ANALYSIS-Who will foot the nuclear power bill? (WNA agrees with Al Gore)

[bananas]

The WNA agrees with Al Gore - nuclear won't be much more of a percentage than it is now,
and it won't play a major role in stopping greenhouse gasses:
"Given that even under the WNA's most optimistic outlooks nuclear will only account for 18 percent of electricity demand,
the amount of carbon foregone comes in at just four percent."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0792245720070910

ANALYSIS-Who will foot the nuclear power bill?
Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:14PM BST

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Nuclear power may be close to a revival after two decades in the shadow of the Chernobyl reactor accident as governments search for clean sources of power to beat climate change.

But ask the industry who is going to foot the potentially massive bill and it becomes coy and mutters about governments, public/private partnerships and equity financing.

"There is a lot of talk about the nuclear renaissance, but in reality only China is really building," says Steve Kidd, director of strategy at the World Nuclear Association (WNA). "No one wants to go first."

According to the WNA -- the nuclear power industry's umbrella organisation -- there are 439 reactors operating globally, generating 371,000 megawatts of electricity or about 16 percent of total demand.

<snip>

Electricity generation accounts for some 20 percent of global carbon emissions.

Given that even under the WNA's most optimistic outlooks nuclear will only account for 18 percent of electricity demand, the amount of carbon foregone comes in at just four percent.

And that, says the environmental lobby, is simply not worth the risk entailed in the mooted new nuclear age.

[losthills]

1. Nuclear Power is a boondoggle.

It simply is not an economical way to produce electricity. Nuclear power plants, in every country, are built and maintained with massive government subsidies so that the public pays twice for their electricity. Why are some governments so willing to shovel tons of public money into the nuclear money pit? The fact that China is building the most nuclear facilities the fastest should answer that question. They are also using every dime you spend at Walmart to build up their military and their nuclear weapons arsenal...

[phantom power]

2. The Chinese know what it's like to choke on their own smog.

They also know what it's like to be short on electricity.

[losthills]

3. If they were concerned about smog,

they would be taking the same measures to clean it up that we have taken.

Let me know when you see that happening...

[phantom power]

4. But their solution may be better than ours.

Our "solution" was to build scrubbers for coal plants, while telling ourselves bedtime stories about "clean coal" and lying to ourselves about the one poison that's going to kill us all: CO2

If China's solution is to build nuclear reactors that emit no smog *and* no CO2, I'd say that maybe (maybe) they've learned something from us after all.

Of course, they are also continuing to build gobs of coal plants, so there you go.

Incidentally, what I don't see them building a lot of is renewable generation. I think there are some compelling reasons for that, which have been discussed at length on this forum.

[losthills]

5. Renewables have no utility in a weapons program...

Does that answer your question?

[phantom power]

6. Just so I'm sure I understand: your position is...

that China is building nuclear reactors because it wants more nuclear weaponry, and that if they didn't want nuclear weaponry, they would be building wind-farms and solar?

Actually, is it the case that you think the only reason anybody could want nuclear power is because they secretly just want to build more warheads? I get that impression from your posts.

[losthills]

7. It's not a secret...

Nuclear power is not viable economically.

Nuclear power is not "green."

Nuclear power is not a serious solurtion to global warming, peak oil, or pollution.

Nuclear power is not superior, in any way to fossil fuels.

Nuclear power is an adjunct to, or a foundation for, nuclear weapons programs. Yes, that is my position...

[hunter]

8. I'm mostly Catholic, myself.

:P

[phantom power]

9. Well, you've convinced me that I'll never convince you.

[NickB79]

10. Which is why Sweden holds the rest of Europe in terror of it's nukes

Oh wait, Sweden has nuclear reactors but no nuclear warheads.

Well, I'm sure those damn Canadians have nukes and are itching to use them. Oh wait, they don't? But they have nuclear reactors! WTF?

Well, I'm SURE the Japanese have.....oh come one, you have to be kidding me!!! No nukes there either?

Brazil? Argentina? Finland? South Korea? Spain? Belgium? Someone in this list MUST have a nuke or two between them; they all have nuclear reactors, after all.

The funny thing is that if you look for nations with nuclear reactors (either commercial or experimental) you will find dozens upon dozens of nations that have worked with reactors or still use them. However, there are only 8 nations that have actually detonated nuclear warheads successfully.

[AlecBGreen]

14. yeesh

"Nuclear power is not superior in any way to fossil fuels."

How bout this one: fossil fuels produce CO2 whereas nuclear power plants do not.

[losthills]

15. How about...

Nuclear power produces radiation, where fossil fuels do not.
Or
Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that remains deadly for centuries, where fossil fuels do not.
Or
Nuclear power is, in fact, dependent on fossil fuels to mine the uranium that nuclear power plants use for fuel. These mining operations, in fact, burn up tons of fossil fuels and lay waste to vast tracts of land, disrupting and endangering wildlife and indigenous people and poisoning the landscape and water tables with more radiation.

And, in fact, nuclear power, far from being an "alternative" to fossil fuels, cannot be utilised without massive inputs of those very same fossil fuels it claims to replace....

[Dead_Parrot]

16. So, you're back to defending fossil fuels? no suprise there, then.

You forget, of course, that coal contains uranium: Any plant burning it (like the US's largest silicon smelter, for instance) is pumping radioactive material straight into the atmosphere, whereas nuclear plants actually manage their waste.

But I look forward to you posting a picture of someone hoisting a wind-turbine nacelle using a hand-cranked crane.

[losthills]

20. That's just talking points...

You must be desperate to get those free MP3 downloads and McDonald's gift certificates they promosed you.

Don't hold your breath....

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Seriously dude...

...doesn't it trouble you that about half of what you say has no basis in reality?

[losthills]

26. Seriously Dude?

Post something serious, just for an experiment, one time. We would all like to see it. You are just a propagandist, and once people see that all your words are disreguarded.

Here's your chance to redeem yourself. Drop all the bullshit and say one thing that you really believe.

If you can....

[Dead_Parrot]

28. You have got to be kidding.

Listen sunshine, I've been posting on E/E for years. I've weighed in on topics from thermohaline circulation and subsea clathrates to the causes of the Permian extinction and the carbon cycle to the green revolution and the mechanics of the Milankovitch cycles. During those years, every damn time I have presented something as a fact I have a reference to back it up, either from a scientific journal or a research organisiation. And it's not that hard - Jpak, Bananas and Struggle4progress can do the same 99 times out of a hundred, and while I may dissagree with thier positions I have respect for the way they argue them.

On the other hand, you seem content to present things as facts with no ability to justify you position.
You've claimed the effect of particulate emmisions on the albedo is "A crock of shit".
You've claimed you live in a renewable-only community that makes it's own PV-grade silicon.
You reckon the radioactivity from coal is just a "talking point".
You've claimed Japan only has reactors to build weapons, which is pretty fucking sick, then gone on to make a joke about Hiroshima library. Classy.

You seem unable to discuss any actual science along with your one-liners. Newsflash: Ecology is a science. Climatology is a science. Electrical Engineering is a science. Hydrology is a science. Nuclear physics is a science. Meterology is a science. Biochemisty is a science.

In fact, pretty much everything on E/E is science, with a smattering of politics thrown in for good measure.

If you are uncomfortable with that, maybe you are posting in the wrong forum.

[losthills]

30. I love personal attacks from neo-con shills.

It shows me I'm on the right track.

Gracias, Amigo....

[AlecBGreen]

21. ok, lets reset

Im NOT saying nuclear is the cure-all, Im not saying coal is clean. I AM saying that we, as a DU'ers and as environmentalists need to stop making these broad generalizations that make us look foolish. There are facts flying around here left and right, more than enough to support arguements for any point of view. When we start saying "ALL NUCLEAR IS BAD!" or "STOP BURNING OIL NOWWWW!" we look foolish and we do a disservice to our cause.

[losthills]

24. There are people in this group who aren't environmentalists

and that is the problem with this forum, with DU and with this thread. If anyone is not an environmentalist, then I have no use for them or their opinions, whatsoever. Human civilization is an important subject, but the environment is *the* subject.

The nuclear shills are only in it for money. The character of our civilization is going to change. Our generation is going to shape that change. Uranium and fossil fuels are running out. Those who sell both are desperate to keep them both going as long as they can. They both need to be repudiated and retired, and the sooner the better.

The replacements for these two poisons are both in our hands. All we have to do is use them....

[hunter]

33. I consider myself an environmentalist.

I actually have a bachelor's degree from a very good university in that science.

Of course my true love is evolutionary biology...

Anyways, speaking as someone who tends to be a fairly hard core social justice leftist and environmentalist, I often have trouble with your posts, losthills.

[Massacure]

19. I'm sure a lot of French would disagree with your point that nuclear power is not economical.

Three quarters of their electricity is nuclear based.

[losthills]

22. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

France's nuclear industry is wholly owned by the government, and it is an adjunct to their nuclear weapons program.

[Massacure]

27. France's healthcare industry is also run by the government, and no one complains about that.

Other than Americans anyways. :eyes:

[FREEWILL56]

17. China isn't into renewables is false.

There are now many items coming from China that have just recently been given our stamp of approval (UL listing). There are also many items that were already in place here from China(under the guise of owned here, but built there). Do they use them? I would imagine that as many that can afford to do it there that are interested just as here in the USA, but don't quote me as I have never visited China. I would say be more critical of here as more can and should be done here, but we just can't get people to see the point of paying huge sums of money for solar pv systems that cost far more than that of the utility electric costs.

[FREEWILL56]

34. Here's something on China's renewable goals.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49875&src=rss

[NNadir]

12. I assume then, that you're in favor of defunding renewable energy.

You apparently believe that only fossil fuels work.

Oh, wait a minute. I can't wait. I'm going to hear the same shit I always hear from people who call nuclear energy is a failure and renewable energy is a success.

Here's more of the same anti-nuke math:

2,625.57 < 115.9

17 is the same as 9,875,025,233,377.

Chalk is cheese.

Underwear is like the Brooklyn Bridge.

A dog is the same as the planet mercury.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls


http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

If you can't read a table, you can't tell that nuclear energy is the largest single form of climate change gas free energy, by far.

How much more obvious can two tables be?

Of course you can't get into the Institute of Anti-Nuke Pseudosciences if you can compare two numbers.

[phantom power]

11. So... who's going to foot the bill for the alternatives?

[losthills]

13. If you like to do math...

Calc out the cost of building one modern nuclear power plant and divide it by ten thousand dollars to see how many homes you could outfitted with solar or wind systems for the same price. Then calculate the cost of maintaining one of these deployed nuclear weapons for five years and divide that by five thousand dollars to see how many more homes could be taken off the grid (the price went down after the first wave of solar/wind retrofits.) Then calculate the cost of operating one of these death bells for twenty years and divide it by two thousand dollars to see how many additional homes could be freed (the cost continues to go down with volume.)

Then calc out the medical costs associated with treating the unexplained cancers of the citizens living downwind of thes mausoleums and see how many homes those dollars could outfit with free renewable energy.

Then calc out the costs associated with mining and enriching the uranium to power this obsolete 1950's death trap and see how many homes those dollars couls empower.

Then calc out the costs associated with one major nuclear accident, and see how many homes those dollars could free.

Then multiply the total number of homes by the number of nuclear power plants it would take to replace all the coal and oil burners in this country.

Sorry, my calculator is broken, but I just did the math in my head and it came out to 300,000 homes freed from the grid.

Not bad....

[Dead_Parrot]

18. A few questions on your math, if I may...

-Is your $10k for a complete system with storage/backup? If not, please explain why you think these components are unnecessary. If so, please explain why you think the price of storage/backup would drop by such a dramatic amount when batteries have been around for several hundred years and are used in a number of other applications
-Please explain why, if PV is going to follow some sort of price drop as more is built, the current price of PV is higher now (at around $4.80/W) than is was in 2004 ($4.30). Have there been no installations in the last 3 years?
-Please point out where you factor in the cost of recycling the used panels: Alternatively, please explain where you think they should be dumped.
-Finally, please explain where the $10k comes from in the first place. Do you suggest people save up? Or that the government should fund it? or will more money simply be printed? Please include figures for how you intend you roll it out to India, with references to their projected GDP.

Thanks.

[losthills]

23. I never said that you are dumb...

I know that you can answer these questions for yourself. And so can any reader. And they can also see that your questions are disingenuous. So I won't embarass you by dropping the word, "Shill..."

Do ypur homework, and get back to us...

[phantom power]

29. Let's look at what $10K can buy...

Inverter: I'll use the sale price at $2500 (you could get to $1,000 but only if you want to limit your home to a 1 kilowatt)
That leaves me with $7500. I actually found some panels at $4.53/watt, so that could buy me 1600 watts. Notice this system isn't balanced well, since the inverter can handle more wattage, although it would leave room for expansion.

I think the balance-point would be at about 2 kilowatts, although I haven't found a 2 kilowatt inverter.

My air conditioner uses 4 kilowatts. And before you say "well you should move," remember that the cost of "moving the population of Phoenix to Minnesota" will run lots more than $10K per houseold.

In all this, I have completely ignored the cost of a storage system for use when the sun isn't shining, or the cost of the additional power required to keep the storage system topped off by sunset.

So nobody is getting "off grid" for $10K. Not even close.

Meanwhile, a gigawatt is generally considered sufficient to power 500,000 homes. So you are proposing trading in a plant that was powering 500,000 homes for a bunch of solar panels and inverters that will maybe partially power 300,000 homes. And only when the sun is shining, since we couldn't buy them any storage or surplus capacity to fill it.

[losthills]

31. You should get a swamp cooler.

They actually keep your home more comfortable for about 1/10th of the electricity...

[phantom power]

32. They're efficient, but I've had some terrible experiences with them.

The evap cooler we had in our previous house destroyed our air duct system with rust. I spent two days up in our crawl-space patching up our air ducts with sheet metal. We had been dumping our AC (and swamp) into our roof, without realizing it. Which went a long way toward explaining our $380 electric bill in August.

Then there's the cost of replacing pads each year, and all the other components that get rotted out by the hard water. I once ended up replacing every component except the $#@!@! frame.

In our current house, we decided to have the evap cooler removed. We upgraded the insulation.

Most people seem to be happy with theirs, although homes I've seen with evap coolers tend to have rust visible on their air vents, and a musty smell in the house from too much humidity. If I ever did install one again, I would definitely mount it to the side of the house, not on the roof. So when it rots out and starts leaking it won't destroy the ducting system.