Another example of how the CANDU can't

[kristopher]

Refit of nuclear plant still nowhere near completion
Energy: Issues related to refurbishment project will land on desk of new premier early in mandate
BRETT BUNDALE TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL


FREDERICTON - As a new Progressive Conservative government settles into office, one little-discussed issue during the election campaign is casting a shadow over New Brunswick's political landscape: the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant....

Beset by technical problems, delays and cost overruns, the first-of-its-kind refit is now 2½ years behind schedule and nearly $1 billion over budget....

Unless the federal government picks up the tab, New Brunswick ratepayers will suffer an electricity rate shock when NB Power throws the switch on its revitalized Candu-6 reactor, outgoing Energy Minister Jack Keir has warned.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/1247044

[madokie]

1. Rec to no avail

the nukies got to it first

[Nederland]

2. That's the best you can do?

Criticize a reactor first designed in the late 1950's?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

5. It's typical nuclear: "2½ years behind schedule and nearly $1 billion over budget"

[Nederland]

6. Typical Nuclear in the Western World

Somehow the Indians, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are able to build them for less money, on time, and within budget.

I wonder why...

[TheWraith]

7. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the coal and oil funded NIMBY/anti-nuclear crowd.

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

11. The economic stakeholders for coal and nuclear are nearly identical

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x260378

[TheWraith]

37. One article in the Grand Forks Herald as "proof."

Compared to decades of "grassroots" groups being fed and controlled by oil and primarily coal industry PR machines, to try and eliminate the biggest threat to their continued poisoning of the air and water.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

8. No, typical around the world.

I've taken out the references in the first iteration in order to improve readability. Full quote with refs is reproduced below that.

"Following most analysts, the authors of the 2009 MIT study also quote total nuclear-plant costs as "overnight costs" and say that "this total cost, which is exclusive of financing cost, is $4,706/kW"; noting that the earlier (2003) MIT analyses also compared overnight costs, "as described in the MIT (2003) Future of Nuclear Power study," the 2009 MIT authors attempt to justify their interest-cost-trimming procedures by saying that using overnight costs "represents the standard basis for quoting comparable costs across different plants".

Likewise, when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor- construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say nuclear-plant "construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period".

However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years, not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors. Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years. The average UK-nuclear-plant-construction time is 11 years; in France, 14 years; in Japan, 17 years; in Eastern Europe, 15 years.

Nuclear proponents admit that building the latest US reactors took 23 years."

Following most analysts, the authors of the 2009 MIT study also quote (pp. 5–6) total nuclear-plant costs as "overnight costs" and say that "this total cost, which is exclusive of financing cost, is $4,706/kW"; noting that the earlier (2003) MIT analyses also compared overnight costs, "as described in the MIT (2003) Future of Nuclear Power study," the 2009 MIT authors attempt to justify their interest-cost-trimming procedures by saying that using overnight costs "represents the standard basis for quoting comparable costs across different plants" (Du and Parsons 2009). Likewise, when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor- construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say (p. 4) nuclear-plant "construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period" (Du and Parsons 2009).

However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007), not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors. Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007). The average UK-nuclear-plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990); in France, 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007); in Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003); in Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001).

Nuclear proponents admit that building the latest US reactors took 23 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

[Nederland]

17. Your data on Japan is outdated

The paper used as a source is Stoett 2003. Using a data source 7 years out of date means you missed the fact that Japan's most recent reactors (Hamaoka unit 5, completed in 2004 and Tomari-3, completed in 2009) were both completed in under five years.

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=TOMARI&units=&refno=64&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=HAMAOKA&units=&refno=60&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=HIGASHI%20DORI&units=&refno=58&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.prdeta.htm?country=JP&site=ONAGAWA&units=&refno=57&link=HOT&sort=&sortlong=Alphabetic

[txlibdem]

3. I did not have neutron exchange with that reactor...

It's too bad that a 60 year old technology isn't up to the challenges we face in the 21st century.

I guess we'll need LFTR, Pebble Bed Modular, Liquid Sodium-Cooled, or other Generation IV technology.

[DrGregory]

4. what about 60 year old wind turbines?

It's too bad that a 60 year old technology isn't up to the challenges we face in the 21st century.
==================================

What would they say if it were a 60 year old wind turbine -
the kind you used to see on farms for pumping water..

Would they apply the same standards??

Dr. Greg

[txlibdem]

9. We need the most advanced technology we can come up with, no question

It's foolish to argue that we are going to "win" this war against fossil fuels (and they are fighting a war against us, you must believe that) without using the most advanced technologies at our disposal. Bringing a flintlock to an M-16 fight will put you at a fatal disadvantage. You must match your opponent or outgun them if you truly want to win. Here are a few thoughts on what and how might tip the scales in our favor.

The Siemens and GE new wind turbines are both gearless designs. This is an important advancement in wind turbines because of the high maintenance and repair costs associated with the gears and oil lubricants. So my view is that any wind turbine with gears is outdated. That means that two or three year old wind turbines aren't up to the challenges of the 21st century.

If you think about it this makes so much sense. Mechanical gears and linkages wear out, require lubricant, the lubricant needs to be replaced every so often (just like the oil in your fossil burner car). I had often wondered why, in videos of wind turbine fields, you would often see one or two of them not turning like the rest. I just chalked that up to errant winds or lulls caused by the terrain but now I realize that what I was looking at was probably wind turbines with broken gears.

The same holds true with solar PV. The cost per watt is still far too high and installation costs are equally ridiculous. I just can't see the logic in paying an extra $15,000 when the installer company is only paying their workers $150 to $200 per day and you'll never see more than a 3 or 4 man crew, nor will it take more than 2 full work days to install. That may be the Capitalist way (charging as much as you can get away with) but it hurts the solar industry by keeping too many people out of the market.

Note: For anybody thinking about doing a solar panel installation, go to http://www.roofray.com/ to see how much power you could generate. Just put in your address and locate your house on the satellite photo, draw in the area you want to use for solar and whammo! they give you the answer. The site will also calculate the payoff on the solar panels, which told me that if I got a 4.9 kW install it would pay itself off in saved utility costs in 14 years, the panels last 25 years and would at the end of it all give me either a $30,000 profit or a $40,000 profit by calculating savings on my electric bill and either 3.8% or 5.8% inflation in electric utility rates (numbers which are out on the internet - it's like clockwork how the electrical rates go up at regular intervals).

The solar PV technology that could bring the cost per watt down to the magic $1 per watt number is thin film. Right now almost all of the thin film production is being installed in Germany due to their feed in tariff rate that makes installing solar so attractive there. That program is going to end soon so there is hope for us here in the US once the Germans slow down a bit on solar. This will be good for us by putting downward pressure on the other solar panels on the market. The thing that will really put solar PV on the map is building-integrated solar and having all new residential and commercial buildings include solar at the time of construction. After all, they have to be up on the roof anyway so why in effect pay a second team to go up on the roof and partially undo or modify what the first crew did? Passive solar building design should be part of the design from the get go as well. The most efficient electric power is the one you don't have to use, no question.

With solar thermal (aka Concentrating Solar Thermal) we have all the technology we need to use this for a large percentage of our energy needs. The last piece that we are working on is some form of efficient storage techniques that will enable us to build excess capacity, use part to supply the grid during the day and the rest to store up for evening and night time energy needs. There are three basic types of storage systems being tested, molten salt, pumped water, and compressed air. One of these will emerge as the best and most efficient but there may be some use for all of them. Once a clear winner has been announced there is nothing stopping us from ramping up solar thermal power generation in a major way.

Geothermal, like hydro-electric from dams, can provide a small percentage of our electricity needs. The recent experience in Sweden, however, highlights the need to site the geothermal power plant far away from populated areas due to the risk of earthquake activity. Despite the downsides I believe geothermal power plants could generate 10% of our electricity needs.

Where I see the biggest impact from geothermal is in the form of geothermal heating and cooling, which has none of the earthquake downsides of geothermal power generation and are very cost competitive with current heating and cooling systems. Vertical ground loops for the average home would need only a 5 square foot area. Horizontal ground loops need more surface area but can be cheaper because the depth of the dig is so much less (5 to 10 feet versus 300 feet) and can be done with a bobcat, caterpillar or back hoe. Used this way, the only energy used by the system is for the pumps to circulate the working fluid and the heating loops inside the home so your home can be heated and cooled for a fraction of what you're paying now. Northern climes will see the greatest benefit during winter months, the reverse being true in southern parts of the nation. From what I read your heating/cooling bills will go down to less than 30% of previous levels by switching to geothermal.

Tidal hydro power and wave energy systems can also provide a small percentage of our electricity needs, perhaps as much as 10% if we extensively implement wave energy systems.

And finally, nuclear power should provide the remainder of our energy needs. I am particularly disappointed, however, that 100% of the recently approved nuclear plants are Gen III or Gen III+, which are admittedly far safer than the nuclear power plants in service today but are merely an upgrade from the old technology. Generation IV reactors and Thorium cycle reactors (like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) are the ones we should be focusing on. I am hopeful that we will make a rapid transition away from the Gen III and put our money onto the Gen IV.

While we go about getting our energy grid upgraded, we need to run high voltage DC power transmission lines to get the power from the desert southwest and the windswept plains to the populated areas where it is needed, slowly replace our light bulbs and appliances for more energy efficient models, and build out the smart grid so consumers can get paid to allow the utility to reach in and turn off their air conditioner during peak demand times.

Electric vehicles are coming on the market at the end of this year - FINALLY! The Nissan Leaf and The Chevy Volt are leading out of the gate and will be the leaders for many years to come by their early dominance of the market. There will be over a dozen choices for electric cars by the end of 2013 and more by the end of 2015, however, so if either of those do not meet your needs you will have plenty to choose from in just a few more years. Testing shows that an electric vehicle goes either 4 or 5 times farther on the same dollars worth of fuel compared to a fossil burner car. So if you're paying $3 per gallon for gasoline that would be like getting it, instead, for 60 cents a gallon. Would you turn down that deal? Even factoring in battery replacement costs, electric vehicles are cheaper to run until gasoline goes down to below $1 per gallon (by my calculations). Do you honestly think that gasoline will ever get back down to $1 per gallon???

Trucks and delivery vans all run on diesel right now so what can we do about that? There are 4 different companies that offer a solution for that right now. Smith Electric Vehicles has several different designs of trucks for delivering product from warehouse to retail (or to the customer like appliance stores do). Navistar has their own line of electric trucks and have inked a deal with FedEx to provide a few electric trucks as a test fleet. Frito-Lay is purchasing 176 electric trucks from Smith Electric Vehicles. Just to show you that companies are looking to the future and understand the economic benefits of electric trucks for their fuel cost savings and greatly reduced maintenance expense. Ford is coming out with the Transit Connect EV small delivery van of the size a florist or wedding cake shop would find appealing. This will be an exciting segment to watch over the next few years.

Here is what Frito-Lay says about the economic benefit of using electric trucks:

"The Smith trucks, which can carry 16,000 pounds and reach 50 miles per hour, will ultimately be cheaper for fleet operators than the standard diesel alternative," Mr. Hansel said. Although the $85,000 to $90,000 purchase price of the Smith trucks is significantly higher than the $60,000 for the equivalent diesel, he estimated that the electric vehicle would operate for less than 10 cents a mile, compared with 40 cents a mile for the diesel.

"We are also much cheaper in maintenance costs," Mr. Hansel said, "10 cents per mile compared to 20 to 30 cents." He estimated the savings over the lifetime of the vehicle would be $50,000."

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/frito-lay-adds-electric-trucks-to-its-fleet/

Add all of these up and you get to a carbon-free, fossil fuel-free nation. How long till we can kiss coal and oil goodbye? That depends on how much of a push we as a nation put into it. The way things are going we won't see it till long after 2050, which could spell ecological doom for the us and the billions of poor people throughout the world. If we made this a national priority, made it another moon shot or another manhattan project, we could complete the process by 2025 or 2030. Our national security will be in jeopardy until we free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil so the stakes are high and will only go higher.

[kristopher]

10. Fairly good summary but a few problems are present.

The turbines in use today are delivering an extremely high availability factor - far higher than any source other than solar. The availability factor is how much of the time the unit is offline due to unexpected mechanical failures. Gearless design may be the wave of the future, but there are a lot of factors that are going to go into the selection and, as I've shown, the down time factor you've based your conclusion on is nowhere near as significant as you have concluded.

Second is the fact that you continue to promote new nuclear - a position that simply cannot be supported on economic, environmental or social grounds. Channeling money to nuclear power has a distinct negative impact on deployment of renewables while slowing down or stopping policies oriented toward the most cost effective and rapid action we can take to address our energy problems - the promotion of enhanced energy efficiency. So, in point of fact, IF your goal is the most rapid, cost effective and sustainable solution to our energy problems, it is counterproductive to include new nuclear in the mix.

Finally, Germany is not ending their feed-in tariff program for solar, they are merely adjusting the payout downward 17% to reflect declining real costs of solar. After all, the entire point of the program is to develop the market in order to lower cost. They are expecting further cuts in 2012.

ETA Here is one reference for the FIT policy in Germany.
http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog/_a/german_feed-in_tariff_cut_will_be_16-17_-_confirmed/

[txlibdem]

12. A phase out not an abrupt cutoff in my view

The FIT for solar installs on vacant land have already been curtailed. Reductions of 16% and 11% on residential and ex-army bases respectively have been proposed.

I got the impression that the FIT would be phased out over time. I could be wrong but it seems to make sense. The sole purpose of the FIT is to help citizens get solar power despite the high cost. Yet some say that the subsidies have actually caused solar panel prices to go up, exactly the opposite of their intended effect. Some in the German parliament believe that solar is "over-subsidized" already. In addition, there is concern that the solar panels are not performing as expected. Taken as a whole that gives me the impression that the FIT is on its way out.

"The move raises the slim prospect that the cuts, which include a 16 per cent cut to feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar panels and an 11 per cent cut in incentives for solar installations on so-called conversion sites, could be scaled back.

However, the government is set to maintain that the recent fall in the price of solar panels means that the sector has now become over-subsidised."

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2264188/german-solar-incentive-cuts

http://snipurl.com/19ggzd

"Under the proposed cuts, feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar panels would be cut by 16 per cent, while incentives for solar installations on so-called conversion sites would be cut by 11 per cent, and feed-in tariff payments for new solar sites on agricultural land would be axed.

The government maintains that the cuts are necessary as the falling price of solar panels means the sector has become oversubsidised."

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2264910/reports-german-solar-cuts

http://snipurl.com/19gi4j

[kristopher]

13. Be cautious of accepting the thoughts of those aligned with environmental skepticism

I'm not being antagonistic nor blaming you for bad content, but they have perspectives on the issue that are clearly identifiable and you've picked up on one, "The sole purpose of the FIT is to help citizens get solar power despite the high cost."

That isn't the purpose of a FIT at all. The purpose is to encourage progress along the "learning curve". There is a predictable effect on prices that results from an amount of market share compared to the amount of production capacity. This learning refers to improvements in efficiency that results from the commitment of capital to private R&D for product manufacturing and deployment.



There are lots of ways to trim an economic analysis. The same economists that brought us the reasoning, values and slipshod analysis supporting the environmental skepticism movement have also produced a body of work attacking the validity of economic policies designed to respond to the changing climate they do not believe in. When they manage to successfully misidentify the purpose of a program it becomes very easy to draw the boundaries of their economic analysis in a way that completely misrepresents the benefits and costs of the program as it was designed.

[txlibdem]

14. I'll concede the point on the sole purpose of Germany's Feed In Tariffs

I was just grousing that solar costs are still far too high, the need to be 1/3rd of their present levels if we are to avoid a global catastrophe. If climate change doesn't cause disastrous results then peak oil and the political and economic instability it will bring will. In the chart you keep posting, for example, it shows solar providing only 7% of world energy needs by 2020. Without a far more robust growth rate in solar power we will be in a "world of hurt" before alternate energy sources can meet even half our energy needs.

Al Gore put forth a plan for solar power to generate 100% of America's energy needs by 2020. But now we find out that the "The bureau opened federally owned lands in 2005 to solar development, but an examination of records and interviews of officials by The Associated Press showed the program operated a first-come, first-served leasing system that quickly overwhelmed its small staff and enabled companies, regardless of solar industry experience, to squat on land without any real plans to develop it."
(source: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/10/05/1316565_feds-approve-2-calif-solar-plants.html )

This may prove to be the worst thing to happen to our solar hopes and dreams in history. Memories of GM selling the wonderful and fully capable NiMH battery technology to an oil company - basically killing any electric vehicles for a decade - come to mind.

[NNadir]

16. It would BE a catastrophe. It's a very, very, very, very, very dirty form of energy, and batteries

would only make it dirtier.

The ONLY reason that its external costs are overlooked is because it's a failure.

Fifty years of cheering for it have done nothing to generate energy, and far more to generate complacency and wishful thinking.

I don't want my wilderness areas strewn with toxic electronic waste, thank you. If you want solar garbage, put it in your own damn yard, and not all over our public lands.

[kristopher]

19. That wasn't Gore's plan, nor does the anecdote you cite mean much.

This is the plan derived from Gore.
http://repoweramerica.org/solutions/

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your perspective lacks a proper knowledge base on which to build the conclusions you have. For example, let's look at the idea that "solar costs are still far too high, the need to be 1/3rd of their present levels if we are to avoid a global catastrophe."

Where does that conclusion come from? It isn't supported by any of the research that I'm aware of (and this is my specialty) nor is it a reasonable inference that an informed person could draw from the circumstances of the energy technology landscape. So where did it come from?

You also wrote that "the chart... shows solar providing only 7% of world energy needs by 2020. Without a far more robust growth rate in solar power we will be in a "world of hurt" before alternate energy sources can meet even half our energy needs."

Again, I don't mean to pick at you, but there are a number of embodied mistakes in those 2 sentences that would require a considerable amount of time to explain fully.

I don't know what to tell you as far as actions you could take to more fully and accurately inform yourself. You are obviously an intelligent person but any complex issue requires a considerable investment of time to master. In most cases, it also requires the guidance of someone that is an expert in the field to help you navigate a mass of information that includes a great deal of counter-intuitive ideas. For example, the FASTEST way to address carbon emissions is with renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, not nuclear. Nuclear would be one of the slowest technologies to ramp up and deploy.

[txlibdem]

49. Are you sure you're responding to the correct post?

You don't seem to be. I did not mention anything about "nuclear" in the post you are replying to. It was about solar power and Al Gore's goal of getting 100% of our energy from "carbon-free" sources by 2020.

Here's a video of him actually saying that:
http://gas2.org/2008/07/18/al-gores-call-for-100-renewable-energy-within-10-years/

I guess you can state that it is not Al Gore's plan. That's ok, I guess. I just linked to the video where he says it. See for yourself.

As to the "number of embodied mistakes" about my reading of your chart, it is clearly labeled 7% at the 2020 mark. There didn't seem to be much interpretation needed nor any need to take a considerable amount of time. Just read your chart.

I suppose your last paragraph is an appeal to authority. The only problem is I don't recognize you as an authority on either renewable energy or nuclear power so it is not germane. I recognize you as an intelligent person who likes to argue finer points of this or that with people but don't seem to have any true guiding principles. One day you seem to be arguing for solar power and the next you slip and argue against it. I never know where you actually stand. Be that as it may, I'll try to answer the last sentence.

Nuclear power plants that were built in the 1970s were built very slowly, with huge cost overruns and very incompetent government oversight and contracting. None of these issues exist today, not to that extent anyway. I am not, however, a big proponent of the type of nuclear power plants that have recently been approved because they are all light water reactors. I do not see that technology as having any potential to reduce costs enough to enable us to build the number of nuclear power plants we are going to need to avoid a catastrophe in the coming decades. I am a proponent of the Generation IV reactor designs and any that are modular or can be mass produced. I even think that the Traveling Wave Reactor that Mr. Gates is funding is a good option, mostly due to the fact that it does not need any intervention from operators during its useful life and comes from the factory with all the fuel it will ever need.

[kristopher]

51. You don't know what you are talking about.

[txlibdem]

59. I may not but Al Gore sure as heck does!

Watch the video if you haven't already.

[happyslug]

46. As to sitting on Solar Power location, sounds like what happened in the 1970s on the locks and dams

The Dams on the lock and dams on navigable rivers were never designed to provide power or flood prevention, but to hold back water so that the river could be used during time periods where the water was to low. This started in the 1930s on the Monongahela river do to demand by Coal barges, and assumed by the Federal Government in the late 1800s when bigger locks and dams were needed.

In the early 1980s, Congress permitted any municipality that border a river to exercise a right on any lock and dam on that river for Electric Generation. Clariton PA, desperate for cash, agreed to do that for all of the locks and dams on the Three Rivers in Western Pennsylvania (Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela and any other locks and dams in Western PA. Since Clairton was the first to claim, no one else could claim the right to convert those locks and dams to electric power. The rumor I hear was Duquesne Light, the local electric company, had invested so much money in Nuclear power that it was afraid the Locks and Dams could provider electric power cheaper then it could. Given this was at the time the Steel Industry Collapsed (and a huge reduction in electric demand when the steel industry closed down the electric furnaces in Western Pennsylvania). This was a mini-scandal in Western Pennsylvania but was quickly forgotten do to the larger disaster of the Collapse of the Steel Industry.

Now, Locks and Dams can NOT provide reserve power, they do NOT hold back much water, Locks and Dams "pool" water for barges, any excess water (i.e. normal water flow) keeps on going, either through the locks, or over the dam. As such can be a good source of base electric power as opposed to Hydro Electric traditional role as a peak source of electric power (Hydro electric dams are the easiest cheapest and fastest electric generators that can be turned on when needed). Locks and Dams electric generation will be BASE LOAD not PEAK Load, for the locks and Dams do NOT hold that much water back and most of the power will be generated 24 hours a day.

To this day, locks and dams in Western Pennsylvania do NOT generate electricity. They can, but do not (It will also take an expensive retrofit to provide the electric generation, but that has been done on other dams when it comes to the water going over the dam as opposed through the locks).

Just a comment that such sitting on potential energy source is not new, the question is this a usable energy source or is someone grabbing them for later re-sale if and when they become valuable real Estate.

[NNadir]

15. Extremely high? Higher than any source? We'll chalk that up to anti-nuke math...

US PEAK wind capacity (2009): A. 33,542 MWe

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/table4.html

Number of hours in a year (still, all through the 50 years of the wind power fraud):

(2009 and many thousands of centuries before) B. 8766.

US wind energy production (2009): C. 70,760,934 MWh.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/table3.html

(I probably need to explain this to an anti-nuke, since they are very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad at math and science, but a MWh is the same as one thousand kilowatt-hours. I wouldn't need to explain this to a sixth grader, but most sixth graders are far better at math and science than anti-nukes)

C/B = D = 70,750,934MWh/8766h = 8072 MW, average continuous power.

8072 MW/33,542MW = 0.241 or 24.1% capacity utilization.

Maybe in stating that wind has an "extremely high availability factor" you are very, very, very, very, very, very, very ignorant of what actual capacity factors for forms of energy that are not lipstick on the gas pig, but even dangerous natural gas, which is designed in many states (but not California) to be peak load power has much, much, much, much higher capacity utilization factors than these piece of shit grease jacks in the sky you're trying to dump on future generations.

Every fucking "renewables will save us" freak on this board is totally innumerate.

There are no exceptions. They can't read. They can't do simple calculations. They can't make simple comparisons. They can't think. And the couldn't care less about their pals in the dangerous natural gas industry, about dangerous natural gas accidents, or dangerous natural gas waste.

Have you no sense of pride? At long last, no pride? How is it that you post this shit?

[XemaSab]

18. Why are you saying that California doesn't have natural gas peakers?

Or am I misreading?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

20. Lack of knowledge and an ingrained inability to reason characterize your posts

Availability factor: The availability factor of a power plant is the amount of time that it is able to produce electricity over a certain period, divided by the amount of the time in the period.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=define%3A+availability+factor&btnG=Google+Search

This is a measure of the mechanical capability of the plant - how often it is is down for repairs.


Capacity factor: The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time.

This is a measure of output to 100% potential capacity. It doesn't deal with specific causes of non-production.

Poor little feller just ain't got and ain't ever gonna to get a clue.

[txlibdem]

21. Let's compare

Using your 24.1% capacity utilization we can compare the costs of commercial wind farms with the costs of construction of a 1GW nuclear power plant.

Wind turbine cost estimates range from $1.2 Million per MW nameplate capacity to a ridiculously high $2.6 Million.

Taking the lower estimate we get $1.2 Billion per GW of nameplate capacity, but with 24.1% cap. util. that gives us $4.98 Billion per GW of actual output. The median, $1.9 gives $7.88 per and the high estimate of $2.6 gives us $10.8 Billion per GW.

With nuclear power plants slated to cost between $4 Billion per GW and $8 Billion and a less than 100% capacity utilization that makes wind power about equal in cost unless the highest estimate for the cost of wind is assumed. Note that the high estimate was only from one source and I doubt its accuracy but I've included it anyway.

This bickering about actual capacity versus nameplate is a red herring. The costs are about the same. Nuclear power is needed every bit as much as is wind power generation is needed.

I call again (for the umpeenth time!) for the pro- and anti-nuke factions here to stop fighting each other and join forces to help us all better understand why and how to use both of these resources in cooperation not competition.

We have seen the enemy and he is us.

[GliderGuider]

22. The costs look pretty much the same, all right.

That's my conclusion as well. So even my previous objection to the "excessive cost of nuclear" is now off the table.

If we want to continue destroying the planetary biosphere at anything like our current rate we're going to need all the energy we can get, especially if we take CO2 out of the equation. So both nuclear and wind should be considered equal partners in the endeavour.

[kristopher]

23. That is a half assed, uninformed analysis based on an inaccurate bunch of crap/

I tried to to polite, but you just want to persist in pushing the falsehoods.

No one can make you wise up, that is your job.

[GliderGuider]

24. So are the costs of electricity from nuclear and wind not similar in your opinion?

That's the thrust of this sub-thread. I came to the same conclusion yesterday. There are a lot of imponderables, but the cost of electricity generated from the two sources looks pretty comparable at this point in time.

[kristopher]

25. That is typical misleading framing of the issue.

The issue is one that requires more than an inept poorly crafted snapshot of wind vs nuclear.

Open Access Document

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?
Mark Cooper

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. The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections. 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.

The key findings of the paper 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....

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

Now factor in the Holdren estimate that we need 1700 (not 100) reactors to meet just 1/3 of our carbon challenge. That means that the price goes UP as the upstream supply chain is reconstructed to the level required to meet the challenge of building that many reactors fast enough to make a difference - with all the compromises in safety protocols that would entail.

[GliderGuider]

26. No, you just disagree with this framing.

The capital costs of wind and nuclear when adjusted for capacity factors are similar enough to be indistinguishable, as far as I can tell. The consideration of efficiency in your example is a red herring, as efficiency can be added to a system that uses any energy source - it's not unique to a renewable-energy scenario.

The article is trying to create conclusions that justify its assumptions. It's not a scholarly article, it's an opinion piece dressed up with graphs to enhance its air of authority. I am very sensitive to such pieces, because I used to write them...

That article is shit, and this framing is entirely appropriate.

[kristopher]

27. Just goes to show what you don't know...

The article is outstanding and I note for the record you have absolutely no basis for your criticism.

Energy efficiency is NOT compatible with nuclear power. In fact, nuclear power is a part of an energy supply strategy that is at the heart of virtually everything you supposedly (stress that word) hate about modern culture - over consumption.

Large scale centralized generation is built around the premise constant expansion - the more they can drive demand higher, the more money they make. There is zero chance that the world energy market will be nationalized so that profit isn't a primary part of the process we are manipulating in order to address our carbon problems. And as long as that is the case, it is counterproductive to the financial interests of large scale generation to pursue energy efficiency.

Here is the forecast provided by Citigroup on the possibility of nuclear in England:
Citigroup 2008 impact of renewables and energy efficiency

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

For a statistical analysis of the effect of large scale generation (both coal and nuclear) on energy efficiency and renewables, see:
POLICY CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION,COST ESCALATION AND CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. AND FRANCE FOR THE EFFORT TO REVIVE THE U.S.INDUSTRY WITH LOAN GUARANTEES AND TAX SUBSIDIES

MARK COOPER
SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
SEPTEMBER 2010

For the record, the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School is one of the best programs of its type in the nation.



You have completely misrepresented your values. You obviously have absolutely no interest in the carbon issue, your ONLY goal is the promotion of nuclear power. Your opinion is worthless.

[GliderGuider]

29. That's a usage of the word "outstanding" I haven't encountered before.

You have no idea what my interests and goals are, and since you appear incapable of being objective about this issue, I'd ask you not to put words in my mouth.

[kristopher]

30. Your posts establish your goals very clearly.

You are here to promote public acceptance of nuclear power.

[GliderGuider]

31. Is it possible

That I'm doing this precisely because I have an "interest in the carbon issue"? Or, as I asked earlier, do you perhaps think that "pro-nuclear environmentalist" is an oxymoron? I assure you the two positions are not incompatible.

[kristopher]

33. No, it isn't.

IF there were no alternatives to fossil other than nuclear then you might have a point. However, there is a viable BETTER option that you unceasingly go out of your way to badmouth on the basis of NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DATA.

You have no basis for the positions you adopt regarding renewables, you simply do things like saying that a well accepted analysis such as Cooper's is "shit".

[GliderGuider]

36. Define "BETTER"

And please do it in all caps.

When the goal is CO2 reduction, we have to look dispassionately at all the options available. Of course if the goal is not CO2 reduction but rather moral purity, the rules are different.

Cooper's paper is biased. The language alone is enough to disqualify it from serious consideration, though I am thankful that his ideological smokescreen was so thin.

[kristopher]

38. Cooper's paper is an independent review by a highly qualified analyst.

The only bias is the one you are exhibiting when you unquestioningly accept nuclear industry data and call independent analysis by highly qualified individuals "shit".

[GliderGuider]

41. See the commentary on this "review" that I posted below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260210&mesg_id=260515

Others have wildly differing opinions from yours:

This article is criminally dishonest. It brings up a "12c-20c/kWh" cost range for nuclear, and then also cites an MIT study as calling nuclear power "uncompetitive". Which is interesting because I've READ that MIT study, and it concludes the levelized cost for new nuclear power is 8.4 c/kWh - well outside the other range the author quotes. Does the author point out this discrepancy? No; he ignores the inconvenient parts of his own sources, selectively cherry-picking the quotes and datapoints that support his position.

[GliderGuider]

28. An OECD report from this year compares electricity costs from various sources in various countries

The costs given are for electricity generated in 2015 with a couple of different discount rate assumptions.

For a 5% discount rate the study shows wind electricity costing from $0.048 to $0.163 per KWh, with an average somewhere around $0.06; nuclear comes in at $0.030 to $0.082, with an average around $0.06. For the USA the numbers given are $0.048 and $0.049 respectively.

For a 10% discount rate the study shows wind electricity costing from $0.070 to $0.234 per KWh, with an average somewhere around $0.12; nuclear comes in at $0.042 to $0.136, with an average around $0.09. For the USA the numbers given are $0.070 and $0.077 respectively.

The global range of overnight capital costs for construction of the two technologies are remarkably similar, with nuclear at $1556 to $3009 per KW, and wind given as $1821-3716/KW -- though this appears to be relative to nameplate capacity, I don't see any evidence that this has been adjusted for capacity factor.

As I said before, the cost of electricity from the two technologies looks almost identical.

An article based on the report is available here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
The executive summary is available here: http://www.nea.fr/pub/egc/copyright/copyright-exec-EN.html
The full report can be purchased if you are interested.

[kristopher]

32. Trust in the nuclear industry much? Why not accept the fossil industry's view of carbon?

This is the record of the nuclear industry's price predictions.

In order to sell their product the nuclear industry engages all sorts of accounting gimmicks designed to create the appearance of lower prices. With all costs factored in new nuclear is headed towards $0.30kWh.

“All-In” Cost Estimate for New Nuclear Power Cost to Build (“Most Likely” Case)

As noted previously, an “Overnight” cost estimate is not intended to be an indication of total costs to build a nuclear plant. Since construction takes place over a long period, annual cost escalations and the Cost of Capital each become major components of the total capital costs:

“Overnight” Cost Estimate (in 2007 Dollars):.........$4,070/KW
Construction Cost Escalations........................$3,370/KW
Cost of Capital Used During Construction:............$3,114/KW
Total Estimated “All In” Capital Costs:.............$10,553/KW

Capital Cost Component Per KWh (“Most Likely” Case)
Converting the total Capital Costs into the Capital Cost Component in cents/kWh requires the application of a “Capital Cost Recovery Factor” to the total capital costs – effectively converting the total Capital Costs into a “mortgage payment”.34 It is then necessary to spread this “payment” over the number of kWh’s expected to be generated35, to arrive at a Capital Cost Component/kWh:
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST/KWH NEW GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER

CAPITAL RECOVERY PERIOD YRS: 40

WEIGHTED AVG COST OF CAPITAL 14.50%

CAPITAL COSTS COMPONENT PER KWH- NOMINAL DOLLARS

$10,553 PER KW COST MULTIPLIED TIMES CAPITAL RECOV. FACTOR = .1457 = $1,537.40 PER KW/YR

DIVIDE BY: NUMBER OF KWH’s GENERATED PER YEAR/PER KW CAPACITY

AVG. CAPACITY FACTOR OVER PERIOD 80%
NUMBER OF HOURS IN ONE YEAR X 8,760 HRS/YR
EQUAL KWH/YR 7,008 KWH/YR
CAPITAL COST COMPONENT $0.22 PER KWH

<snip>

Total Generation Costs/kWh
“MOST LIKELY” SCENARIO

Projected Total Generation Cost/kWh of New Nuclear Power (In Nominal Dollars in Projected 2018 First Year of Full Operation)

COST COMPONENT..........................$/KWH
CAPITAL COST............................$0.22
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE W/O FUEL........$0.01
PROPERTY TAXES..........................$0.02
DECOMMISSIONING & WASTE COSTS RESERVE ..$0.02
FUEL CYCLE COSTS........................$0.03
TOTAL DOLLARS/KWH.......................$0.30

The “Lower Cost” Case has Capital Costs of $0.17/kWh, thus a total $0.25/kWh.

Most ratepayers nationwide are now paying retail electricity rates (including distribution &
transmission & G&A costs) equal to 6 cents/kWh to 15 cents/kWh current retail electric rates.

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

[GliderGuider]

34. Or the wind industry's views on wind power?

Or Monsanto's views on food? A certain degree of skepticism is always called for when vetting claims by industries.

If either of us comes up with a completely unbiased source I'm sure we'll publicize it. right?

I just don't think that the case for wind power knocks nuclear out of the ring, especially when speaking globally. And since carbon is a global problem, a global perspective is appropriate.

[kristopher]

35. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260210&mesg_id=260493

[GliderGuider]

40. No, that comes from a biased paper.

I went sniffing around to see what others were saying about this paragon of analysis. I found this:

Scientific American in the Era of Confusion

Once again Scientific American has disgraced itself by hyping a shoddy, unprofessional hit peice against nuclear power, this time by a Ralph Nader's lacky. The SA internet post begins:

Nuclear power plants may not emit greenhouse gases, but they sure could suck in the tax dollars.

An analysis by economist Mark Cooper at the Vermont Law School claims that adding 100 new reactors to the U.S. power grid would cost taxpayers and customers between $1.9 and $4.1 trillion over the reactors’ lifetimes compared with renewable power sources and conservation measures.

I will quickly demonstrate that there are many red flags on the Mark Cooper study. Beyond that there is no evidence that Mark Cooper is an economist, his exact relationship to Vermont Law School is murky, and it is questionable if any part of the study was produced in Vermont. The study was not published by the Vermont Law School, and aside from from the cover claim that Mark Cooper is a Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment of the Vermont Law School, nothing links the study to the School. Nothing except the fact that the study can be downloaded from the Institute's web site. Most similar studies will acknowledge the relationship between the study and the institute from which itwas said to have originated. For example, the MIT Study "The Future of Nuclear Power" carries the following inscription

Copyright © 2003 Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. All rights reserved.
ISBN 0-615-12420-8

Curiously the Cooper study carries no Copyright.
The Forward and Acknowledgements of the MIT study notes:

This study also reflects our conviction that the MIT community is well equipped to carry out interdisciplinary studies intended to shed light on complex socio-technical issues that will have a major impact on our economy and society. Nuclear power is but one example; we hope to encourage and participate in future studies with a similar purpose.

We acknowledge generous financial support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and from MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

The Mark Cooper study had no Forward and carried no acknowledgement of financial support.

The Press release announcing the MIT study clearly stated

MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"

The press release for the Cooper study failed to include mention of Vermont Law Scholl asside from noting Cooper's alleged title.

On the cover page of the Cooper study, Cooper is described as a

Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis

But on a Vermont Law School page that mentions the Cooper study, Cooper is described as a

Senior Research Fellow for Consumer Energy

Despite this claim Cooper is not listed among the faculty of the Institute for Energy and the Environment of the Vermont Law School. Indeed I can not find any evidence that Cooper has ever been on the Vermont Law School campus.

HHHHHMMMMMM!

SA readers were not reticent to tell that once august journal that it had uncorked a stinker with its Cooper study story.
Duncan M noted

Renewables at 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That's pretty funny, since they require direct production subsidies of 15 cents per kilowatt hour for wind to 35 cents per kilowatt hour for solar, with no reasonable hope those costs will fall significantly

Meanwhile, nuclear is cost-competitive with hydro in Europe.

This magazine doesn't deserve to keep the word Scientific in its name if it's publishing political jeremiads like this.

Rogeregon responded

LOL! Duncan M, I've noticed, more and more, how Scientific American has been taken over by a bunch of ultra-left wingers who seem to be mostly pushing political agendas, rather than actual science!

uvdiv was blunt

This article is criminally dishonest. It brings up a "12c-20c/kWh" cost range for nuclear, and then also cites an MIT study as calling nuclear power "uncompetitive". Which is interesting because I've READ that MIT study, and it concludes the levelized cost for new nuclear power is 8.4 c/kWh - well outside the other range the author quotes. Does the author point out this discrepancy? No; he ignores the inconvenient parts of his own sources, selectively cherry-picking the quotes and datapoints that support his position.

The report is available for free here:

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

And further when the MIT report calls nuclear power "uncompetitive", it is referring ONLY in comparison with coal and natural gas power, and ONLY when completely ignoring the costs of carbon emissions. In fact, by the studies' numbers, just a very small carbon price would make nuclear as cheap as coal. (2009 update, Table 1)

The cited MIT report also directly conflicts with the "$1.9-4.1 trillion" figure for 100 new reactors. It estimates a capital cost figure of $4/W for new reactors (based on real-world figures from recent reactors in Japan and South Korea, which fell in the range of $2-3/W*, and extrapolating from that with commodity price increases). At the this cost, 100x new 1 GWe reactors would carry a pricetag of $400 billion, which is majorly conflicts with his other (presumably fradulent) numbers. Since when did commercial power reactors reach $41/W???

*These are discussed in a supplementary paper to that report, which is here under "Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power":

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers.html

Again, it is despicable that a self-proclaimed "journalist" would so blatantly misrepresent his sources, twist them to support his political ideals.

To append one thing to my comment - I want to preempt any argument that lifetime operation or decommissioning costs explain away the huge discrepancy with that $1.9-$4.1 trillion figure. Construction costs are by far the largest component of nuclear power costs, and other lifetime costs are comparatively trivial. Again citing the same MIT study (the supplement paper): Table 6C compares these. A full 72% of total costs are the initial construction costs (which would be $400 billion for one hundred 1 GWe reactors under this MIT study). A tiny 11% are operation and maintenance costs, 10% are fuel costs, and 7% decommissioning.

Again that paper is available here for free:

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers.html

Patrice2 commented

Contrary to the study’s finding that “nuclear power cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace” nuclear energy is expected to be among the most economic sources of electricity. To cite one example, an independent comparative study published in January 2008 by the Brattle Group for the state of Connecticut estimated that nuclear energy (at $4,038/kW) may have the highest capital cost, but still produces the least expensive electricity, except for combined cycle natural gas with no carbon controls.

New nuclear reactors have been affirmed as the least cost option for new generation by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. The analyses supporting the PSC reviews found nuclear to be cost competitive with other forms of baseload generation in addition to helping to address climate change.

Various recently-released academic studies have also found the cost of nuclear energy to be competitive.

It’s useful to think of it like this:

• The cost of building advanced reactors is about the same as advanced coal plants with carbon storage, but nuclear energy has the lowest fuel cost over decades of electricity production.

• By comparison, natural gas plants are relatively cheap to build, but the supply and price volatility is a major drawback. The fuel cost for natural gas plants makes up 90 percent of the power cost. The cost of power from coal and gas-fueled power plants would rise in a carbon-constrained world, further increasing their electricity costs.

A new licensing process, coupled with construction and project management experience from nuclear energy projects globally, will provide useful experience with new reactor designs in the United States.

Put simply, credible estimates of the total cost of new nuclear energy facilities show that electricity from nuclear energy will be competitive with other forms of baseload generation.

Finally JimHolf made a point familiar to Nuclear Green readers

It must be noted that while nuclear opponents often claim that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, they are NEVER willing to put that assertion to any kind of market test. Just the opposite. They say they're cheaper, but then insist on policies that prevent any fair market competition between renewables and other means of reducing emissions, including nuclear. Under current/recent policies, renewables are massively more subsidised than nuclear, and there are also outright mandates for their use (regardless of cost or practicality), just in case even those subsidies are not enough. If the relative cost of renewables was anything like this article's study, none of these policies would be even remotely necessary.

I see no point for a further review of Mark Cooper glorified trash talking of Nuclear Power. The Scientific American readers once again have proven that, even if journalists no longer have sound judgement, some of their readers do. While Scientific American's coverage of nuclear issues reflects the current dream era of confusion, it is clear from the Scientific American comments, that some people are very much awake already. Oh for those of you who are curious, Dr. Mark N. Cooper is a Washington lobbyist for the Consumer Federation of America, a Ralph Nader front organization. Cooper's official title is Director of Research. Cooper spends his days talking to politicians not consumers.

Update: Two more Reader comments from Scientific American.
1. dbakerpe

The assertion that nuclear will have high long term costs is based on cost overruns on the first generation plants. It false on its face, because those same first generation plants are now the lowest cost power sources on the grid except hydro. Large power projects are built with borrowed money, so the power is always expensive to begin with to pay back the loans. A new nuclear plant will likely last 60-100 years. After the loans are paid back the power will be cheap. If we are going to have a real economy that produces real products, they are the only environmentally acceptable solution.

2. sethdayal

The MIT 4000 a kw is just a (WAG) wild guess based on suspect figures.
1) It is based on a few Asian reactors with some rather dubious conversions to US Dollars.
2) In the middle of the worst depression in a century it assumes without proof that nuclear plant cost inflation is 15%.
3) It assumes 11% cost of money at a time when public power ie governments can borrow at 3%.
4) Ignored are Westinghouse's sale of four ap-1000 reactors for 5.5 billion to China a little over 1300 a kw and Hyperions sale of six of its 25 mw units for $25 million each again $1000 a kw with 45 mw of free heat leftover to warm the town.
5) Ignored also is Westinghouse's contention that with mass production techniques it can produce these reactors for around $1000 a kilowatt. With a World War Two hell bent for leather lets save the planet from global warning type effort ramping up quickly to hundreds of plants opening worldwide every year, costs for mass produced reactors would drop drastically.
5) It assumes every country is like the US where a large portion of costs are a result of an army of attorneys, bureaucrats and insurance companies lined up for and against any proposed private power company nuclear plants.

Renewables cheaper. What a joke.

Yikes. I'd switch horses if I were you, kris. This one appears to be both lame and blind.

[kristopher]

42. Seriously? You are going with anonymous comments as critique?

That is more crap from people of your caliber. I mean, you don't have to go any further than the first 2 attempts to discredit the paper:

1) "Curiously the Cooper study carries no Copyright."

2) "The Mark Cooper study had no Forward and carried no acknowledgement of financial support."

Answers:
1) Cooper published the paper as an open access document and didn't claim copyright protection because he wants the information distributed.

2) Cooper didn't receive any funding to do the analysis.


Or if you are tired of the nuclear industry's unceasing character assassination, how about the claim further down that there is a direct subsidy for wind of $0.15/kwh when it is about $0.02/kwh.

Why don't you just accept that Cooper and Jacobson have performed good work that contradicts the incestuous output of the nuclear industry and it's organs in the government?

[GliderGuider]

43. I found it interesting that Scientific American readers had about the same reaction as I did.

Try and address the substantive criticisms, please. You could start with this one:

This article is criminally dishonest. It brings up a "12c-20c/kWh" cost range for nuclear, and then also cites an MIT study as calling nuclear power "uncompetitive". Which is interesting because I've READ that MIT study, and it concludes the levelized cost for new nuclear power is 8.4 c/kWh - well outside the other range the author quotes. Does the author point out this discrepancy? No; he ignores the inconvenient parts of his own sources, selectively cherry-picking the quotes and datapoints that support his position.

Face it, it's a hit piece all dressed up to look scholarly. You may agree with its premises and conclusions but others, me included, do not.

[kristopher]

48. I've already replied to that point with the itemization by Severence

I've already replied to that point with the itemization by Severence. It breaks down in detail the full accounting of costs that the MIT analysis avoided. MIT engaged in "data trimming", a nice way of saying they cherry picked their data by unquestioningly using whatever the hell the nuclear industry fed them.

To demonstrate the point let's take a look at the type of inputs and predictions MIT was comfortable using. Next three entries are directly from 2003 MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power".

EIA — Annual Energy Outlook 2003
In the reference case,overnight construction costs are predicted to be $2,044/kWe in 2010... {including} a 10% project contingency factor and a 10% technological optimism factor,which is applied to the first four units to reflect the tendency to underestimate costs for a first-of-a-kind unit. The report indicates a five year lead time for construction.Predicted overnight costs for the advanced nuclear case are $1,535/kWe in 2010, dropping to $1,228/kWe by 2025, also reported in 2001 dollars. The advanced case does not include a technological optimism factor.

DOE-NE — 2010 Roadmap Study {done 2003}
The economic analysis in the 2010 Roadmap study takes a parametric approach to nuclear capital costs, but states that engineering, procurement, and construction costs vary between $800 and $1,400 / kWe.Adding 20 percent for owner’s costs and project contingency, the approximate range for overnight costs is $1,000–$1,600 / kWe in 2000 dollars. Construction is assumed to occur over 42 months,with six months between construction and commercial operation.

Here is a sample of the type numbers MIT was throwing around in the section trying to convince policy-makers that they need more subsidies.

The large uncertain capital cost of a first plant is a critical barrier to nuclear power. This uncertainty is one aspect of “first mover”costs.A simple example illustrates the justification for government action. Assume that there is a probability p that the first plant will have a $1500/KWe overnight cost and a probability (1-p) that the plant will have an overnight capital cost of $2500/kWe,

Expected capital cost per kWe = $1500p +$2500(1-p).

For a realistic probability p, a prospective investor may judge the expected cost of the first plant to be too large to justify proceeding. If the government pays a portion of the difference between the two outcomes, (in this case $1000/kWe),an initial plant will be built and all future investors will have the benefit of knowing the answer — either the plant cost $1500/kWe and many plants will follow,or the plant costs $2500/kWe and no additional plants will be built. -p83 note 3

Now let's look at how another independent expert was addressing costs of a project being planned in Texas in 2008:

Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG Reactors at the South Texas Project Site

Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.

March 24, 2008

A. Main Findings and Recommendations

NRG, a merchant electricity generating company, proposes to build two new nuclear power
reactors, totaling 2,700 megawatts at the South Texas Project site near Bay City, Texas. NRG
owns a part of the two units that already exist at that site. CPS Energy, San Antonio’s electricity
and gas municipal utility, which owns a 40 percent share of the two existing units proposes to
purchase a 40 percent share of the proposed new reactors. This analysis is a preliminary report
on the likely capital costs of the two reactors, as best they can be determined at the present time.
It also contains some preliminary observations regarding efficiency and distributed renewable
energy sources to put the CPS decision that might be made regarding investment in the NRG
plant into context.

Central conclusion and recommendation

The overall finding of this report is that NRG’s range of $6 billion to $7 billion is obsolete.
The best available estimates indicate that capital costs would likely be about a factor of two
or more higher, even without taking into account the potential for real cost escalations
during construction, delays, and other risks. ...

In fact CPS backed out of the deal when the cost hit $10.5 billion and they haven't even broken ground yet. That is the typical view that we get when we check the accuracy of predictions between independent analysts and the nuclear INDUSTRY.

MIT's report has been totally discredited and they are under pretty intense fire for systemic conflict of interest in the service of the nuclear industry. There are a variety of reasons that academic institutions and government agencies engage in analysis that uses trimmed data. There is an excellent discussion of the topic in the paper, "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest" by Kristin Shrader-Frechette in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics (DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y).

Just like the paper I posted the other day indicated - you believe the nuclear industry (which includes the governing agencies) when they are trying to sell over a quadrillion dollars worth of energy and plants; I don't. You are as wrong to do so in this case as you would be trusting any entity with a huge profit motive. Your dismissal of the independent experts (have have the proven track record of accuracy on this matter) with the type evidence you routinely use is not rational unless we either question your basic intelligence or the ethical profile you've claimed on this forum.

[bananas]

62. MIT severely underestimated the costs - read what the CEO's of Entergy, Exelon, and Constellation

MIT severely underestimated the costs - read what the CEO's of Entergy, Exelon, and Constellation say:

Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard: "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear

Exelon CEO John Rowe: "our analysis say that at least for the next decade, a new nuclear plant is not an attractive market base solution."
"Time isn't really right for a substantial increase in the nuclear fleet. Neither the politics nor the economics are there yet."

Constellation CEO Mayo Shattuck: Nuclear too expensive, need more subsidies, without more aid, the financing could "dwarf the economics of the project."

Sources:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x248996
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=247555&mesg_id=247588
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x259352

[GliderGuider]

64. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

What are we trying to accomplish? What is the real enemy here? None of these picayune differences matter next to the risk posed by atmospheric CO2.

[kristopher]

65. So you've been saying we should use nuclear because it is the least expensive

But when shown to be bullshit suddenly the amount of results we get for dollar spent is a "picayune difference" that we should disregard so that we will support nuclear anyway.

You are a real piece of work.

[GliderGuider]

67. Not quite

I've been saying that nuclear and wind look like to me like they have very similar cost profiles. Given that, I realized just a few days ago that my studied indifference to nuclear power was entirely unwarranted in the light of the relative threats of nuclear and wind.

You disagree, and that's fine with me. I'm not about to go all caps on you over a disagreement in energy policy. I'm not sure why the opinion of one guy on a web board is enough to make you trot out the language you've used in this thread.

[kristopher]

70. They do not have similar cost profiles.

If the long term nuclear supporters like yourself would stop the unending dissemination of nuclear industry propaganda here in an effort to drum up support for bad public policy, then I would be happy to stop being emphatic about correcting the false information.

[bananas]

77. Here's what we're trying to accomplish

It's been in my sigline: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826
As Al Gore has said over and over, nuclear won't play a major role in solving the climate crisis.
The people pushing nuclear energy are just slowing us down from the real solutions.

[GliderGuider]

79. Laudable goals, with which I broadly agree.

Since we're taking our dreams out for a spin, my wedge preferences would look more like this, though:

* 1 wedge of albedo change
* 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency
* 1 of wind for power
* 1 of wind for vehicles
* 1 of concentrated solar thermal
* 3 of efficiency
* 1 of solar photovoltaics
* 3 of nuclear power
* 2 of forestry
* 2 of WWII-style conservation, post-2020


But what I think we will get by 2030, realistically is:


* 1/2 wedge of vehicle efficiency
* 1 of wind for power
* 1/4 of concentrated solar thermal
* 1 of efficiency
* 1/4 of solar photovoltaics
* 2 of nuclear power
* 6 of coal...

[GliderGuider]

44. I also find it interesting that the EIA says that wind subsidies are $0.20+ per KWh

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Electricity production subsidies and support per unit of production (dollars per
megawatthour) vary widely by fuel. Coal-based synfuels (refined coal) that are eligible
for the alternative fuels tax credit, solar power, and wind power receive, by far, the
highest subsidies per unit of generation, ranging from more than $23 to nearly $30 per
megawatthour of generation (Table ES5).

Table ES5 shows wind receiving $23.37 per MWh ($0.2337 per KWh) in 2007. So what am I missing here?

[kristopher]

52. Yes you are missing something - a careful moment with your calculator

The rate was recently raised above $0.02 cents, it has hovered at $0.016 to 0.019 for quite a while.

$23.37 times what gives you the per kilowatt rate?

mega 1,000,000 - kilo 1,000

[GliderGuider]

55. Ah, I slipped a decimal place. Thanks. n/t

[bananas]

61. You went to a crackpot blog

The guy who runs that blog is a crackpot.
The blog entry you linked to says "Posted by Charles Barton";
In 2007, when the Keystone report came out,
there was a discussion of the findings at the Grist website,
and Charles Barton wrote this comment at Grist: http://www.grist.org/article/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/

* Charles Barton
* 19 Jun 2007 4:30am

Nuks
Generation IV reactors can be mass produced for under a billion dollars a MW. The deal with mass production is that the more you produce the less each unit costs. Solving a big problem means thinking big. Is it possible to mass produce 50 reactors a year? Certainly. How about 100? Yes, why not? The only problem here is an unwillingness to think creatively, to use a little imagination to solve a problem, instead of wringing our hands and saying it can't be done. We will be defeated by a lack of courage and a lack of will, not by a lack of human capacity to solve our problems.

Charles Barton

Wow! Problem solved! That's practically too cheap to meter!
That's the crackpot solution to global warming.
One of the Keystone participants politely responded to Barton:

* Patrick Mazza
* 19 Jun 2007 5:50am

Nuclear capabilities
If Gen IV nuclear reactors could be mass produced at $1 billion a pop, as Charles Barton says, why aren't they? Is this some kind of conspiracy? Not likely.
Full disclosure - I was one of the 27 members of the Keystone factfinding. And there was general agreement around the table, from the enviro to ratepayer advocate to nuclear industry side, that Gen IV is at least 20 years out from commericalization, if that. That is why the process focused on expected technologies. The general expectation is that reactors built over coming decades will be advanced variants of the light water reactors in use today. This is what the industry's own understandings and projections reflect. Yes, the South Africans are developing a modular pebble bed reactor, but that will have to be proven out.
Joe has it right that Reuters had it wrong. The report looks at one Pacala-Socolow Wedge (=14% of needed carbon reductions to avoid doubled concentrations, which probably still is 100 ppm CO2 over where we need to be, and finds that for nuclear to reach even one an extremely heavy lift, equal to the best construction rate the industry has ever acheived and well below authoritative industry projections.
Place on top of that the finding that new nukes would cost 8-11 cents/kilowatt hour delivered at the plant, before around 2.5 cents delivery costs, and what emerges is that nukes are a very costly option at least 2 cents/kWh over new wind. And UCS has criticized that number as too low! So any nuclear revival would require public policy support, probably in excess of the $6 billion the feds put on the table in Energy Act 2005.
Bottom line question as the political debate ramps up - Is nuclear really what we want to subsidize? Or are there better investments the public can make such as mass-scale wind and energy efficiency that do not have the associated waste and proliferation problems?

Patrick Mazza

Mazza mentions the PBMR - we now know how that turned out - it was a waste of time and money. Instead of working on real solutions, South Africa was just going to build lots of PBMR's. This is one of the worst problems with nuclear propaganda - the false expectations for nuclear power cause people to put off deployment of real solutions.

[GliderGuider]

63. In this debate "crackpot" tends to mean "someone whose opinions I disagree with"

I have no problem with differing opinions, but marginalizing them with pejorative language is a sure sign of ideology. And yes, Barton is guilty of the same thing.

After a decade or more of careful, polite fence-sitting I have recently come down solidly in favour of nuclear power. Despite all the ideological fulmination on this board, the risks it poses are several orders of magnitude below those posed by atmospheric CO2, and it's still the single source of low-carbon electricity that can be built out in meaningful quantities in the short to medium term. My reasoning is laid out more completely in my post below.

[kristopher]

66. Again with the false claims about what nuclear can do.

The claim that nuclear is "the single source of low-carbon electricity that can be built out in meaningful quantities in the short to medium term" is PROVABLY FALSE.

Do you understand the concept? I don't know what your motive is for supporting nuclear (you've been here actively steering people towards choosing nuclear for years - you are no recent convert) but your stated motives do not align with the established facts. Nuclear is a third rate solution to climate change.

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

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


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

68. If repeated beatings with that Jacobson C&P haven't changed my mind by now

another one isn't going to make any difference.

Wind is moving up in the standings, but since it's currently generating only 1% of the global electricity while nuclear is generating 20 times that much, and we need low-carbon electricity right now, I stand by my position.

The risks posed by nuclear power are many orders of magnitude below those posed by atmospheric CO2, and nuclear power is the single source of low-carbon electricity that can be built out in meaningful quantities in the short to medium term. A global nuclear build-out should be pursued immediately.

[kristopher]

71. Another piece of crap bit of logic

How does the existing amount of generation relate to how much electricity will be generated by $1 spent in 2010?
Answer: It doesn't. What matters is how much electricity will be delivered by investing the 2010 dollar today's technologies


That one is a darling of the nuclear industry, but I've never understood why since it is so obviously ridiculous.

ETA: Maybe you should actually read Jacobson's paper without first labeling it as "shit".

[bananas]

72. I have no problem with differing opinions, but some people really are crackpots.

[txlibdem]

47. 1700 nuclear power plants needed?

We have 105 nuclear power plants today that produce 20% of our electrical needs. I do not see how we get to 1700 nuclear plants. It looks like 525 to get 100% of our electrical needs from nuclear power.

80% of our personal transportation needs can be met with only the excess, unused capacity that we have today. So that just leaves 20% of our personal transportation and 100% of our commercial vehicle needs. But let's forget that and assume that we'll need enough additional nuclear power for all our vehicles.

"In January, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove a collective 222 billion miles. That's a lot of time spent behind the wheel — enough to make roughly eight hundred round-trips to Mars. It translates to about 727 miles traveled for every man, woman, and child in the country."
(source: http://www.esquire.com/features/data/nate-silver-car-culture-stats-0609 )

To find out how many miles we drive per day we start by dividing 222 billion miles by the number of work days in an average month, 22 and we get about 10 billion miles. We now need to divide those miles into vehicle type. About 35% of miles driven are from light duty vehicles so let's assume the remainder, 65%, is for commercial vehicles, the worst case scenario as they are the least fuel efficient. Given that the Toyota Rav4-EV uses 350 watt hours to go one mile and the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf each use between 200 and 225 watt hours. Larger light duty vehicles, if based on the new lithium ion batteries should be close to 350 wH (watt hours) per mile. If we take the figure of 350 watt hours per mile we can use that to calculate the number of nuclear power plants it would take to provide the energy for all those vehicles. 10 billion multiplied by 350 yields 1.2 Terawatt hours per day, or 51 GW per hour. So that looks like another 51 nuclear power plants.

Commercial vehicles are a bit trickier to figure out. Smith Electric Vehicles largest truck, the 12 ton Newton, goes 150 miles on either an 80 or 120 kWh battery pack. A little division tells us it takes 800 watt hours to travel one mile on the larger pack. Doing the above math again tells us we need another 96 nuclear power plants.
(source: http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/NewtonFullSpecs.pdf )

We can get the totals:
525+51+96 = 672 nuclear power plants

[kristopher]

50. Holdren

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.

Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.



WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.

Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.



BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.

Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).

Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.



Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.




The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

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

[txlibdem]

60. I did not notice we were talking about 2050 energy demand

I had calculated the number of nuclear power plants required to meet today's energy needs at 672, which includes 100% of our electricity generation and 100% of our transportation. I realize now that I did not include industrial uses nor non-electrical energy usage from commercial and residential buildings. The number would surely be higher than I gave but I cannot find a source for those two sectors' fossil fuel usage. I'll shelve that for now and will most likely stumble on it later on when I'm no longer looking.

Notably, my figures were for the USA only. And when I put in Holden's assumed 2% increase in electrical demand per year, by the year 2050 we will need 1,484 nuclear plants of 1 GWe each in the USA alone.

I think we both agree that neither the once-through uranium reactors nor the light water reactors are the technology that will allow us to get to that point. Once-through fuel cycles only consume 5% of the fissile material in each fuel rod before they need to be replaced. What a waste! That would be akin to you going to the gas station for a fill-up, driving 10 miles then pumping out all of the remaining gasoline in your tank to be stored in a huge cistern under your garage. Would anybody be stupid enough to do that?

The light water reactor designs harken back to the 1930s and need to be retired. We don't drive cars you have to crank start anymore do we? No, the technology has moved on and so should nuclear power plants. Light water reactors need to be retired and replaced with Generation IV nuclear power plants.

The Generation IV reactors I mentioned in an earlier post are up to the task. Many of them can be mass produced and if we use a Thorium fuel cycle we will have enough Thorium to last 1,000 years. If we haven't perfected Fusion power by then we should stop funding that research! :-)

[GliderGuider]

45. I found something odd in an article on English wind turbines.

I was looking for an article that talked about project delays and cost overruns in wind projects, to demonstrate that such issues are not unique to nuclear plants. I found a promising article from the UK: Flaw hits hundreds of EU offshore wind turbines.

As I was reading it, though, I found a startling statistic in the last paragraph.

In an attempt to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, Britain aims to install 32 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2020 at a cost of a hundred billion pounds.

Wait, what? Seriously, that's 5,000 USD per KW. Of capacity. Given a 30% capacity factor (these are offshore, so I'll cut them some slack), that's $16,667 per KWe. The worst capital cost estimates I've seen for nuclear power are half that, and less breathless claims are a third of that or less.

:wtf:

[kristopher]

53. You call Cooper's extensive analysis "shit", yet you think that is credible?

You are a real piece of work.

[GliderGuider]

54. It's not pretending to be an analysis, it's just a newspaper story.

The reporter could have gotten it wrong, that why I called it "odd". I'll look around for corroboration.

[GliderGuider]

56. More info on that wind development

UK Licenses World's Biggest Offshore Wind Farms

Gordon Edge, director of Economics and Markets from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), told Reuters construction costs for 32 GW would total 75 billion pounds-80 billion pounds ($119.6 billion-$127.6 billion).

Costs are expected to drop as new technology for offshore wind farms is developed, the number of turbine makers rises from just two at present and a supply chain is set up in Britain.

Currently, no turbines are made in Britain due to the country's slow development of onshore wind farms.

It has just begun developing a supply chain for the offshore wind industry, using its experience in offshore oil and gas.

"If you look at what happened with onshore costs...we would expect over the period of time that costs of 3-3.2 million pounds (per megawatt) to come down...to 2.5 million pounds," said Keith Anderson, ScottishPower Renewables Director.

So, they're offshore which explains the high price, and there's a chance the cost will only be $10,000 per KWe.
Whew. For a moment there I thought this was going to be more expensive than nuclear power. :sarcasm:

[kristopher]

57. Are you serious? I really thought you were a bit brighter than that...

Your problem is "sampling error".

"Costs are expected to drop as new technology for offshore wind farms is developed, the number of turbine makers rises from just two at present and a supply chain is set up in Britain. ...Currently, no turbines are made in Britain due to the country's slow development of onshore wind farms.

Tally up for me all the costs involved in developing the technology and supply chain to launch the first 10GW of nuclear energy and put it into today's dollars (or pounds, if you prefer).

I think you'll find that the offshore wind is a bargain for that part of its development cycle. The comparative advantages of efficiency/renewables against nuclear as we go forward are huge.

Why do you WANT nuclear to be the answer?

What sort of person would RATHER have a technology as dirty and dangerous as nuclear when the alternative is cleaner, safer, less expensive, contributes more to the free exercise of human freedom, and addresses climate change most effectively to boot?

Where the hell are you coming from?

[GliderGuider]

58. Where am I coming from?

That's a good question. Not the same place as you, obviously. But because it's a good question it deserves a thoughtful reply, if only to avoid future misunderstandings. Here is where I'm coming from on this issue:

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

1. Global warming is the largest biophysical threat humanity has ever faced. It's caused by anthropogenic CO2, which makes fossil fuels an enemy of all life.

2. Global warming is not a future threat. The current (rising) level of atmospheric CO2 tells us that the threat has arrived.

3. If we wish to mitigate CO2 impacts we must reduce the amount of CO2 we are generating in our energy production.

4. We can do this by reducing our energy consumption and by finding ways to generate it without adding to the CO2 burden.

5. Even if we can immediately reduce our energy consumption we must also immediately change our energy mix. The urgency is because of point #2 - immediate threats require immediate responses.

6. We must use every energy tool at our disposal to cut our CO2 production immediately. This includes every low-carbon possibility. The candidates are solar (thermal and PV), wind, hydro (conventional and run of river), tidal, biomass, geothermal and nuclear.

7. My decision about where to throw my support is governed by point #2. Because we face an immediate threat, I strongly favour technologies that can have an immediate impact on the energy mix.

8. The more distant the return of a technology or the lower the current level of implementation of a technology, the more of a discount I apply to to its value. See point #2.

9. The technologies I value most highly, in order of priority, are: nuclear; conventional hydro; wind; solar thermal, biomass and solar PV. The value of Run of River hydro, geothermal and tidal power are down in the noise at this point.

10. I do not think that the dangers of nuclear power outweigh its benefits when considered against the threat of CO2. In fact I think the dangers of nuclear power are two to three orders of magnitude less than the dangers of CO2. See point #1.

11. Conventional hydro and solar thermal have limitations in terms of site availability.

12. The value of wind power could eventually exceed nuclear power, but it will probably take 15 years to get there.

13. We need to take action now, and what we do within the next 5 years will be crucial. See point #2.

14. Nuclear power integrates easily into the existing grid structure, the plant designs are well understood, plants can be built out quickly, and the demonstrated level of risk, compared to atmospheric CO2, is negligible. It's a win, at least until wind is producing 15-20 times its current amount of electricity.

15. Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce CO2 production, provided we can avoid a rebound effect (aka a Jevons paradox). It should be pursued at least as vigourously as new energy sources.

16. If we do not build out nuclear power, we have no hope of abating CO2 production for at least the next 10 years. See point #2.

Now, all the foregoing is dependent on us (the global "us") doing enough in the next 10 years to tip the rate of production of CO2 onto a downward slope. If we cannot create the will to do that, then the entire discussion is moot. Personally I don't think we'll get enough consensus or freedom from corporate influence to make that possible. So where I ultimately come from on all this is:

17. Due to the structure of our civilization none of this is possible. That makes these discussions the equivalent of a dog gnawing on a bone: it's something to do while we wait for the next meal, but it isn't going to save the world. So in light of that, we should each do what we think is appropriate: try to save the world, retreat from it, get on with raising our families, meditate, search for higher meaning, or just try to have a bit of fun.

The world ends in every moment, and begins again in the next. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

So kristopher, you and I are fundamentally different sorts of people, and our differences go much deeper than what papers we choose to believe. You will not convince me of your viewpoint, and I have no interest whatever in convincing you of mine. You asked me where I was coming from. This is it.

[kristopher]

69. Your position continues to ignore all known facts regarding energy systems

I agree with 1-5.

"6. We must use every energy tool at our disposal to cut our CO2 production immediately. This includes every low-carbon possibility. The candidates are solar (thermal and PV), wind, hydro (conventional and run of river), tidal, biomass, geothermal and nuclear."

Really? Have you ever heard of the idea of wasting money and time? If I spend 500 billion dollars on nuclear and get less than 5% of the electricity that I could have saved (actual numbers) by spending the same $500 billion on energy efficiency, how is that going to help the problem. If I send $500 billion dollars on nuclear and only get 1/2 the amount of delivered electricity as I would get with renewables, how is that going to help the problem?

No, your premise is false for 2 reasons: the initial failure can be identified as the assumption that there is some mythically unlimited source of funds the enables us to avoid making choices about what works best. Funds are not unlimited and we DO need to make choices. But even if we DID have unlimited funds that argument still fails because every dollar spent for nuclear could still have greater impact if spent elsewhere.

"7. My decision about where to throw my support is governed by point #2. Because we face an immediate threat, I strongly favour technologies that can have an immediate impact on the energy mix."

Again, nuclear is slower to deploy, not faster. The only way you can arrive at a different conclusion is to totally ignore all historical evidence and accept the unproved promises of the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. Again, you have to totally ignore all historical evidence and trends in order to believe the claims of the nuclear industry on this point. Nuclear is *far slower* to deploy on a delivered watt by delivered watt basis than renewables/efficiency.

The comments above essentially negate the rest of the "logic" you have presented, but let me address one more:

"14. Nuclear power integrates easily into the existing grid structure, the plant designs are well understood, plants can be built out quickly, and the demonstrated level of risk, compared to atmospheric CO2, is negligible. It's a win, at least until wind is producing 15-20 times its current amount of electricity."

Nuclear plants cannot be built quickly except in the dreams of the nuclear INDUSTRY and wishful thinking doesn't make something a reality.

However, if you really want the most rapid technologies to solve the problem, then support a full buildout of renewable and a massive commitment to energy efficiency efforts; for they ARE the fastest way to achieve carbon reduction.

The risk part of your thinking is intrigues me. You (as all nuclear supporters do) compare it to fossil fuels. But that is a red herring that is designed to avoid the appropriate comparison.

We all know the risk of carbon, so the point of looking at comparative risk in this exercise is to find out which technologies among the available solutions are the most sustainable (another way of saying least risky).

The "demonstrated risk" of nuclear is real and it is vastly larger than what is associated with renewables and energy efficiency.

Jacobson's analysis examines all of your assumptions and concludes that nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change".

So once more, where are you coming from?

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

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


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

73. Again with the Jacobson?

Anyhow,

I address the question of efficiency in point #15: "Energy efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce CO2 production, provided we can avoid a rebound effect (aka a Jevons paradox). It should be pursued at least as vigourously as new energy sources."

I don't believe that a nuclear build-out will be a waste of either time or money.

We don't need an unlimited source of funds to do this. the global GDP is about $65 trillion per year. We could build all the low-carbon energy we need with one percent of one year's GDP, which wouldn't even drop the GDP numbers, since that would also be productive activity. Money is not the issue.

Regarding speed of build-out, there are currently 60.5 GWe of nuclear reactors under construction world-wide. Last year the global wind industry installed 37.5 GW of capacity, or less than 10 GWe of actual generation. That's a creditable showing, but the numbers speak for themselves in terms of the current speed of build-out.

As I said in point 12, "The value of wind power could eventually exceed nuclear power, but it will probably take 15 years to get there." Until wind decisively passes nuclear in installed base and cost, and the Keeling curve has been reversed, we should continue to build low-carbon energy sources in all forms. Until the finish line is in sight, it makes sense to me to continue to bet on all horses. We don't know what the future holds, except for more CO2...

There's a reason that all nuclear supporters compare its risk to fossil fuels. It's because once one fully groks the risk of fossil fuels all other risks pale into insignificance, and you realize that unless we get on with the job by any and all means possible the game is over. Compared to that, the risk differences between nuclear, hydro and wind are truly moot.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

75. Of course you don't agree with my position. No problem.

I also don't care if you see my views as being shared by the nuclear industry. I'm satisfied that I've made independent choices.

Your view that I'm trying to convince people of something or another is mistaken. "Convincing" someone is impossible, as all your Jacobson brow-beating has amply demonstrated. If anyone is going to be convinced, they have to convince themselves. The most we can ever do is put our position and reasoning out in the public domain and allow others to form their own conclusions. That's all I'm doing here. You asked where I was coming from, and I told you. I have no interest in somehow forcing you to recant Jacobson or become a supporter of nuclear power. If you don't agree with my reasoning or conclusions, that's fine by me. It's a free marketplace for ideas after all.

[kristopher]

80. The basis of your position is simply fabricated - it doesn't agree with reality

[GliderGuider]

81. Even if that were true, why would it matter to you?

You've put plenty of countervailing arguments out there.

[kristopher]

82. Which is the appropriate response.

[bananas]

76. What happened to peak oil?

That used to be your #1 concern.

[GliderGuider]

78. I am capable of having more than one concern at a time...

Peak Oil is still there, and I have a great fondness for it because it was my introduction to the Global Clusterfuck. As my perspective has broadened over the last few years it's been joined by a host of other concerns, though.