the past eighteen years, lower tip speeds, more efficient turbines, oh, and did I mention windbelts?

This is not pie in the sky, this is reality, and again, I keep noticing that you're dodging those questions about human error, waste and insurance. You really need to answer those questions in a comprehensive manner before you can seriously consider expanding nukes in the quantity you and others are proposing.

[no limit]

3. So you are telling me that no nuclear power plants around the world make money?

There are plenty of old, new, and ongoing installations of nuclear power plants. Your aricle talks about the flaws of a single project.