Recent costs analysis of nuclear power

[kristopher]

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

Posted with permission:

FINDINGS
Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows:
• The initial cost projections put out early in today’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s.
• The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections.
• There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society.
• The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.
• Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.
• The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Whether the burden falls on ratepayers (in electricity bills) or taxpayers (in large subsidies), incurring excess costs of that magnitude would be a substantial burden on the national economy and add immensely to the cost of electricity and the cost of reducing carbon emissions.

APPROACH
This paper arrives at these conclusions by viewing the cost of nuclear reactors through four analytic lenses.
• First, in an effort to pin down the likely cost of new nuclear reactors, the paper dissects three dozen recent cost projections.
• Second, it places those projections in the context of the history of the nuclear industry with a database of the costs of 100 reactors built in the U.S. between 1971 and 1996.
• Third, it examines those costs in comparison to the cost of alternatives available today to meet the need for electricity.
• Fourth, it considers a range of qualitative factors including environmental concerns, risks and subsidies that affect decisions about which technologies to utilize in an environment in which public policy requires constraints on carbon emissions.

The stakes for consumers and the nation are huge. While some have called for the construction of 200 to 300 new nuclear reactors over the next 40 years, the much more modest task of building 100 reactors, which has been proposed by some policymakers as a goal, is used to put the stakes in perspective. Over the expected forty-year life of a nuclear reactor, the excess cost compared to least-cost efficiency and renewables would range from $19 billion to $44 billion per plant, with the total for 100 reactors reaching the range of $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Download full report: 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
Severance Analysis

Posted with permission:

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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It has been an entire generation since nuclear power was seriously considered as an energy option in the U.S. It seems to have been forgotten that the reason U.S. utilities stopped ordering nuclear power plants was their conclusion that nuclear power’s business risks and costs proved excessive.

With global warming concerns now taking traditional coal plants off the table, U.S. utilities are risk averse to rely solely on natural gas for new generation. Many U.S. utilities are diversifying through a combination of aggressive load reduction incentives to customers, better grid management, and a mixture of renewable energy sources supplying zero-fuel-cost kWh’s, backed by the KW capacity of natural gas turbines where needed. Some U.S. utilities, primarily in the South, often have less aggressive load reduction programs, and view their region as deficient in renewable energy resources. These utilities are now exploring new nuclear power.

Estimates for new nuclear power place these facilities among the costliest private projects ever undertaken. Utilities promoting new nuclear power assert it is their least costly option. However, independent studies have concluded new nuclear power is not economically competitive.

Given this discrepancy, nuclear’s history of cost overruns, and the fact new generation designs have never been constructed any where, there is a major business risk nuclear power will be more costly than projected. Recent construction cost estimates imply capital costs/kWh (not counting operation or fuel costs) from 17-22 cents/kWh when the nuclear facilities come on-line. Another major business risk is nuclear’s history of construction delays. Delays would run costs higher, risking funding shortfalls. The strain on cash flow is expected to degrade credit ratings.

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

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

[earth mom]

1. NO NUKES! nt

[maryf]

84. Of any kind!! nt

[Robb]

2. This looks like a good read.

Bookmarking for the baby's next nap. :D

[kristopher]

4. It is well worth at least scanning the entirety of both documents.

They are detailed and complete assessments so even if you don't need to get the specific details, getting a glimpse of what the nuclear industry routinely omits is well worth the few minutes it takes to review the layout.

[jwirr]

3. This is just another old fashioned jobs program. There was a nuke

plant in Texas that took 17 years to complete and when they were done it was out of date and they had to redo it. The TVA plant took 22 years with the same results. I don't know if either plant ever went on line. Another prop for a dying economy.

[Statistical]

5. Only reason solar & wind are even close to competitive is due to MASSIVE subidies

Per Department of Energy report (2007)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf (pg 106)

Fuel Type.......Subsidies Power Generated Subsidy per MWh
Fossil Fuels....$2937M..3237B kWh = $1.10 per MWh
Nuclear.........$1267M...794B kWh = $1.59 per MWh
Geothermal........$14M....40B kWh = $0.92 per MWh
Hydroelectric....$174M...258B kWh = $0.67 per MWh
Solar.............$14M...0.5B kWh = $24.34 per MWh (15X that of nuclear)
Wind.............$724M....31B wWh = $23.37 per MWh (14x that of nuclear)

Total of all subsidies for power: $6748M or about $1.65 per MWh on average.

While nuclear did receive $1.3B in subsidies in 2007 it also generated nearly 794 BILLION kWh.
That works out to about $1.59 per MWh (or less than 0.2 CENTS per kWh).
In line with other forms of power (geo $0.92, hydro $0.67, fossil fuels $1.10)

Solar and Wind combined received $0.8B (60% of nuclear) in subsidies yet only generated a combined 31.5 BILLION kWh (3% of nuclear).
That works out to a staggering $23.40 per MWh or about 15x the subsidy of any other form of power. That is simply a shell game and unsustainable.

Without that massive and unprecedented subsidy (works out to 25% of wholesale power cost) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The massive subsidy for wind & solar hides their true costs

[FBaggins]

6. That's not really true.

At least, not in quite that way.

There are going to be "massive subsidies" any time you want to develop/refine a new technology without waiting for it to occur. If new solar (or nuclear or wind) technologies were likely to be profitable right away there would be dozens of companies trying to fight for market share.

You can either allow this to happen "naturally" within the normal course of business (venture capital, etc) or you can accelerate the process by providing the funding necessary. Almost every one of those projects will lose money, but that's not the point. The point is to get to the second third and fourth generations of the technology (which WILL be competitive) as quickly as possible.

The question isn't "are they competitive now?" but "are they potentially competitive 20/40/60 years from now?" - There's no indication that any of them will get (or need) subsidies in order to operate profitably at that point. The earliest wind generation cost over ten times what we may pay a decade from now.... but we wouldn't be here without the "massive subsidies" that got us from there to here this quickly.

The same thing can be said for nuclear power. The first (likely the first few) new reactor(s) can't possibly be "close to competitive" without a big time subsidy (and since they are massively more expensive than alternative options, that means a massively larger subsidy per unit). But without it (combined with a strong program to standardize the design) they likely can't be built. Smaller ones, maybe... though it would add significantly to the timeline... but not large ones.

[Confusious]

7. So what should we do?

Since we need that power right now?

Wait 20/40/60 years and burn more coal? The reports say we don't have that long.

Without a massive breakthrough in PV, they are already close to the limit on how much power they can generate at 40% efficiency.
Considering the limitations of silicon and germanium, I don't really expect it to happen.

Besides that, your first generation argument is bogus. There were PV's back in the 70's. We're not in the first generation, this is the 3rd or 4th generation.

[FBaggins]

12. Spend the money of course.

If you need the power faster than it would come on line on its own... and you want specific (i.e., cleaner) sources than would appear if the power companies were going to do it on their own (i.e., build a new gas-fired plant)... then you're going to need to make it happen. And that mean paying for it.

Besides that, your first generation argument is bogus. There were PV's back in the 70's. We're not in the first generation, this is the 3rd or 4th generation.

That's not PV... this was a discussion about a much wider spread of options. The current "ready to buy and be installed right now" options aren't going to get the job done. What we need (if we're going to replace fossil generation) is a combination of wind with storage, solar with storage, next-gen hydro (wave/tidal), and nuclear. All of these share aspects with my "first generation" example.

PV doesn't really get us there unless more effective ways to "bank" that power are developed. I personally think that the other options have more promise, but to the extend it can be worked out, those technologies also need funding.

[Confusious]

13. I don't think anyone of us that are for Nuclear

Is arguing for nuclear alone. We just see it as a stop gap measure to bring solar, wind and others online.

[FBaggins]

15. I'm not anti-nuke

I think it's a big part of a greener future (and possibly a future WITH energy rather than without)...

...but I don't consider it "stop-gap"... I think it should replace large portions of the required base load (coal/gas/oil) and stand right next to wind/water/solar for the forseable future (until fusion becomes an option many decades from now).

[Statistical]

16. Well on long enough time frame a couple decades is a stop gap.

I mean nuclear power has such high capital cost and neligible fuel cost (fuel runs about half cent per kwh) that once you build a plant it will be used for its entire lifetime (GenIII+ plants that is 60 years plus another possible 60 after retrofit and inspection).

Still 60-120 years isn't that long compared to history of mankind.

I think nuclear can be a 60 year "stop gap".

Fusion seems to be progressing well.

Current fusion reactor with most progress is JET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
Magnetic Field Strength: 3.45 Teslas (roughly 100,000 time more powerful than the earth's magnetic field)
Peak Output: 16 MW
Output Duration: less than 1 second

ITER will go online in 2018.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
Magnetic Field Strength: 13.5 Teslas
Peak Output: 500 MW
Output Duration: ~1000 seconds

If ITER shows promise then likely we will see first commercial test plant (DEMO) in 2030.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

Magnetic Field Strength: 20 Teslas
Peak Output: 2000 MW
Output Duration: continual

Most likely fusion reactors will replace the majority of non-renewable forms of energy by 2060 - 2080 which is around the time that nuclear reactors being built today will reach end-of-life.


If fusion works it likely will completely replace nuclear and fossil fuels so nuclear in that sense is a "stop gap" of about 100 years (1950s - 2060). A hundred years is a blink in the history of the universe.

[kristopher]

18. Investing in nuclear DELAYS the response to climate change and energy security concerns

In no way can investing money in a suboptimal solution be viewed as the preferred path to a goal.

...new nuclear power is so costly and ed on empirical U.S. market data, it will save about 2–20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20–40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners — efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls “micropower,” comprising distributed renewables (renewables with mass-produced units, i.e., those other than dams) and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat in factories and buildings.

Four Nuclear Myths - AMORY B. LOVINS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE 13 October 2009

[Confusious]

42. If you live long enough

You realize that sometimes you're given ONLY suboptimal choices.

Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are not going to be able to take care of all demand today, so why would they be able to take on more? The energy this country uses has not stayed flat for the past 30 years, it has grown. What about adding electric cars to the mix? then we will need 150%-300% more energy then is produced today. Where does that comes from? A 500 mile by 500 mile solar array?

As for LOVINS, he's part of that same crap report you keep pushing.

[kristopher]

46. That is false.

You've shown by your previous posts that you care nothing for factual analysis of the capabilities of the involved technologies. Your mode of operation is to continually repeat false facts as if they were true.

Support your claims or it is obvious you are clearly trying to mislead people.

[Confusious]

58. Please, by all means, PROVE IT

I have posted studies from the government and reputable scientific mags, I have posted facts and backed them up with links.

You, on the other hand, have done neither, and now just throw out accusations which you can't prove. It is you, in fact, who are trying to mislead people.

I fully expect your next post to be "I know you are, but what am I?."

At that point, the mentality of your arguments would be increasing. At least then you would be addressing something in my post.

[kristopher]

68. No you haven't "posted studies" from ANYWHERE.

[Confusious]

75. I'm sorry, I forgot about your memory

I've posted on multiple threads on this board about nuclear energy, and posted multiple links.

The board has a search, and you can look them up from there.

I'm not surprised you don't remember, you probably didn't read them because they contradict everything you want to believe.

Which, of course, is a standard for a zealot.

[Zoeisright]

95. Yes it does.

Not one more penny for poisonous nukes.

[Zoeisright]

96. Do you not understand that it takes 10 YEARS for a nuclear plant to go online?

We need that power right now. So start building solar and wind power plants. They can be up and running in months, not years, and do NOT create POISONOUS WASTE.

And YOU haven't answered what we're going to do with that cancer-causing waste, with its half-life of millions of years.

[Statistical]

98. Not it doesn't. Japan built 4 in 4 years. China is building 6 in 5 years.

It isn't like you can only build one at a time.
So while it may take 5 years to build one it isn't like you can't down something like this

2011 - build 2 - complete 2016
2012 - build 4 - complete 2017
2013 - build 4 - complete 2018
2014 - build 6 - complete 2019
2015 - build 6 - complete 2020

You could have 20+ reactoes online producing more power than all wind, solar, hydro, geothermal combined in less than a decade.


The first 60 or so plants in the US were built on average in 3 to 6 years. It only started taking a decade in the late 70s and that killed nuclear power for 30 years. In the span of 1960-1965 a nuclear power plant went online every 4 months.

If the next plant in the US takes 10 years you have nothing to worry about. Nobody will be even remotely interest in them. Remember finance charges are capitalized during construction. The difference between 5 years and 10 years is literally double the price. Nuclear energy goes form extremely profitable to more expensive than retail prices if construction time doubles.

The first plants to be built in Georgia will be a big test. If they are ontime (5 years) and on-budget (8 years) we will see dozens maybe even 50 more reactors in next couple decades. If they are behind schedule and over-budget expect nuclear power to die in the United States.

[Confusious]

99. No it doesn't

Newer reactors can be online in 5 years. Solar and wind take just as much time. You can't just plop down a solar panel and start generating, not if you want to get more then a few volts out of it.

The "cancer-causing waste" as you put it, will only be dangerously radioactive for less then 100 years.

It will be low level radioactive for hundreds.

If it has a half-life of a million years, you don't have anything to worry about.

carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years, the earth makes it, and you take it into your body. it's more radioactive then something that is radioactive for "millions" of years.

But as for that waste, how about this:

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

[kristopher]

108. Zoeis not only right but being very generous to nuclear.

Looking at a wide range of data Jacobson places the time required for construction at between 10-19 years.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Section 4 IIRC.

[Confusious]

109. You're still posting that crap study

That has been show time and again to be false, sloppy work and not scientific at all. The author had conclusions and tailored his data to fit it.

And I know you won't remember, so I will repeat myself:

Nuclear war should not have been included as part of the carbon cost to build nuclear reactors, because you don't need a reactor to build a bomb. The "little boy" bomb was U235, which comes from separating the U235 from normal uranium.

Scientists don't keep part of study when one part is suspect, they throw the entire thing out.

[kristopher]

112. That is your opinion. It doesn't reflect the way such an analysis is performed, however.

[Confusious]

114. No, it is not an opinion

It is fact, FACTS learned by taking SCIENCE classes.

All it proves, BTW, is that you have idea about how science works. you, and the author.

[kristopher]

17. The complaint by Stats has no merit.

Aside from being an attempt to distort the record on subsidies by drawing boundaries that are designed to create a favorable impression of nuclear power, the fact is that both analysis referenced are a tally of the TOTAL COSTS of nuclear power. There is no attempt to use subsidies to distort the numbers that allow us to view the LEAST COST option from the view of total cost to society.

July 2000
NEW REPORT INVESTIGATES FEDERAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Study finds nuclear power harvests lion’s share of government investment in nuclear, solar and
wind

Washington, DC--A new report released by Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP-CREST) examines U.S. government spending on energy technologies. According to Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power--96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.

“What’s really surprising is the relative start up costs for these technologies,” said Roby Roberts, REPP’s executive director. “Nukes received much higher levels of government support per kilowatt-hour when they first started than either wind or solar power.” Roberts continued, “And subsidies heaped on nuclear power have not been cheap. Since 1947, cumulative subsidies to nuclear power had an equivalent cost of $1,411 <1998 dollars> per US household, compared to $11 for wind, for example.”

Marshall Goldberg of MRG & ASSOCIATES, an environmental and economics consulting firm, wrote Federal Energy Subsidies. The report provides a qualitative analysis of hydropower development and offers charts and graphs to illustrate over 50 years of government spending. Findings also indicate that subsidies themselves are often an essential component in technology development.
“It requires a great deal of money to establish an energy technology," said Dr. Adam Serchuk, research director for REPP-CREST, “and very few have reached maturity without public investment. Of course, it takes more than subsidies to develop a technology. In the case of common consumer products, such as the fax machine, recycled paper or the cell phone, more subtle public policy measures such as setting standards or government purchasing have often made a big difference.”

Visit <http://www.repp.org> for copies of: Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal by Marshall Goldberg.
Raw data used in the report and other supporting information is available from REPP-CREST’s web site as well.

[Statistical]

22. The amount of subsidies per MWh (power delivered) has perfect merit.

The subsidy amount per unit of gain is what is meaningful.

If I have two programs:
Program A uses $1 million in subsidies to create 1 job
Program B uses $10 million in subsidies to create 50 jobs.

By your "logic" we should axe the $10 mil program because it costs 10x as much. The reality is on a per job basis the second program is far better use of taxpayer funds.

In 2007 (latest year stats are available):
Nuclear got $1.3 billion in subsidies and solar/wind got $0.8 billion.
However nuclear delivered nearly 25x the emission free power with only 60% more subsidies.

Maybe it isn't "fair" that nuclear hit mass adoption 40 years before solar & wind but the reality today is that nuclear delivers far more clean energy than solar per $1 in subsidies.

Of course unlike you I support wind, solar, AND nuclear energy. I am just pointing out that nuclear is not unique is receiving subsidies however it is wind/solar that receive a disproportionate amount relative to their tiny output.

[FBaggins]

24. But that raises the question...

...what did "nuclear" DO with $1.3 Billion? Were any plants expanded/started or had their useful life extended?

If no... I'm not sure that "subsidy" is the right word.

[Statistical]

30. Despite building no reactor in 20 years output has increased every year.

* Capacity factor (measure of actual vs theoretical output) has risen from 72% to 92%.
* R&D into alternative fuels like MOX will allow creation of fuel from nuclear "waste".
* Higher burnup rates generate more power and go longer between refueling.
* Reactors built in late 70s and early 80s had their operating lifespans extended from 40 years to 60 years (will operate until 2030s).
Older reactors were shutdown after 25-40 years, retrofitted, brought up to latest safety standards and put back online (will operate until 2040s).

So while no new reactors have been built in last 20 years it isn't exactly like nuclear science has been halted for two decades.

The most important thing is the subsidies prevented utilities from abandoning nuclear in favor of billions of tons more coal. The sad reality is coal is insanely cheap. No form of power except hydro can even come close to matching it. If the only thing that mattered was profits and cost of generation we would burn 100% coal 24/7/365 until we burned ever gram of it off the planet.

Subsidies reduce the cost differential between emission free power and coal. Other than simply banning coal and accpeting higher power rates they are a necessary evil to prevent utilities from killing the planet even faster.

[FBaggins]

36. And which part of that needed to be "stimulated" ?

Those all sound like things with very recognizable cost/benefit calculations that utilities should be able to do without being paid (in direct subsidy).

Subsidies reduce the cost differential between emission free power and coal.

Sure... but so do mandates. You don't need to "subsidize" a profitable option just because there is a MORE profitable (but less clean) option. You need to penalize the less-clean option.

But that wouldn't make Byrd etc very happy, would it?

[Statistical]

43. I agree.

I have absolutely no problem with ending all subsidies on nuclear power if
a) all subsidies on fossil fuels are removed
b) subsidies on wind/solar are cut in half
c) more money spent on researching fusion.
b) a carbon tax of $45 per ton is implemented.

Just be prepared subsidies help the poor more than the rich.

The combination of the above would raise cost of electrical generation by about 4 cent per kwh greatly helping nuclear, wind, solar to be more competitive. However that would raise retail electricity costs 30%-50%. Now I can afford that but can lower income Americans?

Subsidies come from fed govt and income tax makes up the lions share and the lions share of that is paid for by rich. The subsidies reduce power costs to all Americans and energy makes up a larger portion of budget for lower income Americans.

So while I have no problem with no subsidies they are a necessary evil unless we tax carbon and accept higher energy prices. Neither of which are bad ideas in my book but there will be unintended pain (especially for lower income Americans).

[joshcryer]

105. A carbon tax irrevocibly changes the landscape. It would make nuclear competitive.

[kristopher]

26. False.

Your logic ignores the benefit of the massive amount of subsidies that nuclear has historically received.

IF the situation were reversed and wind/solar/geothermal had received 96.3% of all alternative energy subsidies since 1947, what then would your 2007 snapshot reveal?

It is dishonest.

[Confusious]

83. No, your post is dishonest

The photocell wasn't invented until the 1970's. What were they going to put the money into? A trust fund for the eventual invention of a Photocell?

As far as wind or geothermal, those have only come around in the past few years, with it just being recent that we can place power plants away from the continental zones. As for wind, the past 20 years have seen the invention of materials that make wind viable.

Try again.

[FBaggins]

23. Who is it that is ignoring "total costs" ?

Well... most likely everyone... but certainly you and Jacobson.

He's talking about 100 Trillion (globally to be sure, but the US would certainly be the biggest piece)... but that just scratches the surface. He explicitly ignores transmission and infrastructure changes (not to mention replacement of cars/planes/trains/etc)... at least another 100 Trillion. Likely quite a bit more.

[kristopher]

27. If you'd like to have a discussion on an unrelated subject feel free to start a thread.

I'll be VERY happy to meet you there.

[FBaggins]

33. Saying "Pot calling the kettle black"

Right after the pot does so... is very much "on topic".

[kristopher]

37. You are just making yet another unsubstantiated assertion to divert the discussion.

If you want to discuss Jacobson's ideas on total costs to move away from fossil, I'll be VERY happy to meet you at the tread you start on the topic.

[FBaggins]

47. Easy to claim...

...when the clearly "substantiated" part can be labeled "off topic".

Quite convenient... as is your ability to play fast and loose with the facts.

Don't get me wrong. I understand WHY.

If you want to discuss Jacobson's ideas on total costs to move away from fossil, I'll be VERY happy to meet you at the tread you start on the topic.


I offered more than once... you ran away.

[kristopher]

50. Start a thread.

[FBaggins]

53. Thanks anyway... I know you couldn't live by the rules.

But as I said... if you want to pick a SINGLE topic and stick to it until it's run to ground. I'm happy to school you.


Edited 45 minutes later (and after several other posts by you)... just as I thought. No reply.

What could possibly be offensive about insisting on game-playing restrictions? That it... unless your position requires such games to be played.

[Pavulon]

38. MIT 1, Lawyers 0. Sources are important.

The central premise of the 2003 MIT Study on the Future of Nuclear Power was that the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to mitigate global warming, justified reevaluating the role of nuclear power in the country’s energy future. The 2003 study identified the challenges to greater deployment and argued that the key need was to design, build, and operate a few first-of-a-kind nuclear plants with government assistance, to demonstrate to the public, political leaders, and investors the technical performance, cost, and environmental acceptability of the technology. After five years, no new plants are under construction in the United States and insufficient progress has been made

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

41. The MIT study was predicated on obsolete cost analysis.

From Severance, page 10

A major MIT study entitled “The Future of Nuclear Power” was published in 2003. Although it
recommended “the nuclear option be retained” strictly because of global warming concerns , MIT also
stated “Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice. Moreover, unlike other
energy technologies, nuclear power requires significant government involvement because of safety,
proliferation, and waste concerns.” The study outlined four challenges — costs, safety, proliferation,
and wastes – that would all need to be overcome for nuclear power to be a viable option. Its
economic analysis was done before recent capital cost escalations occurred, that now indicate much
higher construction costs for nuclear plants. Nevertheless even with low capital cost projections,
the MIT economic analysis found nuclear power to be a more costly method of power generation than
coal or natural gas. (The study specifically did not consider other energy generation options such as
wind, solar, or geothermal.) Only with a combination of very high carbon taxes and several
“plausible but unproven” possibilities to reduce nuclear power costs did the study find the cost per
kWh of nuclear power could be competitive with coal or natural gas.16

Although the MIT study advocated exploring whether nuclear power costs could decrease, what has
in fact occurred since the study was published is a rapid increase in nuclear power plant costs.
The year 2007 was marked by nuclear industry leaders announcing new cost estimates, and declaring
not a single new nuclear power plant could be built unless Federally Guaranteed Loans were available
for construction costs.17 The nuclear lobby did in fact succeed in obtaining authority for $18.5 Billion
in Federal loan guarantees. The need for government backing is extraordinary, as the utility industry
is normally considered to be one of the safest of investments. We do not see industries constructing
coal, natural gas, or even solar or wind generation facilities declaring they have been unable to obtain
private financing and must now rely on Federally Guaranteed Loans.

Early in 2008, the Wall Street Journal and several other publications carried headline news stories
about skyrocketing cost projections for new nuclear power plants, indicating new projections it may
cost $9 billion to $12 billion to build a single new nuclear power plant18 (the estimates were for different
size reactors, therefore both translate into $8000 - $8500 per KW of capacity). ...

He addresses the study in a number of other contexts also.

[Confusious]

45. I still prefer MIT PHD's to a lawyer

On science.

[kristopher]

49. There is no conflict between the MIT report and the later analysis.

Information and conclusions evolve.

[Confusious]

66. Yes they do

But I expect studies on science to come from a "scientist", or economics from a "economist"

It's a hangup of mine.

[FBaggins]

51. No doubt.

Particularly when that lawyer wants to credit his prefered technology with presumed cost decreases over time while playing the game in reverse for technology he doesn't like.

[Pavulon]

48. MIT revision in 2009, does not say that.

so yep I trust MIT more than an environmental law school. Did you see the list of people who wrote that paper.

Its like playing middle school jv vs the saints in a full contact game. Obviously the MIT folks are a bit more qualified.

[kristopher]

52. Bck up your assertions with information from MIT.

[Pavulon]

55. Here ya go.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf

The 2003 report found that “In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.” The situation remains the same today. While the U.S. nuclear industry has continued to demonstrate improved operating performance, there remains significant uncertainty about the capital costs, and the cost of its financing, which are the main components of the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants.

[kristopher]

64. That does not support your claim that the studies in the OP are flawed.

In fact it highlights the information contained in those studies. The "uncertainty" about capital costs has been removed, not only in the US but around the world. The studies in the OP build on the MIT study and assess the industry up to current time. The industry has failed.

[Statistical]

61. The pair of Georgia reactors are $8B overnight cost. That works out to $3400 per kwh.

Not sure why you are so worried kris...

If nuclear really costs $10,000 per kwh nobody will ever build another one.

They simply won't. Hell burning coal AND paying a carbon tax would be cheaper.
If nuclear really costs $10,000 per kwh (which is laugable) there is no need for subsidies on solar or wind because unsubsidized they are less expensive.

Why would utilities want to build the MORE expensive option?

The reality is nuclear costs no where near $10,000 per kwh.

There are 6 deals for nuclear reactors currently planned and none of them are even in the ballpark of $10,000 per kwh.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html (info on proposed reactors near bottom)
* February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

* March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

* May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

* November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

* November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

* On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,<16> at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.<17>

Simply put if the next 2 or 3 nuclear reactors cost $10,000 per kwh in construction costs then no more will ever be built.

[kristopher]

67. The forces behind building the nuclear plants have nothing to do with least cost options.

It is the same entrenched energy industry as fossil fuels and it is intent on preserving its power base (centralized thermal generation) and plundering the public pocket in the process.

They DON'T CARE about how much it costs as long as they can control all supply. Get this through your head - the utilities are MONOPOLISTIC ENTITIES that have been largely deregulated. There are some controls still in place to prevent some of the worst abuses, but the idea that they would endorse policies that would end their existence is naive in the extreme.

The alternatives to nuclear END their existence.

Nuclear perpetuates their existence.

I'm not accusing you of being a climate denier, ok. BUT, you are engaging in exactly the same type of rationalization and dismissal of independent data that the climate deniers engage in. Not only that, but the SOURCE of your reasoning is exactly the same group of think tanks as provide the climate deniers with *their* arguments.

The objective is the preservation of the status quo and continued control of energy markets.

[Confusious]

71. Climate deniers dismiss data from actual "scientists"

not "independent data." They make up their own data, and take bogus studies from the oil and gas industry and pass them off as gospel, just as you take studies from people who have an OBVIOUS bias and pass them off as legitimate. If anyone perpetuates the tactics of the climate deniers, it's you.

The source of our reasoning comes from looking at ALL the variables, not just the ones we choose to believe.

[Statistical]

74. Large scale generation will always be cheaper than small generation.

I can put a PV panel on my roof but the true unsubsidized cost is far more expensive then the cost of a utility building a molten salt thermal solar plant and selling me the power.

I might be able to put a wind turbine on my property but the fact that my house is not in a good wind corridor combined with the insurance costs, and the risk of damage (my area gets hit by hurricanes occasionally) means it would be cheaper for a utility to build a wind farm at an optimal location and then sell me the power.

The current giant wind turbines (50m+) have efficiencies that a small 20ft turbine on personal land will never be able to achieve.

I think I finally understand your hatred of nuclear. It isn't about nuclear. It is about the utilities. You believe increased solar and wind will be the end of the utilities. I hate to break it to you but most people don't want to be their own utility. Most people don't want the cost and complexity (energy storage) to live off the grid. Most people don't want to worry about having sufficient generation to meet their needs.

Even if tomorrow wind/solar made up 30% of the grid 99% of those wind and solar plants would be owned by the same utilities that currently own coal and nat gas plants.

Also your belief utilities build nuclear for control doesn't really even make sense. Why not just build coal, natural gas, or thermal solar. If it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with control. Nobody will ever have a coal, nat gas, or thermal solar plant in their house. They can control generation with those technologies.

[kristopher]

79. I don't "hate" nuclear power.

Nor do I "fear" nuclear power as a local part of the landscape. That doesn't mean however, that I accept it or the dishonest arguments that are used to promote its use.

I've spent a lot of years looking at energy issues in an academic setting for two reasons - energy is the basis of life and I understand life via the flow of energies, and the concern I have about climate change.

IF the evidence supported the claim that expansion of the nuclear fleet would enable a faster transition to a carbon free energy infrastructure I would support its expansion because the associated waste and proliferation problems are less critical than CO2 emissions. However, that simply isn't the case.

Given real world economic constraints we cannot and will not pursue any nd all carbon free technologies. When we spend a dollar on one technology that is a dollar we do not spend on another. If the one we buy is an inferior technology by economics or brings with it high risks of increaed downstream CO2 emissions, then it should not get funding. It is really that simple.

Honest discussion leads inevitably to only one conclusion. so what drives me to distraction are the dishonest antics of the proponents of nuclear power on this forum. It is the use of these strategies and tactics that I object to, and countering that dishonesty is what motivates me.

As to the utilities, I regard them as any other entity that behaves according to the environment that created and nurtures it. I don't hate a cat for being a cat and I don't hate a monopolistic enterprise for being a monopolistic enterprise. At the same time I don't adopt a cat and hope it is going to act like a dog.

Recognizing something for what it is is essential to proper policy formation.

[ThomWV]

8. What a fucking fraud - read the paper

[kristopher]

19. The Nuclear Energy Institute works as hard as the Tobacco Companies to shape public opinion.

[ThomWV]

63. And dam near as hard as the anti-nuke zealots who post here every single damned day

[kristopher]

69. That's funny.

[kristopher]

70. Like you said - Read the paper.

[obamaisbestone]

9. Nuclear power is much SAFER than it was 30 years ago.

This is an area where us liberals need to stop being like the right and clinging to rigid ideals.

[w4rma]

10. They can build the plants without subsidies, then. But, I want any energy subsidies to be used for

DEcentralizing our power supply and on renewables. NOT on burning a resource that will be used up in the not so distant future, such as nuclear.

[Confusious]

11. There's enough uranium and thorium in the earth

To create energy for hundreds of years.

U238 can be turned into a usable power source. Thorium is 4x more abundant then uranium, and does not generate the waste.

[FBaggins]

14. They can and should do it without subsidies (as should other green options)

But you have to get there first. If we wanted to build a dozen space shuttles today it would still be tremendously expensive to build the first one. And then only a little cheaper to build the next 2-3.

"They" can (and should) build plants without subsidies after that cost-per-unit is normalized and they aren't paying for a multi-billion dollar pilot program. That means subsidizing (almost flat-out paying for) the first few AND standardizing the design so that you can get economied of scale.

[kristopher]

29. Nuclear has been heavily subidized since 1947.

It has had its chance and failed to deliver. It is more expensive to build today than ever in history.

[Pavulon]

40. Not according to MIT.

Nuclear power is by far more efficient and sophisticated than any collector based power. Relying on ambient energy will not provide power to serve as a baseline.

[kristopher]

44. That is false.

If you are going to assert that MIT supports your statement then provide a specific reference. Otherwise you are clearly attempting to mislead people.

[Pavulon]

57. Done and Done..

The 2003 report found that “In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.” The situation remains the same today. While the U.S. nuclear industry has continued to demonstrate improved operating performance, there remains significant uncertainty about the capital costs, and the cost of its financing, which are the main components of the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants.

[kristopher]

72. That does not support your claim that the studies in the OP are flawed.

In fact it highlights the information contained in those studies. The "uncertainty" about capital costs has been removed, not only in the US but around the world. The studies in the OP build on the MIT study and assess the industry up to current time. The industry has failed.

[Pavulon]

76. Nope, not what the MIT study says. Feel free to link that.

rather than some push agenda paper.

[court jester]

97. The 5 Largest Solar Power Plants-And guess what? They’re all in Europe.

C’mon North America, catch up!
http://www.solarpowerninja.com/solar-power-government-industry-news/the-5-largest-solar-power-plants-85900/

1. Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park, Spain - The largest in the world, the Olmedilla Photovoltaic (PV) Park uses 162,000 flat solar photovoltaic panels to deliver 60 megawatts of electricity on a cloudless day.



2. Puertollano Photovoltaic Park, Spain - The power generated here is equivalent to the annual domestic consumption of electricity of about 39,000 households.

3. Moura Photovoltaic Power Station, Portugal - The power station will have an installed capacity of 46 MWp, counting a total of over 376,000 solar panels.

4. Waldpolenz Solar Park, Germany - Waldpolenz Solar Park is the world’s largest thin-film photovoltaic (PV) power system. Solar thin-film modules are used, which supplies 40,000 MWh of electricity per year.

5. Arnedo Solar Plant, Spain - The plant produces 34 GWh every year, which will power 12,000 households and prevent 375,000 tonnes of CO2.

and there's this:
Obama’s Nuclear Option by Amy Goodman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/18
Maybe I have enough posts to post it

Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a longtime critic of the nuclear power industry, told me, “If you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to 10 times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about 20 to 40 times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas.”





Goodman will now be
thrown under a bus

[Statistical]

100. Oh this again. combined they produce 350Gwh. A SINGLE nuclear reactor produces 9200 GWh

So take all those solar plants (which took years to build) and do it again 30 times and you have the same amount of power from a SINGLE nuclear reactor.

Starting to get an idea of the scale of the problem?

Solar BTW makes up 2.9% of Spain energy production. Spain imports more nuclear energy from France then they produce from Solar.

[Confusious]

102. And spain STILL only produces 1%-3%

of their power from solar.

Amory Lovins is not a reliable source.

[kristopher]

20. A bad invesstment is a bad investment.

How is it clinging to "rigid ideals" to want public funds spent where they will do the most good rather to to spend them to prop up a dying industry?

The goal is to address carbon pollution and to achieve energy security. Nuclear is a poor choice for those goals both financially and in total social costs. Did you download the Cooper Report?

[anonymous171]

21. Why not pass a federal law that ties nuclear energy funding to alternative energy funding?

Win-Win.

[Statistical]

25. That woudld increase nuclear subsidies by 1,500%.

Nuclear doesn't need that kind of subsidy.

Hell if the subsidies on fossil fuels were removed and $45/ton carbon tax added nuclear wouldn't need ANY subsidy and would be cheaper than any form of fossil fuel.

Rather than increase subsidies we should simply
a) implement $45/ton carbon tax (works out to about $0.03 per kwh for coal and about $0.01 for natural gas)
b) end fossil fuel subsidies (about $1.10 per MWh).

[anonymous171]

28. ACK I've been blinded by science

I feel pretty stupid for not checking this out beforehand. I should have known that OP would be full of misleading assertions. They made it seem like Nuclear was being completely subsidized by the state to the detriment of other alternative resource technologies. Sorry about that :hi:

[Statistical]

31. No problem. Nuclear does receive BIG subsidies.

Nobody is disputing that.

Nuclear also produces a massive amount of emission free power. Thus the subsidy per unit of power generated is much lower than solar/wind.

[kristopher]

32. The OP makes no such claim.

The TWO studies are a complete accounting of the costs of building new nuclear power. The diversion to an unrelated discussion of subsidies is a ploy by a known set of nuclear supporters to discredit by innuendo what they cannot discredit by an actual use of data. Stop playing the shill.

[Pavulon]

34. Shit from a law school vs a study from MIT. Yep, that MIT..Enjoy. and it guts what you posted.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

54. No it doesn't.

[ThomWV]

62. Since when does myth overrule science?

[ThomWV]

59. Thank you very much - a voice of reason with sound science behind it is always welcome

[spanone]

35. corporations cheat and cut costs...they will do the same with nuclear power

eventually the reactors will fail regardless of costs

it's the wrong way to go....it's another finite source

[Pavulon]

39. 30 years is a long time.

30 years ago think about the technology around you. Now look around. During that time reactors have operated thousands of hours with no problems in the US and Western Europe.

[kristopher]

56. Selective

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [email protected]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Pavulon]

60. Yep, we are not the USSR. Not even same type of reactor. DENIED (NT)

[kristopher]

73. When they built the reactor they thought it was safe.

The argument you attempted to refute was that complex systems are bound to fail over time. You claimed there had never been such failures. You are wrong on fact and wrong on substance. Complex systems DO inevitably fail and in the case of nuclear the results of Chernobyl demonstrate what is at stake when such failures occur.
Whether the future failure duplicates Chernobyl is irrelevant to the complexity of design, the presence of human fallibility, and the consequences.

[Statistical]

77. No they didn't. Learn some history.

Graphite moderate reactors WERE ALWAYS known to be unsafe. The very first experimental reactors were graphite moderated however they were never allowed for pressurized water reactors = power reactors for one reason they are positive-void. Even working around graphite moderated nuclear material is incredibly dangerous.

When experimenting with bombs in 1950s a dozen scientists lost their lives over accidents involving material that improves neutrons economy. In this example dropping a neutron reflecting block onto a core of plutonium caused it to go prompt-critical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

This fundamental issue with moderation is and was well known.

Water moderated reactors have absolutely nothing in them that moderates (slows down) neutrons to allow fission other than the water. Without moderation neutrons will simply "bounce" right off the uranium because they are traveling too fast for fission to happen. Graphite moderated reactors use graphite rods to acts as moderators and graphite is a much strong moderator than water.

With water moderated reactor you have a negative-void coefficient. If an emergency as heat rises the water will start to boil forming steam pockets. The steam in those pockets (which is just less dense water) will have a REDUCED MODERATING EFFECT.

More heat = more steam = less moderation = less neutrons slowed down = less fission = less heat.
If acts as a natural safety breaker for the reactor.

Graphite moderated reactors actually work better in absence of water.
More heat = more steam = more moderation = more neutrons slowed down = MORE fission = more heat.
Rinse and repeat could million times and and you have a steam explosions.

There is only advantage of graphite moderated reactors and that is that it can use raw uranium (because Graphite is a better moderator). Eliminating enrichment cuts the fuel cost in half. The sad thing is nuclear fuel is very cheap (about half a cent per kwh), the Soviets killed those people over a quarter penny per kWh.

Graphite moderated reactors have ALWAYS been prohibited for nuclear energy in the United States, Europe, and Japan for the exact reason that the danger was well known from the beginning.

[kristopher]

82. That is a good presentation but it misses the point.

Which is that the people who built the reactor thought it was safe. They depended on a certain set of protocols to ensure that safety was realized and those protocols failed.

The scenario involving failed protocols and potential for mistaken risk assessments is not limited to the single design feature of water vs graphite moderated reactors.

[Statistical]

88. No the people who built it thought is was CHEAP. Everyone knew it was unsafe.

There are even Soviet reports and memos going back 40 years indicating the real risks and dangers involved in Graphite moderation.

The Soviets simply favored efficiency over safety. They knew exactly how unsafe it was and INTENTIONALLY chose to go with the unsafe design because it was cheaper. Then again when Stalin 5 year plan called for killing millions of its own citizens what is the potential accidental death of a "few" thousands.

[kristopher]

90. So you re saying the KNEW it was going to meltdown?

This is what I mean by you arguing like a climate denier. There is no way your position can be defend with reason, because the only possible interpretation of your claim is that you are saying they knew it would melt down.

We KNOW there are risks with ALL compex systems and we evaluate the ability to mitigate those risks with the benefits derived. It is self evident that the decision to build Chernobyl was a benefit/cost decision that weighed the safety protocols with the cost. They believed the safety protocols were sufficient. If they didn't the economic motive we both agree exists simple disappears. It makes no sense to justify a system to save 1/4 cent /kwh when you believe a meltdown will occur.

You can't have it both ways.

[Statistical]

92. Do they not teach history anymore. The Soviets needed to transistion rapidly to industrial economy.

That required massive amounts of power.
They needed to build hundreds of plants in a short amount of time.

The risk of a meltdown was considered an acceptable cost. It may sound crazy in hindsight but remember this is the same govt who mass killed its own people.

They didn't KNOW 100% it would be Chernobyl (of their 116 reactors) and it would melt down on that exact day however just like someone doing something risky they KNEW it could happen.

The cost of the potential meltdown was simply considered an acceptable cost. The quarter penny per kwh may seem cheap and stupid in hindsight however the combined savings was hundreds of billions of dollars. Those hundreds of billions of dollars helped transform the Soviet Union unto a super power.

I am not saying this one choice made Soviets a superpower it was that kind of THINKING that made them a superpower. The decision to put power, might, and industrial strength ahead of all other consideration.

A potential meltdown was just collateral damage in the Soviets overreaching desire to become a Superpower.

[kristopher]

101. Exactly, they evaluated the technology and deemed it an acceptable risk.

Exactly like proponents of nuclear power in the US.

There are SAFER more COST and TIME effective routes to the same goal. Yet nuclear proponents insist that the risks associated with nuclear accidents, huge quantities of long term high level waste, and nuclear proliferation are nonetheless justified.

[Statistical]

103. Now you are just playing word games.

Everything has a level of risk.

You could die in a car crashing going home from work and I could live playing Russian Roulette with a gun.

Still the risk the Soviets were taking was one scientist all over the world (and even in Soviet Union) considered unacceptably high if you value human life.

The Soviets didn't believe the reactor or it presented an acceptable risk to human life. They simply didn't value human life. They simply believed that any eventual human losses were worth it to become a super power. They killed millions of their own people to achieve that goal.

Bringing Chernobyl into the topic is simply an anti-nukker scare tactic that increasingly the public is seeing through.



I can't wait for 2010 numbers. Get that support up to 60%-65% and Congress will be falling all over themselves to insist they are the biggest supporter of nuclear technology.

[kristopher]

107. I don't think that is going to happen.

That poll reflects a very specific set of beliefs regarding nuclear power. It doesn't a question that accurately reflects the either/or choice facing the public- the granting of these subsidies has highlighted the cost to renewable energy of diverting funds.

Also, the poll you've chosen is an outlier. It's no surprise you'd be so selective in your choice, but it simply doesn't represent the bulk of polling.

What is really significant is that it represents an "all of the above option" from among the choices on the survey and STILLL nuclear power polled less than 60%.

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

Gallup Poll. March 5-8, 2009. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar?"
Increase 77 Decrease 8 Not Change 13 Unsure 3

"Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from traditional sources such as oil and gas?"
Increase 39 Decrease 30 Not Change 28 Unsure 3

"Thinking now about nuclear energy:
Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity for the U.S.?" N=512, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

2009 Strongly Favor 27 Somewhat Favor 32 Somewhat Oppose 23 Strongly Oppose 14 Unsure 4
2007 Strongly Favor 22 Somewhat Favor 31 Somewhat Oppose 23 Strongly Oppose 20 Unsure 4
2006 Strongly Favor 22 Somewhat Favor 34 Somewhat Oppose 19 Strongly Oppose 19 Unsure 7
2005 Strongly Favor 17 Somewhat Favor 37 Somewhat Oppose 22 Strongly Oppose 21 Unsure 3
2004 Strongly Favor 19 Somewhat Favor 37 Somewhat Oppose 20 Strongly Oppose 19 Unsure 5
2001 Strongly Favor 20 Somewhat Favor 26 Somewhat Oppose 28 Strongly Oppose 20 Unsure 6

"Generally speaking, do you think nuclear power plants are safe or not safe?" N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B)

Safe 56 Not Safe 42 Unsure 2

[Statistical]

65. Graphite moderated reactors are known to be unsafe and prohibited in the United States

and most sane parts of the world.

There is a reason no graphite moderated commercial power reactor has even been built outside the Soviet Union.
Even the Russians have stopped building them in favor of safer water moderated reactors.

The sad thing is even with the unsafe design the radiation would have been contained if the Russians had built containment building. They didn't because it was "too expensive".

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. Three Mile Island wasn't a Graphite moderated reactor

It was state of the art and considered virtually fail safe when built. Yes new reactor designs are safer at preventing currently conceivable problems, and maybe this time we have all plausible problems accounted for. Or maybe not.

But no design can adequately protect against willful and intentional sabotage, especially if insiders are involved. And that threat needn't be from an Al Quada infiltrator, just any knowledgeable and well placed employee(s) who decide to "go postal" (so to speak). Sure, that would be "insane". Not much comfort from that, plenty of people do insane things and intentionally kill strangers, and more often than not they only get labeled as "mad men" in hindsight. There are other possible man made disasters that can be horrific of course, but virtually none with the potential to not only kill tens of thousands within months, but also to make millions of acres uninhabitable for eons, while altering the human gene pool of millions for multiple generations, not to mention wild life.

[w4rma]

80. +100. I bet the insurance companies covering the nuclear plants will beg for a bailout after that.nt

[Pavulon]

81. Yep, and 20 years later. Not a single death and the pitt study

finds no harm from the event. Guess jane fonda was wrong.

that post is over the top.

[Statistical]

87. Exactly and the emegency coolant system worked at TMI

it didn't work at Chernobyl due to the instability of graphite moderation.

The reactor vessel never breached at TMI. The reactor failed, overheated, and was even badly damaged but the emergency cooling and containment system worked as designed and cooled the reactor core preventing a core breach. Even if the reactor vessel had breached a third level of containment would have kept and cooled the molten core inside the containment building.

None of these systems require human action or response. The operate in a manner that they activate passively. Similar to a fire sprinkler system cutting on when heat melts a seal, or a pressure cooker safety valve pops when pressure gets too high, or how temperature control valve prevents scalding water from reaching the tamp.

It isn't just a bunch of high tech gadgets. Most of the security comes from well understood forces of nature (gravity, convection, circulation, cooling via boiling, effect of pressure changes of liquids, etc.

While the systems can and do fail the reactor is designed such that it would require an astronomical amount of simultaneous failures to breach containment. Gen III+ reactors are even safer with core failure rates 1/1000th of current already safe reactors.

Lastly terrorist killing control crew of a reactor wouldn't accomplish much (depite potential plot for 24). The reactors cooling and control systems can't be overridden. In absence of control from control room (crew dead, destroyed, fire, explosion, etc) the reactor will simply SCRAM and shutdown on its own.

Ask ensho he loves to post every single reactor SCRAM that happens. When conditions outside normal operation happen (loss of communication, loss of power, too much pressure, too much heat, equipment failure, cooling flow rate reduction, etc) the reactor simply shuts down. It doesn't ask "permissions" and it doesn't wait for humans to respond. It just shuts down. PASSIVE SAFETY.

[robdogbucky]

85. Yup, kristopher, learn some history...

20 years after Sacramento voted to shut Rancho Seco, SMUD has diversified energy sources

By Matt Weiser
[email protected]
Published: Sunday, Jun. 7, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 10A
Last Modified: Sunday, Jun. 7, 2009 - 1:59 pm

"...After 20 years and $500 million of demolition and cleaning at the site east of Galt, a visitor absorbs less radiation in this giant cylinder than during a cross-country flight in a jetliner. Yet the place emits a disquieting power – a reminder that energy choices have far-reaching consequences.

On June 6, 1989, Sacramento became the first – and only – community in the world to shutter a nuclear power plant by public vote. With no plan or budget to decommission the facility, the work dragged on for two decades.

The decision changed Sacramento's landscape. Among other things, it prompted Rancho Seco's owner, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, to launch a massive energy conservation program that included planting a half-million trees to blanket California's capital city in shade.

After the vote, SMUD not only had to diversify its energy supply, but it was able to stabilize rates and power delivery..."

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1925559.html



Nuke is not pollution free or a cheap technology. Because of the shutdown SMUD had to pursue cost saving energy producing policies. They even built a natural gas powered station on the old site. Clean up costs were originally supposed to be $281 Million, but it is currently estimated to take at least $500 Million to complete the job. One benefit, much of the 40 million pounds of waste materials from the plant's demolition were sent to a hazardous waste site in Utah.




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Statistical]

89. "They even built a natural gas powered station on the old site"

YEAH FOSSIL FUELS.

That is one of my points. In the absence of nuclear energy utilities (and consumers) will take the path of least resistance and burn more stuff.

Hell it is only fossil fuels right, not evil scary nuclear. I am sure the planet can handle the couple billions more tons of CO2 released each year. Now imagine if every utility took Sacramento's "progressive lead" and shut down all 109 reactors and replaced them with 400 fossil fuel plants belching hundreds of billions of tons of CO2.

Now that would be great.

[kristopher]

91. That's another disingenuous argument.

A buildout of renewables would allow us to shut down the coal plants and provide the vast majority of the replacement electricity from renewables. The natural gas contribution would steadily decline and the amount of dispatchable generation required by the final configurations would be met by biofuels.

[Statistical]

93. Still that didn't happen, did it.

When they shut down the nuclear reactor they COULD HAVE built renewable, however they built a natural gas plant.

That is the reality. The sad thing is the article seemed happy about it. Like someone billions of tons of CO2 was preferable to the "ebil nuclear power".

Sure if you outlawed burning fossil fuels then maybe utilities would be forced to replace nuclear and fossil fuels with renewable. However we (or at least I) live in the real world and you are getting the cart before the horse.

The real world today is:
* fossil fuels are not illegal
* there is no carbon tax to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels
* fossil fuels are far cheaper than renewable

Someday if there are caps of fossil fuels, no subsidies, and a carbon tax then I would agree with you lets scale up renewables to replace all other forms of power however that isn't the "rule of the game".

Thus utilities will build fossil fuel plants to replace nuclear ones. Just like they JUST DID in Sacramento, just like they have done for 30+ years.

[kristopher]

104. Fossil fuels are far FAR cheaper than nuclear. So are renewables.

You continue to pursue your goal without regard to basic reason or facts.

Or are you asserting that all of the efficiency measures, all of the regulatory moves to encourage conservation and all of the renewable energy programs in California are a figment of out collective imagination?

To pretend that the gas plant built at the site is the single lone, action to balance the closing of the nuclear plant is what - honest argumentation?

If you have to resort to such tactics, isn't that a tacit admission that your position is unsupportable?

[Statistical]

106. Who said anything like that?

Sure CA built some token renewable plants, and they like "Green cars" and they promote conservation however in the end the truth is CO2 emissions INCREASED every single year in CA.

Conservation can't eliminate the fact that a plant emitting no CO2 was replaced with one that does emit millions of tons of CO2.
So CO2 emissions went up because a nuclear plant was taken offline by people who don't understand science and got scared. They should be more scared of the damage that nat gas plant is doing to the planet. Of course it isn't nuclear so it must be good.

Despite being "green", despite building more solar than any other state, Despite massive tax credits to subsidize solar/wind both at residential and utility level CO2 emissions still increased.

Instead of shutting this nuclear reactor down and building a DAMN fossil fuel plant, if they shut down 10 of the worst fossil fuel plants and build 2 new reactors next to the existing one they could have actually REDUCED CO2 emissions. However token green is much "cooler" and easier than real science and hard choices.

So CO2 emissions for CA and the US in 2010 will be higher than 2009, and they will be even higher in 2011, and in 2012, and in 2013. The amount of offset these tiny renewable projects can provide is dwarfed by the power of just a SINGLE nuclear reactor. As someone else provided as "evidence" in this thread. Spain has largest solar plants. The top 5 combined despite taking years to build and costing billions produce less than 1/30th of a SINGLE nuclear reactor.

Solar/wind aren't even in the same scale as nuclear and eliminating nuclear simply makes that challenge even bigger.

[kristopher]

111. More of the same old lame reasoning

To make your case you'd need to ascertain the effect that robdogbucky was making - the move to close the plant was part of a move to shift the entire concept of how energy is used in Ca.
USA 12,000 kWh per capita
versus
California 8,000 kWh per capita

When we compare the overall picture for california we see this:
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 1990-2004

Total Emissions in Million Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent (MMTCO2) rose from 427 in 1990 to 492 in 2004, an increase of 15% (the rise occurred between 1996-2001).

The direct CO2 emissions rose from 317 to 356, for a 12% increase.

California population rose from 30 million to about 36 million, about a 20% increase.

In sectors of direct CO2 sources of emissions:

Transportation rose from 161 to 188, an increase of 17%.

Total electricity production rose from 80 to 108, an increase of 35%.

Industrial stayed flat from 66 to 67.

Residential decreased slightly from 29 to 28 (this is mainly home natural gas use)

Commercial stayed flat around 12.

Land Use Change and Forestry Sink stayed flat at around -21.



Conclusions: Most CO2 production sources stayed flat despite a 20% population increase. But in the largest sources, transportation rose with population, and CO2 production from electricity production increased at double the rate of the population increase.

ETA link: http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/actions/HouseholdEnergy.html


Now, are you saying that IF they had not embraced the values that led to the closing of a plant dedicated to PROMOTING THE CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY, they would be producing fewer CO2 emissions than now?

My point is that your argument is simplistic and almost certainly lacking in validity.

Now you could say that if we had embraced nuclear instead of rejecting it, that we would have lower CO2 emissions, but given the economics that doesn't really work either.

The core message is that we need to embrace the values demonstrated by California, and pursue a least cost path to the elimination of fossil fuels.

[Confusious]

115. Somehow you missed the point

I'm not sure how, it seemed to go right over your head. Real easy:

They closed a nuclear plant, with no CO2 emissions, and opened a gas powered plant, that had CO2 emissions.

No CO2 -> more CO2

I think I have puppets around here to illustrate the point, but I'll have to find them.

Nuclear plants that close will be replaced with CO2 emitting plants, because renewables can't meet the demand, and even in those countries that have a head start on us and seem to want it more, are not meeting demand. Except iceland, which has the luck of sitting on a continental shelf. They will not be ready to meet demand for years to come, and in the meantime, we are emitting hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

[robdogbucky]

110. Dear friend

Try to understand. That plant had to go. It had wasted many years, many millions of taxpayers' dollars, and over the alleged life of the plant, it was down more than it was up.

Let me pass along a little anecdote from my personal life. I grew up in the midwest where drinking was the main pastime during the long winter months. As a result of this I believe, many folks become alcoholic, due to boredom, lack of imagination, cabin fever, etc. Long story short, I had a best friend when young who was brilliant in math. He was a whiz. He also drank a lot and came from a family of alcoholics. We lost track of each other after college. I later heard he had finally become a nuke engineer and was working at, of all places, San Onofre nuke plant near San Clemente.

I contacted him, this was in 1981, and visited him during Christmastime when I traveled with friends to Baja for a holiday. When we caught up with him a fter he returned home from work that day, he was drunk. We stayed one night with him in his condo on the beach, and heard of his long travails in moving from job to job, as a nuke engineer doing maintenance procedures in nuke plants around the country. He said it was easy to get the jobs, as they always need nuke engineers to do these maintenance tasks. Well, he had lost a job in Illinois due to his drinking and lost his driver's license due to repeated drunk driving offenses. He thought it was funny, as I believe his emotional development had stalled somewhere back in HS, and he told us while chuckling that the same thing had happened in Louisiana and in New Jersey. He had lost his driver's license in each state and eventually lost his job in nuke plants in each of those states. He was in complete denial that he had any problem. Yet he kept moving from state to state, always able to get hired at a nuke plant.

He used to rise in the morning (which we saw him do that next morning in his condo)and tip a large decanter of Crown Royal he kept on his dining room table into a glass and down about 3 fingers' worth before he could even function. Then we watched him fill a fake sandwich that was inside a baggie, but was actually a flask with a cap in the fake bite taken out of said fake sandwich, with vodka. That was his lunch. He laughed as he left us for work that day, saying he was driving with his license revoked and he hoped they didn't catch him this time because he was having so much fun living in SoCal and doing that job. We left to continue on to Baja and my companions were in horror after witnessing my friend's behavior. I think it was partly the drunken shooting of his .357 magnum out on his condo's deck the previous night that convinced them he was absolutely nuts. At any rate, he died in 1999 of cirrhosis of the liver. I think we are all lucky he did not do something foolish on the job due to his raging alcohol abuse. I often wondered how he could keep getting hired at so many nuke plants, but friends told me that they are in such demand that background checks were rarely done. At least back then.


Just one story about the frail humans that operate nuke plants.



rdb

[maryf]

86. K&R

Thanks!

[robdogbucky]

94. Or kristopher, learn some more recent history

Staff at California nuclear plant fear retaliation

Friday, February 19, 2010

(02-19) 10:07 PST SAN ONOFRE, Calif. (AP) --

Workers at the San Onofre nuclear power plant fear retaliation if they report a safety concern, according to a leaked internal company memo.

The plant, in northwest San Diego County, has been under increased scrutiny by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety problems. Over the last two years, the plant operated by Southern California Edison has increased training, changed top managers and replaced a contractor.

Still, a survey of workers conducted by a commission inspector shows workers fear for their jobs if they report safety issues. The findings were included in a Feb. 3 company memo leaked this week to the environmental group San Clemente Green.

According to the memo, the commission received 63 allegations of safety concerns at the plant between 2008 and 2009, and 25 of the people making the allegations feared retaliation.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/19/state/n070221S37.DTL&type=science#ixzz0g1CC8Aws


Or leaks, stray cats & disgruntled employees/terrorists:

"SAN CLEMENTE — The city's only operating municipal well has been closed until test results can confirm it is untainted by a radioactive leak at San Onofre, officials said today.

"There is no indication that there has been contamination but we will keep it closed until the test results are in," said San Clemente public works director David Lund.
He said the well, located on the grounds of the city golf course, produces about three percent of the city's water. Most of the well's water is used to irrigate the golf course but some of the water is provided to homes.

The well was tested earlier this week when it was disclosed that groundwater located under the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Unit 1 had radiation levels up to 16 times higher than permitted for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency..."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-47425-san-plant.html


Byline: Associated Press

Four black kittens born to a stray cat at San Onofre nuclear power plant are radioactive, but their levels of contamination are falling each day, plant officials said Thursday.

Tests showed the 3-week-old kittens - named Alpha, Gamma, Beta and Neutron - carried radioactive cesium and cobalt, said Dwight Nunn, vice president of Southern California Edison Southern California Edison (or SCE Corp), the largest subsidiary of Edison International (NYSE: EIX), is the primary electricity supply company for much of Southern California. It provides 11 million people with electricity. Co., an owner of the plant.

But the levels were relatively low and should decrease to below-detection levels within 70 days, he said.

The kittens are being cared for by health physics specialists during the decontamination. A dropper for administering liquid medicines, especially one for dispensing medications into the eye.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SAN+ONOFRE+POWER+PLANT+HOME+TO+HIGH-ENERGY+KITTENS-a083904399



Article: San Onofre, Calif., Nuclear Plant Security Warning about Disgruntled Employee.

Article from:North County Times (Escondido, CA) Article date:January 11, 2002 CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2002 North County Times.

Jan. 11--SAN ONOFRE, Calif.--Security officers were warned to watch for a fired maintenance worker soon after he called a former co-worker Friday and threatened to kill "a bunch of people" at the San Onofre nuclear power facility, plant spokesman Ray Golden said Wednesday.

Because of those threats and before his arrest late Tuesday, photos of the 6-foot-1, 210-pound David Lee Reza had been posted at all the nuclear plant's security checkpoints and his employee identification badges had been revoked, Golden said. Photo identification has been required of everyone entering the plant since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123012335.html


Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[kristopher]

113. Thank you. nt