Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Renewable Energy › New nuclear power plant costs appear staggering
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New nuclear power plant costs appear staggering

post #1 of 42
1/5/09 at 12:51pm
Thread Starter 

A new study entitled Business Risks and Costs of Nuclear Power has concluded that the cost of power from new nuclear plants is 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) - three times current US electrical rates.

 

According to ClimateProgress, the report was written by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

 

Further, a recent story in Time magazine recently concluded "new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget."

 

Back to the Severance report:

 

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.

 

Personally my opinion is that the main roadblock to new nuclear power plants is the high cost, and if this report is even in the ballpark, it's simply not a feasible option.  Personally I prefer renewable options which can provide baseload power such as geothermal and concentrated solar thermal.

Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on Green Options

Mom Jessica Alba Shares Her Non-Toxic, Eco-Friendly Vision of the Future
Organic Local Solar Powered Booze
Earth-Friendly Kids
post #2 of 42
1/5/09 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981:

Personally I prefer renewable options which can provide baseload power such as geothermal and concentrated solar thermal.

 

Do you know if there are any estimates on cost for geothermal or concentrated solar thermal?  Just to get a bit of a comparison per kWh.

Reply
Reply
post #3 of 42
1/5/09 at 5:28pm
Thread Starter 

Geothermal is tough because there's deep geothermal and nearer to the surface geothermal, and the cost difference is pretty big.

 

The cost of geothermal electricity currently ranges from about 4 to 8 cents per kWh. The DOE is working with the geothermal industry to bring the cost down to 3 cents per kWh.


The price of geothermal power when purchased through a power purchase agreement (PPA) currently ranges from roughly $85 to $110 per MWh [8.5-11 cents per kWh].

 

For solar thermal, again according to ClimateProgress, many industry experts told me CSP will likely deliver power for well under $.10 per kilowatt hour fully installed in the next decade.

 

Some other figures:


The price per kilowatt hour for systems operating in the United States is estimated to be in the range of 14.5–17.5 US cents/kWh.


Solar thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour, according to statistics from Schott, a German company that makes solar thermal equipment.


Edited by dana1981 - Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:29:39 GMT
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 42
1/7/09 at 9:22am
Thread Starter 

Further nuclear power info in a new ClimateProgress entry.

 

Florida Power & Light estimated that building a new large nuclear power plant in their state would cost $12-18 billion.  A June 2008 report by Moody’s Investor Services Global Credit Research also concluded that any utility engaging in the risky venture of building a new nuclear power plant would experience a significant drop in its credit rating.  And building a new nuclear plant takes 10-15 years.

 

So basically you've got a venture with massive up-front capital costs, huge risks, which takes at least a decade to complete, which will lower the utility's credit rating, and which will in the end produce energy at a high cost (more than wind, geothermal, concentrated solar thermal, etc.).   And that doesn't even take into account the other issues with nuclear plants such as safety and radioactive waste concerns.

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 42
1/8/09 at 11:31am

sorry, i'm a bit fatalistic about this one. our governments have other reasons to keep their fingers in the nuclear pie, its going to happen regardless of the cost, and regardless of how much better the money could be spent.

it made me so angry 20 odd years ago, when the budget for nuclear development was 1000 times the tiny pittance spent on research into renewable energy, but i'm past caring now.

Reply
Reply
post #6 of 42
1/8/09 at 12:19pm

Arkansas is home to Nuclear 1, we also have Coal, a significant amuont of Natural Gas, Hydro and some other renewables.  Now we are prime for some Geothermal in my opinion.  That being said, I found somewhere that our CO2 per kilowatt hour was 1.3, which is below the national average of 1.5 (or something like that).  I always assumed it was because of our Nuclear plant.  We pay .10/kwh.  During a Governor's Global Warming Commission meeting, it was estimated that another Nuclear plant would take no lesst than 18 years and most likely 22 years according to their information/budget.  That is an awful long time and a lot of money to spend.  By the time 20 years has past, we will probably have some other genious way of harnessing energy.  So I don't think it is necessarily the right path, but I certainly don't think Coal is a temporary fix either! And don't even get me started on Natural Gas!!!

Reply
Reply
post #7 of 42
1/10/09 at 6:58am

Forgive me for interjecting a news column with a few varifiable facts.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS205768+06-Feb-2008+BW20080206

 

Facts are tough on feelings but good for the soul.

Reply
Reply
post #8 of 42
1/10/09 at 1:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoilerMN:

Forgive me for interjecting a news column with a few varifiable facts.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS205768+06-Feb-2008+BW20080206

 

Facts are tough on feelings but good for the soul.

 

I'm all for facts.  You may have noticed that my posts contained a few.  But your article discusses existing nuclear plants and their efficiencies, which while all good, does not address the immense costs of building new nuclea power plants.  Which is the issue in question.

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 42
1/10/09 at 6:02pm

So new plants will cost more and will be less efficient than 30 year old plants. More than a little hard to swallow. How do the French do it? Making all of their own electricity with ivy covered nuclear plants and actually exporting electricity (the only country in Europe) starting with US technology decades ago.

 

Government regulations make nuclear power plants expensive. If we fast track them using the French model we would be green as grass in less than 20 years (proven technology).

 

 There is nothing more sustainable nor greener than nuclear, for now or in the foreseeable future.

 

Those who suppose that electric powered anything "save street signs perhaps" is green without the use of nuclear power are mistaken. 75% of our electricity comes from coal plants and less than  half the energy from the coal actually is used at the plug.

 

BTW natural gas has half the carbon foot print of coal and an operating nuclear plant has a carbon foot print of zero.

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 42
1/10/09 at 6:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoilerMN:

So new plants will cost more and will be less efficient than 30 year old plants. More than a little hard to swallow. How do the French do it? Making all of their own electricity with ivy covered nuclear plants and actually exporting electricity (the only country in Europe) starting with US technology decades ago.

 

Government regulations make nuclear power plants expensive. If we fast track them using the French model we would be green as grass in less than 20 years (proven technology).

 

 There is nothing more sustainable nor greener than nuclear, for now or in the foreseeable future.

 

Those who suppose that electric powered anything "save street signs perhaps" is green without the use of nuclear power are mistaken. 75% of our electricity comes from coal plants and less than  half the energy from the coal actually is used at the plug.

 

BTW natural gas has half the carbon foot print of coal and an operating nuclear plant has a carbon foot print of zero.

 

You started playing a little fast and loose with the facts there :-)

 

1) I didn't say anything about efficiency.  Not sure where you're getting that.  I'm talking about construction costs and costs per kWh, and yes, they have increased.  The numbers in the link you cited (1-2 cents per kWh) do not take construction costs into consideration.

 

2) The French do it with a big quasi-socialistic government program.  That's not going to fly in this country, especially with the current economic conditions.

 

3) Essentially all renewable energies greener than nuclear.  Nuclear is certainly greener than fossil fuels, but renewables are the greenest.

 

4) 50% of our energy comes from coal (in the USA), not 75%.

 

5) An operating nuclear plant does not have zero carbon footprint.  You still have to mine and transport the uranium.

 

You know what they say, facts are tough on feelings but good for the soul :-)

Reply
Reply
post #11 of 42
1/15/09 at 2:51pm

I stand corrected, it is the French who generate more than 75% of their electricity from nuclear power. They also recycle nuclear material.

 

We generate 57% - a little dyslexia here;).

 

My point is practicality. Though I admire your personal commitment to a Greener planet - nice scooter - for most people it is just talk. They call me when they run out of heat or hot water, I drive a 4 ton truck to their house, promote and offer them high efficiency solutions and install low efficiency equipment half the time.

 

The construction of solar panels, wind generators and geothermal compressors are hardly cottage industries.

 

Efficiency is Green. So when you plug in your scooter approximately 70% (we agree, the majority of which is created by burning coal) of the potential electricity you use is wasted as heat through generation and transmission. Electricity is not green.

 

Wind, and solar can help but are very inefficient at the moment, will take up enormous territory (mother earth) and will always need a no-wind, no-sun back up. The current practical choices for back up are coal and nuclear plants.

 

Enriched uranium is currently only transported once (delivering potato chips has a bigger carbon foot print).

 

The French government convinced the people (correctly) that nuclear power is safe, clean and efficient. Practical solutions for a power hungry world.

 

The cost per kilowatt is proof of the potential economy/efficiency of nuclear power. The cost of construction has to be amortized over the working life of the power plant. The physical foot print (on Mother Earth) is still the lowest per kilowatt hour.

 

It is interesting that those who so often argue that we have to save the planet at any cost, think that cutting the carbon footprint in half by the use of nuclear power costs too much.

 

Evolution, not revolution, my friend.

Reply
Reply
post #12 of 42
1/15/09 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoilerMN:

So when you plug in your scooter approximately 70% (we agree, the majority of which is created by burning coal) of the potential electricity you use is wasted as heat through generation and transmission. Electricity is not green.

 

Wind, and solar can help but are very inefficient at the moment, will take up enormous territory (mother earth) and will always need a no-wind, no-sun back up. The current practical choices for back up are coal and nuclear plants.

 

Enriched uranium is currently only transported once (delivering potato chips has a bigger carbon foot print).

 

The French government convinced the people (correctly) that nuclear power is safe, clean and efficient. Practical solutions for a power hungry world.

 

The cost per kilowatt is proof of the potential economy/efficiency of nuclear power. The cost of construction has to be amortized over the working life of the power plant. The physical foot print (on Mother Earth) is still the lowest per kilowatt hour.

 

It is interesting that those who so often argue that we have to save the planet at any cost, think that cutting the carbon footprint in half by the use of nuclear power costs too much.


 

A couple of points:

 

1) I don't really agree that electricity is inefficient, because it's all relative.  Compared to gas vehicles, electric vehicles are extremely efficient (including losses during transmission, etc.).

 

2) Concentrated solar thermal has the capability of storing energy for use when the sun isn't available.  Geothermal is always available.

 

3) I do agree that the small physical footprint of a nuclear plant is beneficial.  But then again, you should also consider the much larger footprint of the uranium mine.

 

4) Cost is critical, because we're talking about an expensive process here.  It doesn't matter how green an energy source is if it's too expensive to be practical.  There's only so much people are willing to spend on energy infrastructure, so we need to spend it wisely.

 

I'm a practical person.  Even if nuclear were this environmentally ideal energy solution, Americans aren't going to support a massive socialist-style program to fund nuclear power plant construction.  It can work in France because they have a much more progressive society, so good for them.  It just won't fly here.

 

My other problem with nuclear is the time it takes to set up.  From conception to completion you're talking over a decade, and we need to get green power replacing fossil fuels ASAP. 

Reply
Reply
post #13 of 42
1/15/09 at 3:27pm

Here is an additional resource to throw into the mix. Mark Jacobsen (Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at Stanford University - go Cardinal!) talking about the top 10 best options for energy creation.

 

He recommends:

  1. Wind
  2. Concentrated Solar Power
  3. Geothermal
  4. Tidal
  5. PV
  6. Wave power
  7. Hydroelectric

 

Does Not Recommend:

  1. Nuclear
  2. Coal (with Carbon Capture/Sequestration)
  3. Cellulosic and Corn Ethanol

Video here: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/videos/407_flash.html

 

And his very long paper on the topic is here: http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

 

Reply
Reply
post #14 of 42
1/15/09 at 4:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deej:

Here is an additional resource to throw into the mix. Mark Jacobsen (Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at Stanford University - go Cardinal!)


 

Booooooooo Stanford.  Though I have to say I agree with him, and damn that was a thorough article.  Nice reference deej.

Reply
Reply
post #15 of 42
1/15/09 at 4:03pm

I Just wanted to share something I saw on TV I think I was the Science Channel or maybe the Green Channel. When it comes to the idea of a smaller foot print for more energy I think many people would be surprised at the space that is propossedly needed for Concentrated Solar Thermal. In a online report the Environment America Research & Policy Center, the Environment California Research & Policy Center, and the Frontier Group state that:

"Solar thermal power plants covering
a 100-mile-square area of the Southwest—
equivalent to 9 percent the size
of Nevada—could generate enough
electricity to power the entire nation."

 

The pamphlet is available at www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/EnviroAmer.CSP_Report_5.08.pdf I hope this is interesting to people and helps get and idea of what the scale is for solar thermal.

Reply
Reply
post #16 of 42
1/15/09 at 10:18pm

 I thought a share this too.  :)

 

Maglev Wind Turbine Technologies 

Can power 750 homes or generate 2GW in less than 100 acres of land

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKyV4_RxiX8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Qs2gFlt-o

- It would be great to get a wake up call from this guy everyday.  :)  Good Morning! Let's create a new world...  

Reply
Reply
post #17 of 42
1/19/09 at 12:47am

Another issue negatively impacting nuclear power/expansion is uranium availability.  In 2007, Gerald W. Grandey, the president of Cameco Corporation (largest US domestic uranium producer), told SFO magazine (Stocks, Futures, and Options) that he expects a 3% annual increase in demand for nuclear power for 10 years.  Grandey also says that mining will be unable to keep up with the increases.  And as you said earlier Dana, the credit crunch is keeping building materials scarce and costly, inhibiting new plant construction.  Also, the lack of skilled labor for this type of construction is another challenge.  

 

Nuclear energy is expensive to generate and incredibly capital-intensive to build. Additionally, nuclear power doesn't even appear to be a "stop-gap" remedy until green sources of energy begin to grow into major contributors to the national grid system (which also needs to be re-invented). 

 

And, it is not green at all...........

Reply
Reply
post #18 of 42
1/19/09 at 8:39am
Thread Starter 

Nuclear is definitely not a stopgap because it takes at least a decade to build a new plant - far longer than it takes to build the many renewable options.  If anything it's a large-scale long-term solution, but as you note, there is some question about the amounts of uranium supplies available.  Although using thorium is another possibility, but that's a seperate technology which would take even longer to develop.  And again, the construction costs are a serious problem.

Reply
Reply
post #19 of 42
1/20/09 at 2:48pm

 Check these bad boys out.  ;)  Solar on steroids... 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_uv5htt8mo

Reply
Reply
post #20 of 42
1/22/09 at 12:15pm

 

Here in the real world;
 
I design energy efficient HVAC systems every day, saving money (capital) for people like Dana, who are committed to living as Green as practicable without going Stone Age. I admire their frugal disposition and genuine investment in conservation. Truly "Green" they put their money where their mouth is. I incorporate, solar, wind, and geo, in my designs but what you all seem to advocate is something else again.
 
Irrational hyperbole;
 
 Arguing against (even outright stopping) the time tested, long term solutions, while promoting unproven technology - taking up more land - for the "idea" of conservation.
 
Dana has the right idea when riding his bicycle (just to pick on you a little) but when "plugged in,” adds to the need to build more power plants.
 
But wait, the energy has to be:
 
Wind, no infrastructure, industrial pollution or land usage there. The production of aluminum (a major component in wind gen) is very electricity intensive by the way.
 
Concentrated Solar Power; that should cover Dana's electric scooter for this year.
 
Geo thermal, if you put up the $20,000+ to heat and cool your own home, no capital investment there. Just to put it in personal terms, like it is your money.
 
Tidal, not in my lifetime, but I'm getting older.
 
PV, for light bulbs and street signs for the foreseeable future.
 
Waterpower, what will they think of next, flower mills, gin mills..?
 
Hydroelectric, you choose the natural stream that we will damn up next and I will run it by the folks at Sierra Club.
 
But NEVER:
 
Nuclear, proven technology, (specious, emotion driven, arguments about mining, nuclear waste and capital investments notwithstanding), like there are any capitalists around these parts.
 
Coal, proven, economical, strategic, and cleaner by the year.
 
All solid fuels, nonsense. There is no such thing as a clean coal plant, but we can burn other (ridiculously inefficient carbon based fuels and that's OK). CO2 is CO2, I don't care who you are.
 
Lets get real for a moment.
 
US citizens will not go for "socialist France's" nuclear model, but we will support technology that has not - to date - supported itself, relying now, and for some time in the future, upon government subsidies (socialism). By definition, this is bad business.
 
At some point you guys have to stop patting each other on the back long enough to engage in serious discussions about practical science. Star Wars was just a movie.
 
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 42
1/22/09 at 1:01pm

I just want to throw in a little reminder about conservation. (Again the enormous flaw in this argument:  Americans)  In my irrelevant opinion, we conserve, educate, move to smart grid systems asap.  The energy saved by these steps will prevent the need for most future coal/gas/etc plants.  This buys us time to further develop our technologies.  There are other means out there, whether or not they are based on science fiction at the present moment.  Everything starts with an idea. 

 

In AR we have coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, and I think that is in order of production (maybe switch nuclear and gas).  Our CO2 per kw hour is lower than the national average and we are exporting a lot of electricity.  We are also now home to 3 or 4 wind generator manufacturing plants that create the turbine blades out of fiberglass.  Wind energy almost single handedly protected us from a ridiculous increase in unemployment and I think the economy deserves a look here too.  But the environment should always come first!  We can't just keep popping up coal plants because its the only thing we can think of!  It isn't clean or smart!  No one here is saying eliminate all coal plants tomorrow, but that we should hold off on any new ones until we find the balance between monetary and environmental costs for power!  It is unfortunate, but as this forum has pointed out Nuclear doesn't seem to be very intelligent either.  If the demand is so great that we need the energy from a nuclear plant and are willing to pay the price tag, then I highly doubt we will be able to wait 20 years!

 

Coal is like a cigarette addiction, we keep doing it because of the inconveniences that come when we try to quit, even though it might kill us decades before we should die.

 

One day people in the US are going to have to wake up and say, "Maybe we can't keep taking, maybe if we try to conserve a little more, we can make it by on less." I am highly disappointed that this day will probably never come to American citizens collectively.  I am not supporting any specific type of energy generation, but a collective of all.  Small steps can get us a long way. 

 

Maybe 100 sq miles of solar collectors is a bad idea and I know that solar panels are not nearly as efficient as a solar collectors, but has anyone ever added up the total surface area of all roofs in the US?  Now what about the average sq footage of backyard space in windy areas?  If the government can give vouchers for you to get a free digital converter so you don't have to go without TV, why couldn't they start a voluntary residential renewables voucher.  If people can make hundreds of dollars a month by allowing Verizon to put a phone tower on their property, why don't private energy companies have a similar leasing program for small wind generators.

 

The possibilities are endless, and I think our intention here is to bring the possibilities to the surface.  Welcome new ideas and leave the archaic ones behind, because cheap energy takes a high price from nature!

Reply
Reply
post #22 of 42
1/22/09 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoilerMN:

 

Here in the real world...
 
At some point you guys have to stop patting each other on the back long enough to engage in serious discussions about practical science. Star Wars was just a movie.


 

I have to say, your attitude is a bit irritating.

 

You've been shown several scientific studies discussing why some of us don't support building new nuclear power plants.  None of these arguments were specious or emotion-driven.  They're based on facts.

 

I also don't know why you consider wind, solar, geothermal, etc. energy "unproven".  And I don't know why you disregard the huge subsidies which go to nuclear power when you suggest it's self-supporting.

 

The information has been presented to you.  If you disagree with it, that's your perrogative.  But don't insult the scientific arguments as "specious", "emotion-driven", and compare them to Star Wars.  No offense, but right now you remind me of the global warming deniers who dismiss all climate science as biased/hoax/fraud/etc.

 

I have no problem with discussing the subject in a civil manner, but these types of ad hominem attacks and outright dismissals of scientific studies rather tick me off.

Reply
Reply
post #23 of 42
1/23/09 at 10:30am

 Badger badger badger....  why are you so short sighted?  I read some of your replies and it pretty "incomplete" and "misguided".

 

Let me throw in some questions you might want to muddle around with:

 

1)  How much water is required to cool a "typical" nuclear plant?  What will happen to a plant if there is a water shorten?

 

2)  Yes, there is a large amount of uranium but in very low concentration.  How much of the land we need to turn into a wasteland digging it up?  What will happen if the cost of uranium doubles in twenty years?  Don't you see the problem here?  Producing energy from a limited source....  Here we goes again like we did with oil....

 

3)  How is nuclear power efficient, where 2/3 of energy turns into heat transported by steam?  (Carnot cycle...)  And you can yourself an efficient HVAC tech...?  Shame on you...

 

4)  National security....and it is a big one.  Look at our country's reaction with Iran wanting to start where own nuclear program....  How insecure will countries become in 20 or so years where most of world is on nuclear power and breeder reactors (fuel for dirty bombs)...?  Is it more efficient and safe to have homes, business, and schools to be self efficient or rely solely on the nuclear power?  It will take a lot more bombs to take out most of the homes, schools, and businesses than a couple nuclear reactors...  Plus look at number of jobs it will created as maintenance workers for their systems...

 

5) Reprocessing...yeah.... It is still haven't be proved effective... France cited as the most successful reprocessor only reprocesses 28% of their spent fuel...  How many more years and underground holding areas will it take to get it close to the theoretical 90%+ ?  Wouldn't it be more effective to spend that time developing renewable energy... Look at the jump in solar technology in the past 6 years....  Panels back then were able to produced around 24w and now we have panels able to produce 200+w.  What will the next four years bring?  :)  looks pretty bright with more energy efficient appliances coming out...

 

What can we do folks?  There is only so much we can do to talk some sense into people.  I find it funny how people think about energy and money.  If they can't see pass money or unable to see pass it, then it will be a painful journey for most...  Be prepare and be self efficient and let the people learn from their misguided thoughts....


Edited by seattlite - Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:28:37 GMT
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 42
1/26/09 at 2:24pm

 

Yes it was quite pleasant, as long as we all agreed with the premise. A preconceived notion of what is Green.
 
As for misguided;
 
1. It takes copious amounts of water to cool a Nuke plant, but as it is unaffected by the experience (other than raising the temperature) I'm afraid I miss your point.
 
2. The EPA rules for mining and reclamation are quite strict and effective.
 
3. Electrical production and transmission in general is very inefficient, but one should at least start with an efficient fuel.
 
4. National security only comes up when talking about hard science solutions to the energy crisis; you’ll next try to convince me that you are a pro-military hawk.
 
5. Less time than to build enough PV solar panels, collectors (wait they use steam generates, scratch that) wind mills to make up for one nuclear power plant.
 
Many do-in-fact want to stop all new power plant production (if it is not Green enough). Last week a new generation "clean coal" (a relative term, I know), plant was stopped in its tracks, an action that will, for certain, cause hardship for those who might have helped build it and those who would benefit from the power it would provide.
 
 
Energy IS money, power and security.
 
 I am not against the things you want, but I am a serious worried we will be spending my money like we did under Jimmy Carter. Try to find a "free" solar panel still in operation from the 80's or sitting in line to buy gas or see interest rates run from 11 to 22% in a few short months. This is what an energy crisis looks like.
 
The "scientific" arguments against nuclear power come from people outside the industry e.g. Craig A. Severance, et al. and are largely politically driven and thus tainted.
 
Perhaps a little balance in the conversation and a new set of “facts”: 
 
 
You will note that I am the only skeptic in the discussion, but not for long.
 
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 42
1/26/09 at 2:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoilerMN:

 

The "scientific" arguments against nuclear power come from people outside the industry e.g. Craig A. Severance, et al. and are largely politically driven and thus tainted.  


 

Did you really just argue that people outside the nuclear industry are more biased on the subject than people within the nuclear industry?  Again, you're reminding me of climate change deniers, who dismiss the work of any 'government funded' climate scientist - which is to say almost all of them.


Edited by dana1981 - Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:48:57 UTC
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 42
1/30/09 at 8:41am
Thread Starter 

Here are a couple of real-world examples of what I've been talking about.  Turkey wants to build a new nuclear power plant.

 

The only company bidding, the Russian-Turkish JSC Atomstroyexport-JSC Inter Rao Ues-Park Teknik joint venture, offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Current electricity prices in the country vary between 4 cents and 14 cents per kWh.

 

Finland is in the process of building one.

 

To date, more than 2,200 “quality deficiencies” have been detected, according to the Finnish nuclear authority, STUK. Largely as a result, the project, which was supposed to be completed in 2009, is three years behind schedule and is expected to cost $6.2 billion, 50 percent more than the original estimate. And the numbers could keep climbing.

 

Because residents believed the new reactor in Olkiluoto would drastically cut emissions, there was little effort to promote renewable energy or boost efficiency, with the result that the country is now lagging behind its neighbors. Despite its long, windswept coast, Finland has less wind power capacity than any central European state except the tiny, landlocked countries of Luxembourg and Switzerland. It also ranks near the bottom on energy efficiency, and its record on greenhouse gas emissions is dismal...

 

“We concentrated so much on nuclear that we lost sight of everything else,” says Oras Tynkynnen, a climate policy adviser in the Finnish prime minister’s office. “And nuclear has failed to deliver. It has turned out to be a costly gamble for Finland, and for the planet.”

 

As Joseph Romm ends the story:

 

 

Precisely.

 

First comes efficiency, efficiency, efficiency and then comes renewables, and once you’ve tried everything else twice as hard as you ever thought possible, then and only then should you consider the the really expensive options that need a lot of technological advances, like nuclear and coal with carbon capture and storage


Edited by dana1981 - Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:48:43 UTC
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 42
2/5/09 at 11:50am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/05/nuclear-sweden

Reply
Reply
post #28 of 42
2/5/09 at 11:51am

http://www.controleng.com/article/CA6630853.html

Reply
Reply
post #29 of 42
2/5/09 at 11:53am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7921647/

Reply
Reply
post #30 of 42
2/5/09 at 11:58am

http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/nenp2010a.html

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Renewable Energy

Featured Stories on Green Options

Mom Jessica Alba Shares Her Non-Toxic, Eco-Friendly Vision of the Future
Organic Local Solar Powered Booze
Earth-Friendly Kids
Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Renewable Energy › New nuclear power plant costs appear staggering