New nuclear power plant costs appear staggering - Page 2

 This is going to be my last post on this thread because it is going NO WHERE....  All it will take is "one" disaster or near disaster (be it from internal or external influences) for another public out cry to ban them again.  I hope you can still feel good about yourself when that happens.  You will get your "seeing is believing" answer and it won't be pretty one.

The posting by Dana on the Nuclear Power real cost report is excellent information. Hopefully Policy makers will give it serious consideration as they further develop DSM and Alternative Generation programs and mandates that drive the market to the best life cycle and least environmental cost practices for our Utility co's.

The appeal of nuclear - both its low cost fuel and  positive impact on mitigating carbon gas emissions  and overall low carbon footprint for the technology  appears to be greatly outweighed by the excessive capital costs and business risks over the long construction cycles.  We need to reduce greenhouse carbon gases and the capital cost trends per kw  for competing alternatives like solar and wind, etc.,  continue to decline which is good news.   The only limiting factor for them is their lower capacity ( duty hours of service with out storage) factors. Wind is averaging 33% and solar in high 48 % and in some cases gaining as they add retention heat systems to maintain steam levels to spin the turbines. They do have more of a carbon footprint than advocates sometimes realize ( the mining, metal, forming energy and deployment which needs input energy - fossil fuel too ) But are positive overall for sure.

So it does  not look as promising as some Nuclear supporters have touted the past few years when the former Greenpeace activist went public in his support for Nuclear to combat Global Warming. Which is a real benefit! However,  The lack of a good grid intertie nationally and limited wind resources makes the south East part of US the only area where the utilities seem to be willing to Bet the Farm on new nuclear capacity. Globally it is different story as there is over 200 plants planned. The number could be more.

For example,  China and India have announced massive plans for over 125 Nuclear  units over the past 4 years .Both have access to dirty but cheap coal......???but then maybe they get it when it comes to carbon emissios and global warming, etc, or they are real fast learners and our recent deposed leaders didn't get it!  Several smaller countries  around Africa and Meditterean are turning to Nuclear more so for Desalinating of water reasons and then for electricity.  Maybe its the design of their plants that is superior versus these high costs for our domestic developers???interesting ???One wonders what do they and Arreva ( the International French based co )know that we don't know??? Makes one wonder.  

Anyways we are importing over 84% of our nuclear fuel now and tho we have some mother lode deposits , the political support for recovering them is not in place....so the miining and processing infrastructure is lacking.

At 18 to 22 cents per kw for Nukes - there are too many other viable options in efficiency and alternative sources that should be more aggressively promoted and pursued. Demand destruction will occur at 20 cents per kwhr thats a no brainer.

Wind is getting down to 3.5 to 5 cents per kwhr and with compressed storage it can be used strategically to serve critical peak loads and reduce peak loading etc. Of course there is an added upfront costs for the storage wells and compressors but it could give wind a more beneficial role.

The new development of three major Natural gas fields , Marcellus back east with up to 52 trillion and then the Texas Barnett Shale at 30 trillion followed now by the Haynesville fields straddling Tx /La /Ark 70 trillion  and growing  ....folks thats another 152 trillion cubic ft of natural gas or more as the Marsellus may have up to 100 trillion recoverable per USGS.. The country had around 45 to 60 years supply at current usage for America of 23 trillion per year.  A Weather adjusted number. So when these new big fields are added we have some gas to use more than previously thought and that only helps Wind more as Utilities have learned they need to back up wind farms with gas turbines which they can operate in a modular  backup mode on an as needed basis, so we consumers dont pay for stranded assets, etc.  there is a saying on the Prairie that  wind and gas go together like a horse and carriage as they compliment each other well. 

Wonder what this does to the feasibility of coal gassification for power?  I always thought that we should turn it into low sulphur and emission liquid diesel for the transportation side and reduce imports by 35% and the end of this war for oil politics that has strangled us for so long...but another subject for another time. thanks for the great post Dana      Nuclear  option fading perhaps unless some other game changers occurs.

The posting by Dana on the Nuclear Power real cost report is excellent information. Hopefully Policy makers will give it serious consideration as they further develop DSM and Alternative Generation programs and mandates that drive the market to the best life cycle and least environmental cost practices for our Utility co's.

The appeal of nuclear - both its low cost fuel and  positive impact on mitigating carbon gas emissions  and overall low carbon footprint for the technology  appears to be greatly outweighed by the excessive capital costs and business risks over the long construction cycles.  We need to reduce greenhouse carbon gases and the capital cost trends per kw  for competing alternatives like solar and wind, etc.,  continue to decline which is good news.   The only limiting factor for them is their lower capacity ( duty hours of service with out storage) factors. Wind is averaging 33% and solar in high 48 % and in some cases gaining as they add retention heat systems to maintain steam levels to spin the turbines. They do have more of a carbon footprint than advocates sometimes realize ( the mining, metal, forming energy and deployment which needs input energy - fossil fuel too ) But are positive overall for sure.

So it does  not look as promising as some Nuclear supporters have touted the past few years when the former Greenpeace activist went public in his support for Nuclear to combat Global Warming. Which is a real benefit! However,  The lack of a good grid intertie nationally and limited wind resources makes the south East part of US the only area where the utilities seem to be willing to Bet the Farm on new nuclear capacity. Globally it is different story as there is over 200 plants planned. The number could be more.

For example,  China and India have announced massive plans for over 125 Nuclear  units over the past 4 years .Both have access to dirty but cheap coal......???but then maybe they get it when it comes to carbon emissios and global warming, etc, or they are real fast learners and our recent deposed leaders didn't get it!  Several smaller countries  around Africa and Meditterean are turning to Nuclear more so for Desalinating of water reasons and then for electricity.  Maybe its the design of their plants that is superior versus these high costs for our domestic developers???interesting ???One wonders what do they and Arreva ( the International French based co )know that we don't know??? Makes one wonder.  

Anyways we are importing over 84% of our nuclear fuel now and tho we have some mother lode deposits , the political support for recovering them is not in place....so the miining and processing infrastructure is lacking.

At 18 to 22 cents per kw for Nukes - there are too many other viable options in efficiency and alternative sources that should be more aggressively promoted and pursued. Demand destruction will occur at 20 cents per kwhr thats a no brainer.

Wind is getting down to 3.5 to 5 cents per kwhr and with compressed storage it can be used strategically to serve critical peak loads and reduce peak loading etc. Of course there is an added upfront costs for the storage wells and compressors but it could give wind a more beneficial role.

The new development of three major Natural gas fields , Marcellus back east with up to 52 trillion and then the Texas Barnett Shale at 30 trillion followed now by the Haynesville fields straddling Tx /La /Ark 70 trillion  and growing  ....folks thats another 152 trillion cubic ft of natural gas or more as the Marsellus may have up to 100 trillion recoverable per USGS.. The country had around 45 to 60 years supply at current usage for America of 23 trillion per year.  A Weather adjusted number. So when these new big fields are added we have some gas to use more than previously thought and that only helps Wind more as Utilities have learned they need to back up wind farms with gas turbines which they can operate in a modular  backup mode on an as needed basis, so we consumers dont pay for stranded assets, etc.  there is a saying on the Prairie that  wind and gas go together like a horse and carriage as they compliment each other well. 

Wonder what this does to the feasibility of coal gassification for power?  I always thought that we should turn it into low sulphur and emission liquid diesel for the transportation side and reduce imports by 35% and the end of this war for oil politics that has strangled us for so long...but another subject for another time. thanks for the great post Dana      Nuclear  option fading perhaps unless some other game changers occurs.

More rational arguments from you own left coast.

http://media.www.thesantaclara.com/media/storage/paper946/news/2007/11/08/Opinion/Nuclear.Energy.Cheaper.Cleaner.And.Better-3087296.shtml

Feel free to ignore evidence.

i beg to disagree.

i own about one millionth of this little darling. already generating, and five more going in over next couple of years.

and a share in a wind farm for the big watts. put your money where your mouth is indeed.

Gerda and Dana you both make great points and the Badger up in Minn well at least he trys to sell and install  Geo thermal heating  and other efficiency.  Badger I have worked all over the traditional energy side and pioneered some alternatives too. I realized from the data I was presented in the early 1980's that the Industrial Ntions had to begin a transition over to cleaner sources and wiser overall usages of all energy and other resources like Water.  Desalinating Water may be the best use for Nukes perhaps.  But the Marginal costs for Nukes, Coal  greatly exceed the economic, social, resource and possibly security costs for the Alternatives.  Its rapidly becoming less economic for large central stations and alternatives offer energy in more modular sizes that can be integrated into our economy , etc.

Recently Duke Power , in North Carolina announced that they were going to build 2 - 700 megawatt coal plants , 77 % cleaner than 1970's vintage and the original cost was $ 2. 8 billion...thats billion...well after 6 years of planning they now  are only going to build  1  plant that is 1 plant and it will cost $2. 5  Billion......you see the large cost increase for only 1 unit.  the law of diminshing returns has set in. alot of conservation was done at a cost much less than the billions for the plant and plant costs are out of control and there are no greenies to blame either...its economics and change....embrace it.

The nuclear industry doubled their asking price when the price of oil went up and people started looking for alternatives.  The cost did not go up, just the desire for profit. 

It would appear that the mayor at my location is pushing for a nuclear plant.  Incidentally, the mayor has been buying land and sees this as a way to make money for himself.  The locals expect the price of their properties to triple.  All of the power would be for export.  I don't think this is a good business proposition and I certainly don't want the volume of nuclear waste from a large facility stored in my backyard.  If someone else wants the power, they can have the waste too.  Manitoba already produces more than 4 GW from hydro and uses only 2.5 GW.  Manitoba has another 4 GW of hydro and 5 GW of renewable biomass yet to be developed, all at substantially lower cost and environmental impact than a nuclear plant.  The power produced would be flowing down the same transmission lines and competing for the same customers.  Are the customers going to buy power at 10 cents per kW-hr from hydro/biomass or 25 cents/kW-hr from nuclear?  

This only my inference about Ontario, but for most purposes Ontario is a thin heavily populated stip of land between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario.  The infrastructure to the north and west is not well developed.  Building a hydro dam involves moving a lot of equipment and materials.  Ontario probably decided at the time that the cost of getting the materials in place and building the dams was more than the cost of building nuclear plants close to the population centers.  With hindsight it was not the best choice.  In Manitoba we have easier access to hydro dam sites by railway to the port of Churchill and by water up Lake Winnipeg.