My Email to FPL Regarding My Position on More Nuclear Reactors for Florida

[John N Morgan]

It was merely 5 days ago when I was struck by the possibility of changing my adamant position against any more reactors anywhere. My message to FPL preceded our President's announcement of assisting in the funding of a new plant in GA by 3 days. I post this as a continuation of my discussion about the necessity of more nuclear power to vastly expand the manufacturing base in Florida. I am now convinced that the fears of nuclear power must be debated and resolved; furthermore, the state that accomplishes this will be the most successful in the next decades. Literally, build it and they will come. The abundance of energy will bring manufacturing.

In case you don't know the Florida economy is based on the "three legged stool" of agriculture, tourism and construction. All three of which are subject to the whims of the economy and/or nature.

Note that since that time the Division of Elections has recognized my campaign, so I speak freely now as the candidate for FL House District 82. And, FPL has only responded with an automated "Thank You" (now go away) reply.

Without further prep here is the message unabridged:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs or Madam,
I am John Morgan and I have filed for my Campaign as the Democratic Candidate for the House of Representatives, District 82 (until the state acknowledges my campaign I am not officially a candidate). This is not a request for donations or support. Furthermore, unlike most low level legislators I am an engineer, Tau Beta Pi, TX Theta. Systems Engineering (optimization) and Computational Theory.

Please follow my chain of thought:

This state has an unemployment rate of 11.8% (bls.gov) for Dec. Florida is not far from being the worse affected by the recession. Over the last 10 years the construction boom attracted what must be the largest construction labor pool available in the US.

Of late, Planned Parenthood has been under attack by Christian fundamentalists I believe are energized by the misery of the recession. These attacks must stop. At first I was going to propose a "law and order" approach in my campaign; however, at this late hour of the night another approach occurred to me: give them something else to do!

Our President has proposed loan guarantees for new nuclear plants (or at least reactors). In a full twist of my philosophy on nuclear power, I am convinced that if the proposed new plants should go anywhere, it's here in Florida.

When I was 18/19 yrs old in 1972, I worked as a union laborer (carpenter's helper) on the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Generating Station near Dothan, AL. I know it's very labor intensive to pour all that concrete. And, what a coincidence, we happen to have a lot of qualified concrete people available.

I have also worked for FPL as a software engineer circa 2000. I know FPL enough to know that you will take care of Florida. It's where we live.

So, I need information on your plans for future nuclear energy installations. If you could send me links or if someone could spare an hour to walk me through the basics I would appreciate it.

Lastly, I will not seek donations from FPL since I am not accepting donations from any corporations. So, this is my initiative on what I see is a good move for Florida.

Now, connecting a few more dots in the energy chain. If we build plants what do we do with the energy. Well, apparently there is going to be a renewed (and welcomed) effort to enhance railroads in Florida. Railroads take steel. Since this is one state that can produce nearly anything and not suffocate in air pollution, I'm wondering if a future of mini-mills (scrap melters) is in store. Mini-mills require a lot of power (I have also worked for CF&I Steel in Pueblo, CO). I have to believe that our ocean ports give us access to low cost transportation of scrap and finished products. Can we make this happen?

If we had the mini-mills could we not also build the wind mill towers?

We, Floridians have to do something to "cattle prod" our way out of this recession and bring more manufacturing to the state. I am convinced that this progress would start with FPL. You are what must come first.

I am hoping I have opened a mutually beneficial conversation.

Regards,
John N Morgan
(imminent) Candidate for the FL House, Dist 82.

[Zoeisright]

1. Since when is Florida 'a state that can produce nearly anything and not suffocate

in air pollution'?

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Do you think it just evaporates? Do the anti-pollution fairies just 'spirit it away'? Pollution is a GLOBAL issue and does not go away. There is no 'away'.

And nuclear power plants are unbelievably expensive, produce poison we do not know how to get rid of, and are a disaster waiting to happen. Nuke plants are at least six TIMES more expensive than studies have claimed. And those studies, which under reported costs, showed taxpayers have spent 300 BILLION DOLLARS on the dirty nuclear industry in this country.

If you want to bring more energy to the state, think about solar power. Only the stupid would oppose that. After all, aren't you supposed to be the 'Sunshine State'??

You'd better read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7763717

[John N Morgan]

2. How much stock have you purchased in a company devoted to solar, wind or wave?

I'm really not tolerant of hypocrisy.

I do NOT oppose solar, wind or wave but there are pressing needs for base power. In fact I would love it if the farmers and ranchers would give up the use of their land, but it's not going to happen.

All I have gotten in rebuttal is "let's spend somebody else's money on my favored solutions."

So, I ask you, what is your solution including land acquisition and grid. Even T Boone Pickens couldn't answer those questions.

[csziggy]

13. To encourage solar and alternative power, follow the German plan

Require that any excess power produced by privately owned solar installations be purchased by the energy utility companies at a competitive rate. Then give subsidies to individuals and small businesses to install solar panels or other methods of generating power. In Germany many people have solar roofs, a lot of small farms have converted to being 'solar farms' and just those two sources supply a good amount of energy into the grid. Not only has it reduced the demands for new energy plants, it is a source of income for individuals and small business.

This country could have been doing this kind of program for the last 30 years, but instead we went with Reagan and big business models.

When we built our house, we investigated solar panels, but the tax advantages and rebates were not sufficient for our initial investment and the electric co-op we belong to will not buy excess electricity from home installations. We could have invested tens of thousands into panels and additional money into battery and attempted to go off the grid, or simply wasted the excess power we produced. But aside from the personal savings on electricity, we would not have been able to recoup our investment.

We put about a third that amount into a well insulated and sealed house, put in a solar water heater, and save on energy that way without the additional high cost of solar PV panels.

I've got enough acreage that if I could sell the electricity to the co-op, it could be a good investment for me to put in a PV panel farm - but they are resistant to the concept and it is not worth my time and money fighting them. I would love the additional income from selling energy to the grid so if the law ever was passed requiring that utilities purchase excess electricity at a decent price, I would consider that path.

By the way Florida does get inversions - I grew up in Central Florida before smudge pots were outlawed and remember winter morning with black fog from the smudge pot smoke being caught under an inversion. I'm now in Tallahassee and we have had plenty of inversions capture pollution under a cold layer.

[Statistical]

15. You don't need batteries. most states require net metering.

You don't get paid for electricity but when you produce more than you consume the "meter spins backward".

Almost all states mandate net metering. If your state is one of the few that don't that is the first step.

Lobby to get your state legislature to pass net metering legislation.

[csziggy]

20. What I was told by the solar installer and another person building a house

Was that the local co-op would fight net metering. I know I would not have to have batteries, but being in a semi-rural location, I would want them for times that power is out - after Tropical Storm Faye in 2008 we were without power for four days; after Hurricane Kate in 1986 for a week. Most people around here have generators, the batteries would replace that.

The man who was in the middle of building his house showed me his installation. He had to have a special space for the batteries, special inverter to channel the power to the batteries, and extra wiring to route electricity for emergencies from the solar panel or batteries to essential devices. He had been going round and round with the local co-op about net metering. They wanted to charge him several thousand to hook him up for it and a liability waiver "in case his installation damaged their grid".

AND it would not be cost effective for me to go through all the hassle unless I was getting PAID for the power I put into the grid. I pay the co-op for the power I use now - why should they get power I generate for free?

I crunched the numbers - without selling excess power on good days, it would take far too long to re-coup the investment in the solar panels to be worth it. So for the immediate future we instead invested in the building envelope and upgraded the R value of everything, plus a passive solar water heater. That has paid off - our utilities bills for this house are half to two thirds of the old one and this one is half again as big.

Someday, when the electric co-op gets their heads out of their asses, and when the cost of solar PV is more realistic, I will invest in it. For now, I am satisfied with my choices.

[Statistical]

23. They likely never will.

You just need legislative action.

If you are interested contact your state delegate.

Let him/her know 44 other states mandate net metering and it hasn't cost utilities anything much (despite all their claims).
It is a win-win. Lowers cost of PV for consumers (those who want to can avoid expensive batteries, generator is cheaper in emergency situations), and utilities get power from PV at peak output = 1AM-1PM (highest cost for utilities).

In VA to get net metering the three things you need are:
a) an "isolation switch" installed by local electrician (costs about $100 including labor, and permits) the switch detects when grid is down and prevents your PV array from sending power to grid when it is down (to protect utility workers). Can also be done as part of PV install. Most new grid-tie systems have built in isolation switches.

b) a manual master off switch that is lockable = trivial cost. This is so utilities can "lock out" your PV array if they are doing work around it.

c) upgrade meter to newer one which can spin both ways (legislation limits cost to $50) most newer meters are already bi-directional.

The utilities will never support it without legislative action. That is why net metering is mandated in 42 states now.

Just one qualifier. Net metering is NOT selling power however it is much easier to get passed that wholesale power sales.

In net metering you basically just pay difference between consumed - generated. It also rolls forward for one year so you can build up a "surplus" in summer which offsets consumption in December.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering#United_States

The terms and conditions on how net metering works (rollovers monthly and annually, excess power lost/sold/credit, limits on PV array size, etc all vary by State.

[kristopher]

37. They never will? A nuclear proponents opinion...

The price reduction brought about by thin film hasn't been incorporated into the AVERAGED price of solar yet, but if you were to look at the price of most up to date solar vs nuclear, nuclear is now an economic loser to PV as well as all other forms of reneweables.

[John N Morgan]

18. You are preaching to the choir about how we got into this mess. But we're here.

Net metering is cool (Carter did that too and it was allowed to expire) and I would be glad to champion that as well, but it's not going to put 1000s of construction workers to work. Second, even though you are willing to participate I would bet you are a minority.

The inversions we get are low level and short lived since ocean breezes generally dissipate them quickly.

[csziggy]

21. You get tens of thousands putting solar on their roofs and there will be employment

Obama's Stimulus Package is pushing this, too. But without more incentive - money in people's pockets - most people cannot afford to make the initial investment, especially now. Net metering is not enough. With the cost per kilowatt in most places, there should be a guaranteed fee for kilowatts provided to the power companies from client's alternative energy sources. Either that or encourage power companies to work with consumers on providing and installing alternative energy technology and produce power in a distributed method rather than big single source systems.

[Statistical]

24. Unless the energy rate is subsidized selling power is WORSE than net metering.

With net metering you get a credit of retail power price.
With energy sales you collect the wholesale (avoided cost) price of power.
Take a look at your electricity bill. Only roughly 40% is generation cost the rest is transmission costs and taxes/fees.

You would collect generation costs on sold power. Actually the generation cost may be marked up so you might collect as little as 90% of generation costs.

Power varies around the country but wholesale average is about $0.045 per kWh vs on net metering each kWh "credit" is $0.11

So unless there is a tariff on the power sold forcing utilities to buy your power at 200% of wholesale, selling power will actually increase time it takes to reach break even.

[kristopher]

36. That isn't accurate

First, we SHOULD subsidize the price of net metering. It is far easier to justify than the masive subsidies going to nuclear.

Second is that net metering often screws the consumer since wholesale prices for the times solar are most productive are far higher than the average wholesale averaged price of electricity. It isn't uncommon for peak afternoon prices to be 20-30X higher than the average.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

[hunter]

31. The "German Plan" is to burn more coal and Russian natural gas.

Solar and wind is a negligible sideshow of Germany's overall energy production.

Hey! Look over there! Shiny things! (While we build more coal and gas plants...)

[Statistical]

32. Even funnier Germany is "anti-nuke" but buys nuclear power from France.

The irony of it all. I guess it is no longer nuclear power once it crosses a national border. Somehow it gets converted from "ebil" nuclear energy into good emission free energy by passing an imaginary line on a piece of paper.

[kristopher]

38. So a right wing shift in Germany's government is seen by you as evidence of ...

the technological and economic capabilities of various energy sources?

You must worship Reagan...

http://www.germanyandafrica.diplo.de/Vertretung/pretoria__dz/en/__PR/2010__PR/01/01__Energy__Stategy.html
Note references to "market driven approach".

At the recent Handelsblatt Annual Conference on the Energy Sector in Berlin, the German Economics and Technology Minister outlined the government's plans for a national energy strategy. Considering energy policy as an integral part of economic policy, the Minister emphasized that the future plan will be market-oriented, reflect of mix of technologies and include a sustainable environmental approach.

Setting forth the guidelines for a national energy strategy, Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle shared some of the broader tactics the German government intends to take to both secure adequate and environmentally sustainable energy supply, as well as ensuring a competitive and market-oriented energy sector.

One aspect of this is the prolongation of the use of atomic energy and the simultaneous conclusion of subsidies for solar energy. The German government has long supported the development and use of solar power inside Germany. Its broad adoption combined with the significant drop in production cost of solar cells has made a reduction of the current subsidy (paid by consumers through a surcharge) possible in government's eyes. Prolonging the use of atomic energy and reducing this subsidy will make way for affordable energy supply as newer, renewable sources are maximized.

The Minister also addressed infrastructure, advocating the creation of a national grid consortium. To move from the fossil-fuel age to the renewable generation will require significant development of the energy infrastructure. This means intelligent networks capable of integrating renewable energies.

The government sees this primarily as the responsibility of the companies to invest in energy infrastructure and believes it should be market driven. There is no better example of this than the Desertec industrial initiative. Comprised of a consortium of 12 companies (and growing), this private sector initiative is planning to develop solar, concentrated solar and wind energy projects in the deserts of Northern Africa. Its goal is to supply 15 percent of Europe's energy supply by 2050.

This pan-continental approach is in line with the multinational North Sea electricity project already under way in the North Sea. The planned massive electricity grid will run under the North Sea and connect nine EU countries with each other as well as to renewable energy power. The hope is that the super-grid could ultimately connect offshore wind farms in northern Europe along with solar panels in southern Europe. It will require an enormous infusion of infrastructure investment, but in the end will create one large energy market, encourage the use of renewables and raise the continent's – and Germany's – energy independence.

The government is developing the national energy strategy for presentation in autumn.

[kristopher]

35. A feed in tariff like you describe in Germany has been thought illegal here...

However a recent opinion by NREL might change that. Feed in tariffs are vastly superior to net metering for encouraging the deployment of solar and wind.

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/02/15/daily13.html
A recent report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that feed-in tariffs established by states to promote the use of renewable energy are legal under certain conditions, clearing the way for the programs that aim to level the pricing playing field.

The long-awaited NREL report points out that that the feed-in tariffs can be lawful under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (or PURPA), if they are voluntarily offered by utilities, or based on “avoided cost” and paid with renewable energy credits, subsidies, or tax credits.

Oregon is one of four states that have established feed-in tariff programs. Oregon’s was started last year as pilot program under House Bill 3039. The legislation did not establish the incentive rate or rules for the pilot program and the Public Utilities Commission must adopt rules and approve the rate for the incentive payment by April 1.

[John N Morgan]

3. In case you need a geography lesson, FL is ocean on two sides. We are not subject to inversions

Given modern exhaust scrubbing technology that would be applied in any state by the EPA, Florida would still be miles ahead in it's capacity to tolerate manufacturing.

[John N Morgan]

4. If all we have spent on nuclear power is $300B ... I'm thinking that is a bargain. How much worse

would we have been using coal or gas instead?

When you respond please be specific on locations and land acquisition methods and grid (and more land acquisition) routes.

We are in a non-sustainable power crisis and we cannot afford to daydream any longer. A certain amount of pragmatism is necessary.

[lib2DaBone]

5. On a world scale.. I think the debate on Nuclear power is over...

..China is moving ahead with 20 clean-core pressurized reactors.

India is building 20 modern nuclear plants.. North Korea.. for god's sake.. is building 5 nuclear power stations.

The United States is arguing about one... or maybe two small plants (if only we could afford them).

The world is passing the US on every technological front. We will sit here and debate the problem until the lights go off and we are sitting in a cold dark room.

On the other hand, the Republicans will NEVER let clean green energy move ahead, nor will the Goldman Sachs bankers. (the real leaders of our corpocracy).

All I can say is... start saving your candle wax and scrap firewood.

The United States is racing into the third world.. while China and the rest are racing up and out via high tech.

[John N Morgan]

10. That is the conclusion I came to. It's not a good choice and all we are going to negotiate is more

transparency and oversight. But we have to start digging now!
Thanks.

[kristopher]

6. Have you accomplished or consulted a comprehensive analysis of ...

... of the energy options available? Since your conclusion that nuclear power is the preferred option of the technologies available, I'm pretty certain you either have not investigated the issue deeply or that you have a personal bias for nuclear power and you are ignoring the very large body of evidence that says nuclear power is an inferior choice to meet our energy security and climate change needs.

You have a history with the nuclear industry so you are comfortable with the technology, so I'm guessing you assume that irrational fear is the only obstacle to nuclear. It isn't. Impartial analysis tells us that nuclear is a suboptimal path to our energy related goals, including manufacturing.

[John N Morgan]

8. be happy to take journal references or links. I'm an engineer so I can read pretty much any proof.

[kristopher]

11. I was asking you the basis of your conclusion.

You are running for office and stating a position you claim your background qualifies you to lead on.

I'm asking what research you've done. You conclusion is at odds with everything I've learned in 7 years of academic work on energy policy, so I'm eager to hear the foundation of your decision.

[John N Morgan]

16. With all that "academic work" you should be able to quote pages of refereed journal references

Or are you an academic that is only good at shooting down others ideas?

What are your publications? 7 years you must have published something.

What are the alternatives?
wind, solar, tidal/wave, gulf stream turbines: how long could we talk about location? how long would it take to modify any affected air vectors and/or shipping lanes?

Solar/wind? Where would the go. I don't know of any farmers or ranchers that are willing to let go of the use of their land; hence, years to settle and acquire land.

Grids? more land acquisition. Years to settle and acquire.

If T. Boone Pickens can't get a wind farm going who can? His problem is the same as I'm thinking: land acquisition for the generators and the grid connection.

But feel free to show me my errors.

[kristopher]

19. Errors? You haven't made any errors...

All you've done is recite a list of questions that embody the boilerplate talking points from the Heritage Foundation against renewables. None of them have any actual relevance to forming policy.

Since you apparently don't have any research behind your opinion on the issue, here are two points of departure. Check the bibliographies for more reading.

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

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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.

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE?
MARK COOPER SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL

D. CONCLUSION
The 1960s and 1970s may seem like ancient history, but the new proposed cohort of reactors
could easily be afflicted with the same problems of delay and cost overruns. Inherent characteristics
of large complex nuclear reactors make them prone to these problems. Reactor design is complex,
site-specific, and non-standardized. In extremely large, complex projects that are dependent on
sequential and complementary activities, delays tend to turn into interruptions. Inherent cost
escalation afflicts mega projects, a category into which nuclear reactors certainly fall.35

The endemic problems that afflict nuclear reactors take on particular importance in an
industry in which the supply train is stretched thin. Material costs have been rising and skilled labor
is in short supply. These one of a kind, specialized products have few suppliers. In some cases, there
is only one potential supplier for critical parts. Any increase in demand sends prices skyrocketing.
Any interruption or delay in delivery cannot be easily accommodated and ripples through the
implementation of the project.36

The severe difficulties of Finland’s Olkiluoto nuclear reactor being built by Areva SA, the
French state-owned nuclear construction firm, provide a reminder of how these problems unfold.37
Touted as the turnkey project to replace the aging cohort of nuclear reactors, the project has fallen
three years behind schedule and more than 50% over budget.38 The delay has caused the sponsors of
the project to face the problem of purchasing expensive replacement power; the costs of which they
are trying to recover from the reactor builder. The cost overruns and the cost of replacement power
could more than double the cost of the reactor.39

A description of the process by which the U.S. ended up with hundreds of reactors that were
“too expensive to build,” written in 1978, before the accident at Three Mile Island changed the
terrain of nuclear reactors in the U.S., bears an eerie resemblance to the past decade in the U.S.:
At the beginning of 1970, none of the plants ordered during the Great Bandwagon
Market was yet operating in the United States.

This meant that virtually all of the economic information about the status of light
water reactors in the early 1970s was based upon expectation rather than actual
experience. The distinction between cost records and cost estimation may seem
obvious, but apparently it eluded many in government and industry for years...
In the first half of this crucial 10-year period, the buyers of nuclear power plants had
to accept, more or less on faith, the seller’s claims about the economic performance
of their product. Meanwhile, each additional buyer was cited by the reactor
manufacturers as proof of the soundness of their product...The rush to nuclear
power had become a self-sustaining process...

There were few, if any, credible challenges to this natural conclusion. Indeed, quite
the contrary. Government officials regularly cited the nuclear industry’s analyses of
light water plants as proof of the success of their own research and development
policies. The industry, in turn, cited those same government statements as official
confirmation. The result was a circular flow of mutually reinforcing assertion that
apparently intoxicated both parties and inhibited normal commercial skepticism
about advertisements which purported to be analyses. As intoxication with promises
about light water reactors grew during the late 1960s and crossed national and even
ideological boundaries, the distinction between promotional prospectus and critical
evaluation become progressively more obscure.

From the available cost records about changing light water reactor capital costs, it is
possible to show that on average, plants that entered operation in 1975 were about
three times more costly in constant dollars than the early commercial plants
competed five years earlier. 40

The similarities between the great bandwagon market and the nuclear renaissance, and the
fact that utilities not only steadfastly refuse to accept the risk of cost overruns but also are
demanding massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies to build the next generation of reactors, should
give policy makers pause. The one major difference between the great bandwagon market and the
nuclear renaissance is that there has been an extensive challenge to the extremely optimistic cost
estimates of the early phase, a challenge from Wall Street and independent analysts. It may be
impossible to escape the uncertainty of cost estimation, but it is possible to avoid past mistakes.
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 vendors and government officials monopolized the
preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent analysts have come forward with
much higher estimates of the cost of new nuclear reactors. And, because the stranglehold of the
vendors and utilities on analysis has been broken, the current debate includes a much wider range of
options.

As important as bad analysis was, it might have had little impact if it had not been combined
with another critical mistake. The nuclear reactor vendors had delivered a small number of reactors
at fixed prices and eaten massive cost overruns. After a few loss leaders were delivered, they shifted
tactics. Unwilling and unable to sustain those losses, as the Forbes article put it, the
Great Bandwagon Market was impelled by evangelisms, optimism and seemingly
irresistible economics... But the suppliers had learned their lesson. The new
generation of plants would be built under reimbursable-cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
Without that, the nuclear power program would probably have sputtered out in the
mid-Seventies, when cost lurched out of control.41

The contemporary policy debate takes the effort to insulate utilities from the high cost of
nuclear reactors even farther. In addition to a broad range of general subsidies and the cost plus rate
treatment, they are seeking large federal loan guarantees and treatment by state public utility
commissions that would grant preapproval and recovery of construction costs.
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly


You might also want to investigate the potential for tapping into the Gulf Steam in the channel between Bermuda. The technologies for capturing that vast 24/7 resource are just now starting to roll out. Check the website of the Minerals Management Service on Alternative Offshore Energy. Florida has a 10 or 12 mile limit so it is your waters, but MMS has up to date information on the issue.

[Statistical]

26. Worthless report. The author includes the carbon from a nuclear war

to indicate nuclear power is too "carbon heavy".

He also:

* uses a timeline of 10 years for Construction (despite numerous new reactors being built in 5 years)
* uses a lifespan of nuclear reactor as 25 years despite existing ones having 40-60 years a new ones rated at 60+60.
* uses the energy cost of enrichment by gaseous diffusion despite nobody using that method of enrichment in 30 years. Today everyone uses gas centrifuges (those things Iran is building) because they reduce energy cost 80%.

So yeah if you take a whole carp load of bogus inputs that over estimate construction time, under estimate lifespan of reactor (thus less lifetime power produced), throw in obsolete enrichment methods and then add in 30 trillion tons of carbon from a nuclear war then sure you can make nuclear look worse.

The sad thing is despite all his bogus initial assumptions nuclear doesn't score that bad.

The good thing is he has a page that shows all assumptions and calculations. I wonder how well nuclear will score if real data is used (5 year construction, 60 year lifespan, proper enrichment costs, etc).

[kristopher]

33. Again, standard talking point - only this time from the Nuclear Energy Institute

Yes, Jacobson includes the increased possibility of a nuclear detonation creating GHG emissions. That's because it is a possibility that is greatly enhanced if we turn to nuclear power to meet climate change and energy security needs. Are you denying that North Korea and Iran are not examples of nuclear power that has increased the chances of a nuclear detonation in a city? Nuclear proliferation is a huge problem already and setting the stage for every third world country on the planet to lay claim to nuclear technology is about as dumb a move as I can imagine.

Jacobson surveys a wide variety of sources on permitting and construction of nuclear power. Those sources show a range of between 10-19 years being required to bring a nuclear plant online. You attempt to discredit that number by trying to hide behind a "construction" only number is duly noted for its transparent dishonesty.

The same type of distortion applies to your other criticisms.

Look you are obviously a committed supporter of nuclear power and your values don't consider associated problems to be important. I suspect that you are also a closet "drill baby drill" and "more coal is ok with me" fan.

You'll make a fine politician.

[kristopher]

12. I was asking you the basis of your conclusion.

You are running for office and stating a position you claim your background qualifies you to lead on.

I'm asking what research you've done. You conclusion is at odds with everything I've learned in 7 years of academic work on energy policy, so I'm eager to hear the foundation of your decision.

[alfredo]

7. Do some research on the use of Thorium for energy production

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

[John N Morgan]

9. I've read about them. They are not ready for prime time.

We need to start digging now.

We are out of time and out of options. Thank the Republicans, but the most we're going to negotiate is more transparency and oversight.

[alfredo]

14. Nuclear fuel as it is now should only be seen as a short term solution. Thorium

has been used for power for some time. There were a couple plants, includine one at Oak Ridge, that were used in the US.

I think the use of uranium instead of thorium had quite a bit to do with building nuclear weapons. Thorium must not have been as useful as a weapon.

[John N Morgan]

17. India apparently has 25% of thorium reserves and they are experimenting. We are out of time

The best we can do is negotiate more oversight and transparency.

[alfredo]

22. Oh sure, there better be rigorous oversight. I think, but not sure that Thorium

can be used in existent reactors. I don't know enough about that side of it other than it is cheaper, more abundant, and not as dangerous to handle as uranium.

It is not an either or situation. We have to do what we have to do.

[Statistical]

25. Reactors must be modified to use Thorium.

The most effective use of Thorium requires new reactor designs. Thorium by itself is not fissionable.

Put a ton of thorium in a reactor and it will produce 0.000 KW of heat. 0 fissions will occur and it will remain like that for billions of years.

Thorium (Th-232) in the presence of neutrons will absorb a nuetron (Th-233) and then decay into U-233 which IS fissionable.



As a result a Thorium reactor will need an initial "seed fuel" to begin fission and produce neutrons. It also will have to be optimized to produce far more neutrons than current PWR or BWR do today. Since a substantial number of neutrons will be "consumed" by Th-232 there will need to be a higher concentration to leave enough neutrons to fission the U-233.

Because of this it simply would be prohibitively expensive to build a single (or couple) Thorium reactors. Rather we would need to build dozens (or maybe hundreds to replace existing uranium reactors as they reach end-of-life). This would allow a large enough demand to support Thorium mining, processing, and disposal.

[alfredo]

27. Thank you. Is there a supply problem with uranium? What about the supply

of Thorium?

[Statistical]

28. At current reactor levels (not building any new ones) no.

At around 100 reactors the US supply of uranium is good for about 60 years. If we include strong alliea like Australia it is 150+ years.

Using better enrichment methods could stretch that about 10%.
If needed we could reprocess fuel (despite being more expensive) would double our effective supply.

However if to combat climate change we were to double the number of reactors obviously the supply would last half as long.

Thorium is roughly 5x as abundant as uranium. It also doesn't require enrichment so the amount of fuel that can be obtained from it is roughly 20x as much as our raw uranium supply.

We have hundreds of years of supply of Thorium even if we double, triple, or even quadruple the number of reactors. Eventually the world will need to switch to Thorium is we keep using nuclear energy. How soon and how rapidly we convert really depends on number of reactors worldwide.

[alfredo]

29. Good info. What about long term storage of used Thorium fuel?

[Statistical]

30. I mean it is still a problem. Thorium isn't some magic bullet.

However thorium is more efficient (no enrichment) so that reduces raw tonnage of waste. You also don't have the associated energy costs related to enrichment (and if enrichment is based on fossil fuels the CO2 release).

Thorium has a much higher melting point which improves reactor safety in a core-overheat situation.

As far as the actual waste:
Less long lived isotopes are produced which means the waste will "burn off" (reduces in effective radioactivity) much "quicker".

We are still talking about thousands of years but spent Thorium fuel will be substantially less radioactive after about 10,000 years compared to Uranium fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_of_thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel

Really if today no nuclear reactors existed, it was impossible to build a nuclear weapon and someone discovered fission nobody would ever build a uranium reactor. There is really no advantage of uranium at all others than:
a) it already exists
b) you can build bombs from the plutonium it produces

The DOD has a major say if forcing the DOE to pursue Uranium based fuel cycle over a Thorium one despite objections of many scientists.

[alfredo]

34. So the cold war killed Thorium.

[kristopher]

39. The most ambitious plan to use thorium is in India

And they are not having all that much success at bringing it to maturity.

From the World Nuclear Association (Nuclear trade group) on India's program

Fast neutron reactors
Longer term, the AEC envisages its fast reactor program being 30 to 40 times bigger than the PHWR program, and initially at least, largely in the military sphere until its "synchronised working" with the reprocessing plant is proven on an 18-24 month cycle. This will be linked with up to 40,000 MWe of light water reactor capacity, the used fuel feeding ten times that fast breeder capacity, thus "deriving much larger benefit out of the external acquisition in terms of light water reactors and their associated fuel". This 40 GWe of imported LWR multiplied to 400 GWe via FBR would complement 200-250 GWe based on the indigenous program of PHWR-FBR-AHWR (see Thorium cycle section below). Thus AEC is "talking about 500 to 600 GWe nuclear over the next 50 years or so" in India, plus export opportunities.

In 2002 the regulatory authority issued approval to start construction of a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam and this is now under construction by BHAVINI. It is expected to be operating in 2011, fuelled with uranium-plutonium oxide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs). It will have a blanket with thorium and uranium to breed fissile U-233 and plutonium respectively, taking the thorium program to stage two, and setting the scene for eventual full utilisation of the country's abundant thorium to fuel reactors. Six more such 500 MWe fast reactors have been announced for construction, four of them by 2020. Two will be at Kalpakkam.

Initial FBRs will have mixed oxide fuel or carbide fuel, but these will be followed by metallic fuelled ones to enable shorter doubling time. One of the last of the above six is to have the flexibility to convert from MOX to metallic fuel (ie a dual fuel unit), and it is planned to convert the small FBTR to metallic fuel about 2013 (se R&D section below).

Following these will be a 1000 MWe fast reactor using metallic fuel, and construction of this is expected to start about 2020.

[alfredo]

40. Bush wasted our time when it came to energy independence, and time is not

on our side.