Are TX &SC nuke projects going the way of Calvert Cliffs?

[kristopher]

Press Release by NIRS:

After Calvert Cliffs Collapse: Two Remaining Top Federal Loan Guarantee Nuclear Reactor Applicants in Texas and South Carolina Also Seen as Untenable


Experts: South Texas Project and V.C. Summer Reactor Trapped by Same "Powerful Undertow" of Unfavorable Economics, Cheap Natural Gas, Slumping Demand and Runaway Construction Costs That Caused the Collapse of Calvert Cliffs-3.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The same combination of forces that brought down Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor are already well along in the process of undermining the two major remaining federal loan guarantee applicants: the South Texas Project and V.C. Summer reactor project in South Carolina, according to experts who spoke during a national news conference today.

The news conference was sponsored by the nonprofit and independent Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), which correctly forecast on August 5, 2010 that the troubled Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor project was "in complete shambles" and "on the verge of collapsing under (its) own weight". (See http://www.nirs.org/home/080510nirsconstellationnewsrelease.pdf.)

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD., said: "Calvert Cliffs' demise was a result of several factors, the most important of which were: soaring construction cost estimates; increased and aggressive competition from other generation sources; falling electrical demand coupled with increased energy efficiency programs; serious reactor design deficiencies; and overreliance on government handouts. The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy are responsible for none of these factors. In fact, their loan offer for Calvert Cliffs-3 was overly generous considering the overwhelming array of market forces and roadblocks facing this project. The simple reality is that there will be no nuclear renaissance in the United States as long as new reactors are far too expensive, natural gas is dirt cheap and renewable energy costs continue to drop, reactor construction costs remain out of control, and consumer demand continues to trend downward. Calvert Cliffs was not unique; the same market wide forces that brought it down make the South Texas Project and V.C. Summer equally untenable."

Commenting on last week's setback to yet another new reactor project, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioner and former Chair of the New York Public Service Commission Peter Bradford said: "The four pillars of the nuclear revival - underestimated costs, ignored risks, political ballyhoo and prodigious but inadequate subsidies - now make clear that we are dealing not with a renaissance but with a bubble. The main remaining question is just how much taxpayer money will go into keeping it inflated."

Susan Corbett, chair, Executive Committee, South Carolina Chapter of Sierra Club, said: "The V.C. Summer project is afflicted by all of the problems that other nuclear projects suffer and then some. SCANA's low-ball cost projections for the two new reactors are a complete fiction: Cost projections of the AP1000 reactor design in other proposed US projects have tripled. The current high cost estimates do not include the cost overruns that inevitably occur during the construction phase of nuclear projects. Natural gas prices have plummeted and projections are for a long period of low prices. Moreover, demand for electricity is way down. Even in this state, with the most favorable politically and regulatory climate in the country, the main utility, SCANA, is struggling to find investors for these two new units. The fact that Santee Cooper, the state owned utility, is now getting cold feet regarding their 45% share of the two units is an indication of how shaky the whole project has become."

Tom "Smitty" Smith, director, Public Citizen's Texas office, said: "Here in Texas, the nuclear bubble is bursting in the same way that it is elsewhere. Proposed reactor costs have trebled in a year, the price of gas-powered energy is down two thirds since 2005 and likely will fall even farther, and the South Texas Project would produce power that is far too expensive to sell in the marketplace. When the first two units of this project were built, they came in eight times over budget and six years late. The new reactor project is already way over budget, beleaguered with accusations of fraud and misrepresentation of the facts and increasingly unlikely to ever be completed. This is a bankruptcy in the making and no one should have any illusions about that. The only good news here is that NRG is now looking seriously at renewables, plug-in hybrids and other real solutions."

As evidence that both the V.C. Summer and South Texas Project are on ground that is every bit as shaky as that which toppled Calvert Cliffs-3, the experts noted that executives overseeing both projects are publicly acknowledging that they, too, have cold feet. In an October 13, 2010 Associated Press report (see http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5GXYdWUchI3DjYtdYS0QE4a77JAD9IQV65G0?docId=D9IQV65G0 ), the Associated Press reported: "Even companies that are finalists for federal loan guarantees, NRG Energy and Constellation Energy, announced recently that they have nearly stopped spending on their projects... Analysts say low natural gas prices are making the project uneconomic. NRG chief executive David Crane said he will not pursue the company's two-reactor project in South Texas if gas prices stay low, even if his project is offered a loan guarantee."

Similarly, the Charlotte Business Journal reported on October 8, 2010 ( http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2010/10/11/story8.html?b=1286769600%5E4063181 ): "… Santee Cooper, South Carolina's state-owned power producer, is looking to reduce its 45% share in the 2,234-megawatt V.C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion near Jenkinsville, S.C. Fitch Ratings reported this month that "in light of lower forecasted growth projections …, Santee Cooper is now reviewing its level of participation in the two future nuclear units." Santee Cooper spokeswoman Mollie Gore says no decision has been made, but she confirms the utility is reviewing its options. The goal, she says, is to control costs as much as possible for Santee Cooper's customers. Such concerns are understandable, SNL's Carter says. It can often cost almost as much as a utility's entire market value to build a nuclear plant. He cites Santee Cooper's V.C. Summer partner, Scana Corp., as an example. Scana's market capitalization is about $5.5 billion, he notes. Its 55% share of Summer, estimated at costing nearly $10 billion, pretty well eats up all that value."

ABOUT THE GROUPS/SPEAKERS

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) was founded in 1978 to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. For more information, go to http://www.nirs.org.

Peter Bradford is a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and former chair of the New York and Maine utility commissions. He has advised many states on utility restructuring issues. Bradford is an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School, where he teaches "Nuclear Power and Public Policy" and has taught "The Law of Electric Utility Restructuring." He also advises and teaches on utility regulation, restructuring, nuclear power and energy policy in the U.S. and abroad. He has been a visiting lecturer in energy policy and environmental protection at Yale University.

Public Citizen serves as the people's voice in the nation's capital. Since its founding in 1971, Public Citizen has delved into an array of areas, but its work on each issue shares an overarching goal: To ensure that all citizens are represented in the halls of power. For information, go to http://nukefreetexas.org/.

The South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club is a volunteer-driven organization, with nine local groups and approximately 5,800 members in the state. For more information, go to http://myscsierra.org/chapter/.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.nirs.org as of 6 p.m. EDT on October 14, 2010.

SOURCE Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, MD
Back to top

RELATED LINKS
http://www.nirs.org

[madokie]

1. We can do better

as is being seen by many of us even though there are those who do not wish to see won't admit it. If we can't get the prices down to a competitive price in 60 some odd years then I say stick a fork in it its done. Just think where we would be today if we'd not spent so much money and time on this boondoggle like we have over these last 60 plus years and spent it instead on alternates. Money and time wasted is all Its been. The money we spend now is spending good money after bad at best, we can do better and I think we will. I see a brighter future.

add: recc'd to no avail

[kristopher]

2. 6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


The list is cribbed from the text of a talk I downloaded a couple of years ago, but it could have been extracted from DU E/E on any given day. What is truly remarkable is that these LIES are repeated over and over here with no accountability attached.

[TheWraith]

3. Except for the fact that you can't rebut any of those statements.

Which makes them not so much "lies" as "facts you don't like."

[kristopher]

10. All of those statements are demonstrably untrue.

That means that when someone persists in making those assertions once they have the proof that those statements are false...


Care to pick one?

[madokie]

5. The knots these pro nukies tie themselves into trying to show how they have all the answers

when in reality the nuclear industry is not making a come back here in the states. Take public money out of the picture and there would be no and I mean no new reactors being built. I'd be ashamed of myself if I'd let myself be taken in by these shysters. Back when we were putting a stop to PSO from building Blackfox up wind from me a few miles I was hearing the same lies as I hear/read today. You'd think that after all these years they'd at least try a new tack but I guess when all you have is a one trick pony there is nothing new to try, I don't know. I say we have a problem on our hands and throwing more good money and precious time at this 'too cheap to meter' money hole isn't getting us anywhere.

You know I'm surprised that Amory Lovins hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this thread yet other than my reference to him just now. Its like its all his fault when in reality it was the crew that came in with the old man raygun that is the problem. Many of who were with us under the nixonian years only to reappear once again with bush the lesser. Hopefully we'll not have to endure the likes of them much longer. We do have a problem here and more nuclear power plants is not the answer, simple as that.

[DrGregory]

7. Reprehensible anti-nukes are the problem

when in reality the nuclear industry is not making a come back here in the states.
===================================

If nuclear doesn't come back in the USA, if won't be due to
mistakes and lies of the nuclear industry.

The problem is the reprehensible, and immoral LIES
of the anti-nukes that have scared a gullible public
that is ignorant of the scientific facts.

Why these moral pygmies have to resort to telling
LIES is beyond me. Why tell lies? If you want
solar / wind, then support that yourself. However,
don't tell lies about the competition.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

6. Standard LIES of the anit-nuclear lobby.

The DAMN LIARS are NOT the nuclear lobby.

The LIARS are the anti-nukes. For example, the
claim that the following are lies:

"1. nuclear power is cheap;"

From the US Dept. of Energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html

"Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant"

This above poster also recently claimed that nuclear power capacity
factors were about 75% That also is a LIE - the nuclear power plant
capacity factors are about 90% as stated above.

People have a right to their own opinion; but NOT
they're own version of the FACTS!!

When will people learn who the REAL LIARS are!!!

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

9. Not cheap - your argument is dishonest.

From the speaker quoted earlier:
"Few people question the economics of existing nuclear plants. Many are twenty to thirty years old, and anything depreciated over such a period ought to be cheap. New plants, however, are not cheap, despite a number of studies that make that claim. The Keystone group looked at the studies, and discarded nearly all of them. They are typically based on vendor projections; reference each other; do not include owner’s costs (contingency for unexpected delays or scope changes, construction management, land, interest costs); and are extremely optimistic with respect to construction time, capital cost, regulatory support, and many other factors. These aren’t assumptions so much as a wish list."

YOU are trying to create a false impression.
1) The load factors I've cited are true and are easy to substantiate at any nuclear industry website if you look for the data instead of just swallowing the propaganda. THe fact is, however, that since the use of the data (load factor) in virtually all public discussions is to assist in the evaluation of overall costs, even that figure is a totally inadequate and misleading construct of a nuclear industry trying to twist the data into a configuration they hope will help them pick the pockets of the public.

Here is what an academic journal on ethics in science and engineering has to say on the topic:
(The following excerpt is only one paragraph, but I've broken it up for ease of reading- K)

Regarding (c), correcting industry-based data and assumptions, consider how the RMI study challenges the nuclear-industry-funded studies (Lovins et al. 2008)— like those of MIT (Du and Parsons 2009; Ansolabehere et al. 2003), and the University of Chicago (2004)—that assume as much as 85–95% nuclear-load factors.

The RMI authors say (p. 10) actual load factors are much lower because “even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down,” for roughly 8% of the time, “for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures” cause additional shutdowns for another “8% of the time.”

Thus even the most reliable reactors have average load factors of 84%, but not all reactors are reliable.

Why not?

Although 253 US reactors were ordered, only “132...52% of the 253 originally ordered,” were completed; reactors that were not completed (numbering 121) are typically excluded by industry from alleged load-factor averages.

Industry data also exclude another 28 US reactors (21% of the US reactors that were built), because they were “permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems.” They likewise exclude “another 27%, (36 of the US reactors actually built) because they have completely failed for a year or more at least once.

Although the surviving US nuclear plants,” 68 in number and one-fourth of the total US reactors ordered, have short-term load factors of about 90%, RMI authors say this 90% figure is often quoted in industry studies.

Yet they say these industry studies fail to reveal that the 90%, short-term figure represents only about 25% of US reactors and not all 253 reactors that were ordered.

As already explained, the lifetime-average, nuclear-load factor for all reactors is only 71%.

The RMI authors (p. 10) thus explain that these unrealistically high load-factor figures arise from excluding 73% of total reactors, the low-load-factor reactors (Lovins et al. 2008).

Likewise, the RMI authors show (p. 2) that when industry-funded, nuclear-cost studies exclude reactor-construction time and interest charges, this data-trimming can illegitimately trim nuclear-capital costs by more than 50% (Lovins et al. 2008).

In reality, say (p. 1) the RMI authors, quoting The Economist, nuclear power “is now too costly to matter” (Lovins et al. 2008).

"Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest"
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
October 2009
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

[DrGregory]

11. I think we have a different definition of PROPAGANDA

1) The load factors I've cited are true and are easy to substantiate at any nuclear industry website if you look for the data instead of just swallowing the propaganda.
=====================================================

The capacity factors you cited were WRONG, in ERROR,
a LIE.

I cited the statistics from the US Dept. of Energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html

The DOE CLEARLY states for anyone who can read:

"...but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well.
Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor,...."

You claim that I'm just listening to "propaganda".

Well then you and I must have a different definition of the
word "propaganda". I'm afraid YOUR definition of propaganda
is the non-standard one.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

12. That is a superficial partial truth as the para from the ETHICS JOURNAL shows.

It is a very, very partial truth that equals a lie for the purposes it is being used for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262032&mesg_id=262097

And that is as good a definition of propaganda as there is.

[DrGregory]

15. The only thing that counts is scientific truth

That is a superficial partial truth as the para from the ETHICS JOURNAL shows.
========================================================

The only thing that counts here is the scientific truth.

It is a scientific question, "What is the capacity factor?"

The DOE has stated that the capacity factors for nuclear
power plants are about 90%

I don't give a DAMN about what some "ETHICS JOURNAL" says.

To perdition with ALL the ethics journals.

They don't tell me what scientific truth is.

Let's leave the science to scientists, and not
a bunch of self-righteous, hypocritical LIARS
that write in ethics journals.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

17. You wouldn't know a "scientific truth" if you tripped over it.

Every word you type is created with the INTENT to misinform.

[DrGregory]

26. More CRAP

Every word you type is created with the INTENT to misinform.
===============================================

So now you purport to be able to see my intentions?

What CRAP!!!

I am a scientist. Scientific truth is what is
paramount to me. I get my data from truthful
sources.

You don't like the truth. Therefore, you have
to insinuate that I have an ulterior, evil-purpose
intent which is to misinform.

That tactic is straight from the anti-nuke's
handbook; when you are caught in a LIE, disparage
the other person's character.

I've seen it LOTS of times by people who do it a
lot better than you do.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

28. No you aren't. No it isn't. No you haven't.

"I am a scientist.
Scientific truth is what is paramount to me.
I get my data from truthful sources."

[DrGregory]

30. STRIKE THREE - YOU'RE OUT!!!

No you aren't. No it isn't. No you haven't.
===========================================

WRONG!! WRONG!! and WRONG!!

Three strikes and you're OUT!!!

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

33. You have to be kidding me

Although 253 US reactors were ordered, only “132...52% of the 253 originally ordered,” were completed; reactors that were not completed (numbering 121) are typically excluded by industry from alleged load-factor averages.

You're including reactors that were not completed in that load average.

Fucking dishonest. That's not science, that IS propaganda.

"Well, GM COULD have built those cars, and people COULD have driven them, so we'll include them in our calculations of the amount of CO2 cars generate"

"How about we include in the load average for solar and wind all the plants that COULD have been built"

[Nihil]

48. "That's not science, that IS propaganda."

Please note that the person you were addressing also said the following
when accusing someone else on this board of lying:

"Every word ... is created with the INTENT to misinform."

[kristopher]

49. Then answer these questions:

Answer this -
1) Why are no turnkey nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Nihil]

67. Well, you haven't bothered to listen to any of the other people who've answered them but anyway ...

> 1) Why are no turnkey nuclear plants being built?

I have no idea.

My *guess* is that Dead_Parrot is probably closest with his "The Corporations
can make make money elsewhere" as it would explain the situation but that isn't
an *answer* as such and so I will continue to monitor your many threads on this
subject in order to (hopefully) find an answer.


> 2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when
> there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

+

> 3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have
> construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders
> to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Basically because too many Americans are (and have been) stupid.
Not "all", just "too many".

(Note: I'm taking your "all the planned projects" proposition to be true
simply for the purposes of your three questions.)

Some of them are stupid because of their dogmatic adherence to their own special
blend of short-term corporate profit-seeking (despite the damage that it does to
their long-term abilities).

Some of them are stupid because they believe every unscientific & illogical
piece of bullshit put out regarding OMG CHERNOBYL and OMG TMI rather than
relating to real-world issues, proportion, relative risks and benefits.

Some of them are stupid because they are incapable of removing their jingoistic
blinkers and observing the behaviour of rest of the world as they have been taught
from birth to believe that "USA are Number One!" and dismiss any evidence to the
contrary using a particularly violent form of the NIH syndrome.

And, of course, some of them are just plain lovely, sensible, intelligent and
rational (regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-nuke) but are being tarred
with the same brush that the shallow-end of the gene pool are (justifiably)
receiving from the rest of the world.

The latter group are the ones (especially on E/E) that I respect and don't want
to piss off with my observations on the former groups.

:grouphug:

[kristopher]

68. The 3 questions directly inform the larger question of nuclear power economics.

And I'm pretty damned sure that were you "monitoring" my "many threads on this subject" you'd know that. I'll take your assertion that you are being truthful when you say that you are reading that as a basis for asking why you totally failed to address the economic issues behind the three questions and focused instead on a diatribe attacking those who prove your embrace of nuclear power to be inexplicable except as a vote of support for the economic health of the industry seeking to shackle this 100 year albatros around the necks of the people of the world.

A faith based acceptance of the 6 lies of the nuclear industry is simply not a sound position from which to criticize the abundant evidence proving support for nuclear power is a counter-productive approach for those wishing to address climate change.

Which begs the question: Since nuclear is a proven inferior solution to climate change, and since your stated goal is the most effective sustainable solution to climate change, why the hell are you busting the balls of those who seek to counter the misinformation this particular industry is subject to propagating?

You wouldn't support ANY other industry against a like array of evidence challenging their exaggerated claims of performance, so what is is the basis of your particular affection for the commercial nuclear power arm of the military industrial complex?

[Nihil]

70. Ah well, it would have been a safe bet I suppose ...

>> Well, you haven't bothered to listen to any of the other people
>> who've answered them but anyway ...

Sure enough, you didn't.

FWIW, "A faith based acceptance of the 6 lies of the nuclear industry" is exactly
the impression one gets from *your* repeated posting of that latest item of dogma.

(Though I must admit, I'm a little intrigued about the "100 year albatros(s)":
are you suggesting that nuclear power has been around for 100 years or that it
has been somehow been keeping solar power out of the limelight sunlight
for 100 years or ...?)

Have a nice day.

[DrGregory]

13. This tells me the RMI authors are IDIOTS!!

The RMI authors say (p. 10) actual load factors are much lower because “even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down,” for roughly 8% of the time, “for refueling and maintenance,..."

This tells me that the RMI authors are IDIOTS and don't know what
they are talking about. On a single reload of fuel, a nuclear power
plant can run about 18 months or 548 days. Then it has to refuel.

If the RMI IDIOTS were correct, then the refueling outage would
take 8% of 548 days or 44 days - a MONTH and a HALF.

A MONTH and a HALF????

A crew of drunken monkeys could do the job in less time!!

We have here a case of people who make up LIES that are
then quoted by other LIARS, who are then quoted by other
LIARS...

It doesn't matter how many LIARS you quote.

A LIE remains a LIE, remains a LIE.

Unlike wines, LIES do not get better with age.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

18. Here is the thing with that.

The ethic study does a comparison and evaluation of data from 30 different sources.

It is the independent analysts that are getting it right, not those associated with or closely tied to the nuclear industry.




So in spite of your feigned indignation, your assertion of integrity in nuclear industry data is not valid - it is false.


Edited to change 18 to 30.

[DrGregory]

24. More self-serving FALSE "LOGIC"

So in spite of your feigned indignation, your assertion of integrity in nuclear industry data is not valid - it is false.
-------------------------------------------------------

Where did I quote the nuclear industry???

Where did my argument about the 90% capacity
factor hinge on the integrity of the nuclear industry??

I quoted the GOVERNMENT!!!

I quoted the US Dept. of Energy.

The owners of the nuclear power plants
don't have to report ANYTHING to your
group - so where did they get their data?

Contrary to your self-serving assertion
above, I did NOT quote the "nuclear industry".

I quoted their GOVERNMENT overseers.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

27. The sole source of data on both sides is the nuclear industry

You quote DOE stats as reported by the industry; what makes it false is the way you are cherry picking a subset of the relevant data and claiming it is representative of the entire set. That is false and both the data and the interpretation of it you are trying to misinform people with are products of the COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ARM OF THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

Regarding (c), correcting industry-based data and assumptions, consider how the RMI study challenges the nuclear-industry-funded studies (Lovins et al. 2008)— like those of MIT (Du and Parsons 2009; Ansolabehere et al. 2003), and the University of Chicago (2004)—that assume as much as 85–95% nuclear-load factors.

The RMI authors say (p. 10) actual load factors are much lower because “even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down,” for roughly 8% of the time, “for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures” cause additional shutdowns for another “8% of the time.”

Thus even the most reliable reactors have average load factors of 84%, but not all reactors are reliable.

Why not?

Although 253 US reactors were ordered, only “132...52% of the 253 originally ordered,” were completed; reactors that were not completed (numbering 121) are typically excluded by industry from alleged load-factor averages.

Industry data also exclude another 28 US reactors (21% of the US reactors that were built), because they were “permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems.” They likewise exclude “another 27%, (36 of the US reactors actually built) because they have completely failed for a year or more at least once.

Although the surviving US nuclear plants,” 68 in number and one-fourth of the total US reactors ordered, have short-term load factors of about 90%, RMI authors say this 90% figure is often quoted in industry studies.

Yet they say these industry studies fail to reveal that the 90%, short-term figure represents only about 25% of US reactors and not all 253 reactors that were ordered.

As already explained, the lifetime-average, nuclear-load factor for all reactors is only 71%.

The RMI authors (p. 10) thus explain that these unrealistically high load-factor figures arise from excluding 73% of total reactors, the low-load-factor reactors (Lovins et al. 2008).

Likewise, the RMI authors show (p. 2) that when industry-funded, nuclear-cost studies exclude reactor-construction time and interest charges, this data-trimming can illegitimately trim nuclear-capital costs by more than 50% (Lovins et al. 2008).

In reality, say (p. 1) the RMI authors, quoting The Economist, nuclear power “is now too costly to matter” (Lovins et al. 2008).

"Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest"
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
October 2009
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y

[DrGregory]

34. WRONG AGAIN!!

You quote DOE stats as reported by the industry;
=================================================

The DOE gets it stats from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

It's like someone quoting the FAA on the on-time
statistics of airlines. Then someone says, "Oh
all they have to go on is what the airlines report".

NO!! The FAA knows when planes take off and when
they don't.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its on-site
personnel know when plants go up and down.

You have NO IDEA who is watching what.

You "think" ( term used loosely ) every fact that
you don't like must be a lie reported by the "industry".

Ladies and Gentlemen; we have here for your viewing
pleasure a splendid example of a "reality distortion field".

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

14. You have got to be shitting me.

You want to include non-existent plants in your figures? That's surreal, even by your standards.

Hey, can we include non-existent wind farms and http://www.google.com/search?q=solar+cancelled">non-existent solar installations in the load figures as well? 'Cause that would be awesome. Or are they different, because of the magic?

As an aside, anyone interested in actual capacity (rather than ass-pulled numbers) can find them here and here.

[kristopher]

16. When you are doing a comparative analysis of the total costs of developing a resource

Then yes, when abandoned projects are a significant factor, of course you want to include them.

Is there evidence that there are hundreds or tens or even just a few billions of dollars worth of abandoned projects on the books for solar and wind?

No, I didn't think so.

That's why the nuclear industry tries to keep it out of the discussion.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. You were talking about capacity, remember?

Or should I hop on my scooter and try to catch that goalpost?

[kristopher]

22. The reason load factors are relevant is that they predict benefit/cost.

The study concludes that by trimming data to enhance the relevant variables used to calculate costs the nuclear industry is presenting conclusions on total real costs that are underestimated by a factor of 6.

There are some areas that I would evaluate a bit differently than the author, but overall the analysis is a pretty damning indictment of the integrity of the commercial nuclear wing of the global military-industrial complex.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. So, based on the same criteria...

...what are the capacity factors for wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro & micro-hydro?

[DrGregory]

32. EXACTLY!!

...what are the capacity factors for wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro & micro-hydro?
=========================================================

For one thing, we know that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
capacity factor for solar is LESS than 50%.
The sun doesn't shine at night.

Nuclear power plants have NEVER been as BAD in
capacity factor as solar would love to aspire to.

The solar proponents always point to Germany as
some model for "success" ( that's what they call
it. I certainly wouldn't.) Here's a list of
German solar installations and their capacity factors:

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

The German solar installations have capacity factor
of about 11%.

So why do the complaints of solar power supporters
complaining about nuclear power plant capacity factors
ring so HOLLOW?

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

36. The question is still there, Kris.

Care to answer it?

[kristopher]

37. it was already answered implicity.

You know, when I asked the value of abandoned projects?

Do you have any data showing that a substantial number of renewable projects are either abandoned mid-construction or closing early? I've seen data tabulating early replacement-for-upgrade of a significant number of the very early small turbines in order to maximize high quality wind sites, but I have no knowledge of any phenomenon similar to what has plagued the nuclear industry.

If you do, feel free to bring it out.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. The question is do YOU have any such data

It's quite simple, as questions go.

[kristopher]

39. Are you dense?

I've answered the question twice.

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Evidently

All I can see here is you asking me if I've got it (which I haven't).

Perhaps you're using big words. Try sticking to "yes" or "no", and tell me if you have capacity factors for any other form of energy that includes cancelled projects.

[Dead_Parrot]

50. Still here, kris... nt

[kristopher]

51. Good for you.

I answered your question, now answer mine:
Answer this -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

52. Kris, saying you have answered a question...

...if not the same as actually answering it.

Do so, please.

[kristopher]

53. Keep trying to divert the topic, that's ok.

I'm happy to keep posting this as a reply:


I answered your question, now answer mine:

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. At the moment, the topic is...

...whether you have any data on other energy costs that include cancelled projects.

I'm reaching the conclusion that you haven't, which is why you are refusing to give an answer.

Am I right?

[kristopher]

55. ...

I answered your question, now answer mine:

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

Turnkey

A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and are not bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations. This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.
In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner. For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks. Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.

[Dead_Parrot]

56. I've answered yours...

...I'd be amazed if you answer mine, because I suspect the answer is embarrasing for you.

[Dead_Parrot]

57. Evidently this is a tricky question, so I'll answer for you.

No, you don't have any figures for other forms of energy.

Which is a pity, because in order to claim "x is bigger than y", you need to know what both x and y are: Discovering that x is a big number and concluding that it must therefore be bigger than y is, shall we say, erroneous.

[kristopher]

58. Seeing what kind of trouble you get into when you actually say something

sort of explains why 99.9% of your posts are totally empty rhetoric.

No, you don't have any figures for other forms of energy. Which is a pity, because in order to claim "x is bigger than y", you need to know what both x and y are: Discovering that x is a big number and concluding that it must therefore be bigger than y is, shall we say, erroneous.

What I did not do was make any sort of comparison between nuclear power and renewables( x to y in your example). What I DID do was compare the nuclear industry X (NIx) to the independent analysts (IAx).

That comparison reveals that NIx is falsified.

Yeah, you are probably going to be better off sticking with the tactic of obstructionist nonsense that goes with your screen name.

[Dead_Parrot]

63. Actually, you did.

"Cheap" and "expensive" are not absolute terms, they are relative. Is a $5000 price-tag cheap or expensive? It's impossible to say without knowing what the $5000 gets you, compared to the alternatives.

As for the "falsification" of nuclear industry costs, they are using the same "average cost to completion" that the other energy industries use. If you want to define a non-standard set of criteria and use them to determine what is cheap and what is expensive then that is fine, but you have to do so across the board or your figures are meaningless.

[kristopher]

65. "Cheap" is the claim of the nuclear industry.

Abstract
Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

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


The results of this analysis are extremely clear. Historical performance of the studies produced using "trimmed data" produce predictions that consistently overestimate the actual performance delivered by the nuclear industry.


Cooper's 2009 paper came to the same fundamental conclusion. Note the sources of the estimates:


This isn't spin, it isn't hype, it isn't "anti-nuclear" rhetoric; it is the plain truth.

[Dead_Parrot]

66. well, produce the figures for the alternatives...

...and we can investigate that claim.

Simple, no?

[DrGregory]

42. It was already DODGED implicitly.

[kristopher]

46. Just a heads up that your services have been requested

Answer this -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

[DrGregory]

29. More self-serving FALSE "LOGIC"

The reason load factors are relevant is that they predict benefit/cost.
===========================================================

But if the question is a prediction of how well future
power plants are going to perform, you do NOT include
the shutdown one.

An analogy is instructive. Suppose we are analyzing
the budget of the USA. We are interested in how much
debt the USA can carry. That is going to depend on
the earning capacity of future earners.

If you want to know the earning capacity of future
earners, you do NOT include the earning capacity
of DEAD people.

Including the earning capacity of DEAD people, and
including the capacity factors of SHUTDOWN plants
doesn't tell you what future earnings or future
capacity factors will be. It is merely a SELF-
SERVING rouse by people who can't handle the
truth because it runs counter to their agenda.

The best indicator of what the capacity factor
of future power plants will be will be found
in averages including the current OPERATING
fleet of power plants.

Many of the early power plants were "experimental"
in nature. They were the test beds for trying out
new ideas. Why would one include those in an
average for future capacity factor projections?

The future power plants will NOT be experiments.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

35. You have to include worker lifetime.

Still working on the second item on the list I see.

Costs also drop when assessors lengthen reactor lifetimes. Current plants were designed to last 30 years, and some licenses have been extended longer. However, the global-average lifetime of the 119 already-closed reactors is 22 years. 19 US fission plants (20%) retired before 30 years, and more than $20 billion was spent on 121 plants that were later cancelled. Thus more US reactors (140) were closed prematurely or cancelled (amid construction) than those (104) now operating. S-F

In the last wave of nuclear construction US reactors on average busted their budgets by 2X-4X. So tell me, how are things going with the time and budget at Olkiluoto-3 in Finland?

Answer this -

1) Why are no turn keynuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

[DrGregory]

19. Including SHUTDOWN plants is just as bad

As an aside, anyone interested in actual capacity (rather than ass-pulled numbers) can find them here and here.
=======================================================================

If one pulls up the list by following the link in the original post;
it says at the top:

Includes all operational & shutdown reactors from beginning of comercial operation up to 2009

That average includes the SHUTDOWN reactors.

Yes - we have a bunch of shutdown reactors that are contributing
0% to the average and dragging down the average for the operating
plants.

WHO CARES about an average that includes SHUTDOWN reactors??

What we want here is a metric that tells us how well a nuclear
power plant can operate and how well the current fleet of
power plants are operating.

A list in which the averaging includes SHUTDOWN plants does
NOT answer that question.

If one wanted to know the average age of a person in the USA,
would you include the age of all the DEAD people who have
ever lived in the United States in that average?

We'd end up with a mean age in the USA of 100+ years.

That's NOT the way to calculate the mean age in the USA.

What we want to know is "How well do operating nuclear power
plants work". We want to know how well the plants that
may / may not be built are going to work.

Including the shutdown plants in the average, doesn't tell
us a thing about how the next generation of nuclear power
plants are going to work.

The best indicator of that is how the PRESENT generation
of nuclear power plants are working. NOT the past generation,
or the generation preceding that.

We should look to the present generation of operating plants
as the best indicator of what the capacity factors of future
nuclear power plants will be.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

20. I take it that is your way of conceding that your assertions of "LIE" were false.

But now you are getting into #2 from the list above:

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[DrGregory]

31. You really have a problem with doing logic...

I take it that is your way of conceding that your assertions of "LIE" were false.
===========================================================

You really have a problem doing logic.

I don't see ANY reason for your self-serving supposition
that I concede ANYTHING to the likes of you.

For the record, I concede NOTHING!

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

45. Answer this -

Answer this -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

[Confusious]

59. Because most all large projects have loan guarantees

Even renewables

http://www.physorg.com/news199503106.html

You're asking for a rule change just because it's nuclear, but not expecting the same if it's renewables. I think there's a word for that.

[kristopher]

60. Two points

1) The discussion is about turnkey projects, not loan guarantees.

2) as far as loan guarantees go, they are not an end in and of themselves, they are a policy path helping to establish the economic viability of emerging technologies. As such, their use in a second round of nuclear development is unusual since nuclear power is a technology that has received a huge amount of public sector support over the past 50 years. The fact is that this round of loan guarantees are a "last chance" for nuclear, but they are an "initial opportunity" for renewable technologies.

I can see where a reasonable person would have the question you posed, however.

[Confusious]

61. Well, someone is going ahead without them

Does that meet your definition? It seems to to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x262235

Any large, complicated project is not going to agree to that.

Look at the pentagon for that matter. No defense contractor would agree to it, or they would be out of business.

I still say you're looking for an exception, where there should be none, based on the size, cost and complexity of the project.

[kristopher]

62. Why? nt

[Confusious]

64. I told you why. nt

[DrGregory]

69. A lot of Pentagon projects have a substantial R&D component

Look at the pentagon for that matter. No defense contractor would agree to it, or they would be out of business.
----------------------------------------------------------

Many of the projects for the Pentagon on new cutting-edge weapons systems
have a substantial R&D component to them.

For example, the B-2 Spirit "Stealth" bomber. When the Congress tried
to cutback on the number of B-2s to save money, the cost per bomber rose.

That was because one had a different number of planes to amortize the R&D
costs over.

The FIRST B-2 costs $124 Billion, and there after, you get them for a few
hundred million a copy. The reason each bomber costs a billion or so is
because you are amortizing the R&D costs.

When one is creating the science behind the product, one can't do a turnkey
contract. Nobody knows how the science is going to turn out. Research
doesn't follow somebody's economic model.

If the military wants cutting-edge weaponry with new science and new
technology that nobody else has, then one is only going to get that
from a "cost plus" contract.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

43. More demonstration of the anti-nuke LIES

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
========================================================

I would have thought this was a no-brainer. Of course learning
solves problems. How else does one solve problems?

Standardized designs have helped France. All the French reactors
are off-shoots of the Westinghouse PWR In the USA, there are
basically ONLY TWO basic power reactor designs. They are the
PWR, originally designed by Westinghouse; and the BWR, originally
designed by General Electric. There were a couple HTGRs;
Peach Bottom I and Fort St. Vrain. However, those experimental
plants are now shutdown.

I don't see having two basic designs as a real problem. How many
designs for cars do the automotive manufacturers have. Do we all
have to drive a single design of car for the automotive industry
to be successful?

. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

If one recycles, then the long-lived components of the
waste, such as Plutonium-239, are recycled back to the
reactor as fuel. The longest lived component that one
would need to be stored as waste would be Cesium-137
with a half-life of just 30 years.

However, even if we didn't recycle. The whole nuclear
waste problem is OVERBLOWN.

You don't have to take my word for it.

Prof. Richard Muller is the well-respected Physics
Professor from the University of California at Berkeley
and has written a VERY GOOD book that I recommend to
all here called "Physics for Future Presidents".

For what Professor Muller has to say about the nuclear
waste problem:

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/muller.cfm

"When I work out the numbers, I find the dangers of storing our waste at
Yucca Mountain to be small compared to the dangers of not doing so, and
significantly smaller than many other dangers we ignore. Yet the contentious
debate continues."

Is Professor Muller just another shill for the nuclear industry?

NO! Professor Muller is an honorable professor of Physics at
a major US University. He makes his calculations and assessments
as I do - based on SCIENCE.

However, the anti-nukes can't have that. Anyone that disagrees
with them has to be a fraud or in the pocket of the all powerful,
all seeing, omnipotent nuclear industry.

We'll see what rot comes in response.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

44. More answers

"4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;"

This isn't a scientific question. It doesn't have a unique answer.
There are two answers:

We can be SMART and have a nuclear renaissance as an answer to climate change
We can be DUMB and STUPID and not have a nuclear renaissance.

This is more of a policy question. It asks whether we are going to
be SMART or DUMB. At present, that could go either way.


"5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;"

Baseload is the ability to deliver power around the clock, 24/7.
Renewables, by their very nature, are NOT "baseload". Renewables
are intrinsically intermittent. When you get your power from
Mother Nature, you can only harvest the power that Mother Nature
is delivering at the time. Solar power doesn't work at night.
The wind is not always blowing.

One can mitigate the effects of intermittent energy generation if
one has energy storage. ( We debated that too and a lot of the
anti-nukes didn't like the implication of that either.) However,
the basic energy harvesting renewable methods are intrinsically
intermittent.

"6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations."

The technology difference between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons is VAST.

There are LOTS of problems that the nuclear weapons designer has to solve that
having and operating a nuclear power plant doesn't tell you.

Additionally, nations don't embark on nuclear weapons programs because they
have nuclear power plants. They embark on nuclear weapons programs because
they want nuclear weapons. Simple as that.

Canada has had nuclear power plants for almost as long as the USA, and it doesn't
have nuclear weapons. They don't desire them. Canada falls under the USA's
"nuclear umbrella".

Then we have nations like Iran. Iran is only now getting its first nuclear power
plant. However, Iran has been attempting to make nuclear weapons for YEARS.

It's simple-minded thinking to "think" ( term used loosely ) that opposing nuclear
power is a way to oppose nuclear weapons. It's not only simplistic, but dangerous.
It gives you a false sense of security. If the US and the United Nation or whoever
had successfully blocked Iran from getting its first nuclear power plant from the
Russians, could we sit back and confidently say, "Oh, we don't need to worry about
Iran developing nuclear weapons. We stopped their nuclear power program..."


"The list is cribbed from the text of a talk I downloaded a couple of years ago,..."

Is this someone's idea of a citation??? I cribbed this from a talk of an
UNSPECIFIED person a couple years ago.

In scientific circles, we NAME the cited person and journal article.

Otherwise, we get people full of BS citing other people who are equally full
of BS as the person doing the citing.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

47. Come on now...

Answer this -

1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.

[NNadir]

4. Competetive with what? Simply because anti-nukes can't compare numbers, doesn't mean that the

rest of the world can't.

Most people for instance with better than a fourth grade education can compare the ratio of electricity prices in Denmark vs. France:

http://www.energy.eu/

Whose fault is it, exactly that anti-nukes are so pathetically educated, so misinformed, so dogmatic, so cultish, that they can't tell the difference between Denmark's electricity prices (26.8 eurocents per kilowatt-hour) and those of France (0.138 eurocents per kwh)?

The United States built 100 nuclear reactors in less than 20 years. Electricity prices in the United States, except in stupid renewable/gas hellholes like, say Maine and Massachusetts, are among the lowest in the world.

Only a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid mystic would claim that what has already occurred is impossible.

What a coincidence! One hundred percent of the anti-nukes to whom I've been exposed are all very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid mystics.

Actually the dogma of the dumb fuck anti-nukes is to destroy the future of the United States by leaving the future to Asia, where the anti-nuke anti-science cults are considered, rightfully, laughable dogma.

China just announced an 800 billion dollar yen ($120 billion) investment in nuclear technology. What's the dumb fuck anti-nuke position on this? That the Chinese are as stupid as the set of obese mystics lying around the pool year after year after year after year after year studiously avoiding every opening a science book?

[DrGregory]

8. They sound like collectivists..

Actually the dogma of the dumb fuck anti-nukes is to destroy the future of the United States
==============================

The anti-nukes I've heard both here and in other
circumstances sound like a bunch of collectivists.

Some of these people have been crying and sobbing
since that great experiment in collectivism, namely
the Soviet Union, folded in the late '80s.

They either hate the United States, or mankind in
general. As Dr. Patrick Moore testified before
Congress:

http://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70

"Environmental extremists are anti-human. Humans are characterized as a cancer on the Earth. To quote eco-extremist Herb Hammond, "of all the components of the ecosystem, humans are the only ones we know to be completely optional". Isn't that a lovely thought?"

As a scientist, I've been APPALLED at the level
of manifest IGNORANCE of the principles of science
displayed by some here. Dr. Moore also addresses
that:

"They are anti-science and technology. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and unnatural. Science is invoked to justify positions that have nothing to do with science. Unfounded opinion is accepted over demonstrated fact."

As well as the aforementioned collectivist bent
of the anti-nukes:

"They are anti-business. All large corporations are depicted as inherently driven by greed and corruption. Profits are definitely not politically correct. The liberal democratic, market-based model is rejected even though no viable alternative is proposed to provide for the material needs of 6 billion people. As expressed by the Native Forest Network, "it is necessary to adopt a global phase out strategy of consumer based industrial capitalism."

I think they mean civilization.

And they are just plain anti-civilization. In the final analysis, eco- extremists project a naive vision of returning to the supposedly Utopian existence in the garden of Eden, conveniently forgetting that in the old days people lived to an average age of 35, and there were no dentists. In their Brave New World there will be no more chemicals, no more airplanes, and certainly no more polyester suits."

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

23. And people should listen to you because....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737

[madokie]

41. He's a joke and a bad one at that