Nuclear plants are expensive to build. Why?

[wtmusic]

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.1558191.1276126668!/image/3893676015.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/3893676015.jpg
The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island. Completed, then closed.

"Regulatory Ratcheting

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission Office of Regulation, as parts of the United States Government, must be responsive to public concern. Starting in the early 1970s, the public grew concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants: the NRC therefore responded in the only way it could, by tightening regulations and requirements for safety equipment.

<>

This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed.

<>

A major source of cost escalation in some plants was delays caused by opposition from well-organized "intervenor" groups that took advantage of hearings and legal strategies to delay construction. The Shoreham plant on Long Island was delayed for 3 years by intervenors who turned the hearings for a construction permit into a circus. The intervenors included a total imposter claiming to be an expert with a Ph.D. and an M.D. There were endless days of reading aloud from newspaper and magazine articles, interminable "cross examination" with no relevance to the issuance of a construction permit, and an imaginative variety of other devices to delay the proceedings and attract media attention."

(As delays typically cost $1 million/day, intervenors at the Shoreham permit hearings singlehandedly added more than $1 billion to the cost of the plant).

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

[FBaggins]

1. "Intervenors... singlehandedly added more than $1 billion to the cost of the plant"

And then (without shame) shifted to arguing that such plants take much longer to build than their proponents claim.

Then... after they successfully blocked the plant (after it was completed), they (again shamelessly) include that 0% capacity over it's expected life cycle into their calculations... and claimed that reactors produce less power than proponents claim.

[kristopher]

3. Hope and Hype Vs. Reality in Nuclear Reactor Costs

Paper title:
The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?

<snip>

Hope and Hype Vs. Reality in Nuclear Reactor Costs

From the first fixed price turnkey reactors in the 1960s to the May 2009 cost projection of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the claim that nuclear power is or could be cost competitive with alternative technologies for generating electricity has been based on hope and hype. In the 1960s and 1970s, the hope and hype analyses prepared by reactor vendors and parroted by government officials helped to create what came to be known as the “great bandwagon market.” In about a decade utilities ordered over 200 nuclear reactors of increasing size.

Unfortunately, reality did not deliver on the hope and the hype. Half of the reactors ordered in the 1960s and 1970s were cancelled, with abandoned costs in the tens of billions of dollars. Those reactors that were completed suffered dramatic cost overruns (see Figure ES-1). On average, the final cohort of great bandwagon market reactors cost seven times as much as the cost projection for the first reactor of the great bandwagon market. The great bandwagon market ended in fierce debates in the press and regulatory proceedings throughout the 1980s and 1990s over how such a huge mistake could have been made and who should pay for it.

In an eerie parallel to the great bandwagon market, a series of startlingly low-cost estimates prepared between 2001 and 2004 by vendors and academics and supported by government officials helped to create what has come to be known as the “nuclear renaissance.” However, reflecting the poor track record of the nuclear industry in the U.S., the debate over the economics of the nuclear renaissance is being carried out before substantial sums of money are spent. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, when the utility industry, reactor vendors and government officials monopolized the preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent energy analysts have come forward with much higher estimates of the cost of nuclear reactors....

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

Full paper available for download at this link. It has a detailed discussion of the history of the nuclear fission industry's use of lowball pricing to gouge the public.
http://www.olino.org/us/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/cooper-report-on-nuclear-economics-final1.pdf

Not in the website summary but on page 13 of the paper we find:
"The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that most of the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible."
- Cooper is quoting the nuclear scare-mongers at Forbes.


See also: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

[FBaggins]

4. Thanks for proving my point. n/t

[kristopher]

5. No, not at all; thank *you* for proving the point of both papers.

Trying to mislead people is a trademark action of the fission industry.So saying "thanks for proving my point" when both papers completely reject and disprove your "point" has every appearance of being an attempt to deceive, which IS what the papers say is the method of operation of the fission reactor industry.
So, thank *you* for proving the point of both papers.

[madokie]

7. I don't think he'll get it Kris

some just can't understand

[ret5hd]

2. Shameless...wanting to live with only one head and no tail.

Wanting to reproduce, grow food, avoid cancer etc etc etc.

[madokie]

6. Because they're dangerous as hell is why

We could get a much bigger bang for our buck elsewhere. If one can't see the fallacy of nuclear energy for producing our electrical power after whats happening in Japan today then nothing will change that persons mind. The nuke boys in Japan have no clue as what to do next and until all the I's are doted and tee crossed we have no business building more or for that matter keeping the ones we have running.
Its stupid, its dumb to even suggest otherwise. IMHO

[txlibdem]

11. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Using the terror and deaths in Japan to further your anti-nuke agenda? Shame

The ongoing crisis in Japan has more to do with the fact that this reactor was designed in the 1960s as anything else. The Generation IV reactors are passively safe and would not be having these problems that the 1960s design has no defense against. It's all in the design but that's difficult to explain. Meanwhile those who want to make everyone afraid (FEAR works in politics and public opinion) are going all out to keep the level of fear against nuclear power at the highest level possible.

I can't find a single thing in my city that has been around since the 1960s without being rebuilt or redesigned. Why is it a surprise that a 1960s reactor design couldn't withstand a 9.0 earthquake followed by a monster tsunami? That is the 3rd largest earthquake in history and Japan's largest earthquake ever. Do we hear any of the anti-nukes mentioning any of this? Nope. Just more FEAR, fear, FEAR.

[madokie]

15. Like I said

Nuclear cost so much because it is so dangerous.
"Tsk, tsk, tsk. Using the terror and deaths in Japan to further your anti-nuke agenda? Shame." For your information I'm not using the terror or deaths in japan to further my anti-nuke stance so you can stick that one. :hi:

I've been saying the same thing from day one when I found this site and I'll keep on saying the same thing as long as I'm alive. Nuclear energy is neither safe, cheap or necessary.

Its always the old ones are no good but the new ones are Ok, been that way with the pro-nuke crowd for as long as I can remember and thats a long ass time, probably close to as long as you are old.

Be afraid of nuclear power, be very afraid.

[txlibdem]

18. "I'm not using the terror or deaths in japan to further my anti-nuke stance"

From your post #6:
If one can't see the fallacy of nuclear energy for producing our electrical power after whats happening in Japan today then nothing will change that persons mind. The nuke boys in Japan have no clue as what to do next and until all the I's are doted and tee crossed we have no business building more or for that matter keeping the ones we have running.

That seems a little like you are, in fact, using what's happening in Japan today to further your anti-nuke stance. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that was not your intent.

Then you said, "Its always the old ones are no good but the new ones are Ok, been that way with the pro-nuke crowd for as long as I can remember and thats a long ass time, probably close to as long as you are old. Be afraid of nuclear power, be very afraid."

I just can't shake the feeling that you are fear mongering in your anti-nuke posts. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Question: aren't newer cars safer than those designed in the 1960s?
Question: aren't computers of today much more powerful and more reliable than those of the 1960s? (when you needed a full time computer repair staff)
Question: isn't just about every darn thing we use today better, more reliable, more efficient, safer, etc., than what we had in the 1960s?

I just don't see your logic in denying that the new generation of nuclear reactors will be safer than the ones designed in the 1960s. It flies in the face of every bit of life experience I've had or even heard about. Can you explain why the new generation of reactors will be no safer than the 1960s designs?

[madokie]

23. I've been hearing this next generation of nuclear is the fix for 50 damn years now

and its always the same. When something goes wrong, WELL, it was a bad design but this new design won't have that problem and on and on.
Oh and don't be giving me any benefit of the doubt about this, I know where I stand concerning fissile materials to boil water to make steam to turn generators to make electric power and have for a long ass time.

What the fuck does cars have to do with this? Not once has a car accident rendered a large section of the earth unsafe for inhabitants yet and I seriously doubt that it ever will. We have two sections that nuclear energy has done that very thing, Chernobyl and now Japan. Or did you miss the Prime minister saying it will be a long time before this section of japan will be safe again? Oh and that zone is growing almost daily, at least weekly so far.

Fear monger, you're thinking I'm fear mongering when you're actually trying your damnedest to minimize this catastrophe in the making in Japan today while I am simple stating what ought to be pretty plain that nuclear energy is not safe.

Jebus criss, man pay the fuck attention. :hi:

I'd like to add: Nuclear energy is not our future and its as simple as that.
peace

[txlibdem]

25. You forget about the ozone hole, which was fixed with... wait for it... NEW TECHNOLOGY

OMG. That can't be because with nuclear power no improvement is possible so it just can't be that anything could ever be improved ever. No human technology can be improved upon so we had better just stick with coal power plants. PS, in case you haven't been paying attention, coal power plants spew out radioactive material completely unfiltered, uncontained, day after day and year after year. Just because coal is destroying our environment in slow motion does not mean that we need to have more of it.

Some of the DUers want to suck on coal fumes. That's fine for them I guess: pick your poison. But don't gloss over the poison from one energy source while demonizing another.

This is what coal does for Texas:
-----------------------------------------------
* Pollution from coal plants shortens the lives of 1,160 Texans each year. It also causes 196,149 lost work days, 1,105 hospitalizations and 33,987 asthma attacks every year.
* Each year, 144 lung cancer deaths and 1,791 heart attacks in Texas are attributable to power plant pollution.
* A UT Health Science Center San Antonio study found that autism increases by 17% for every 1,000 pounds of mercury that is emitted locally in Texas.

http://www.stopthecoalplant.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Cancer! Cancer! Cancer! 144 lung cancer deaths ***each and every year*** from coal power plants. In Texas alone, if these coal plants are allowed to pollute for 40 years then it will kill 5,760 Texans just from lung cancer and cause 71,640 heart attacks. Oh, but let's be SCARED about nuclear power, which has the best chance to knock coal off the face of the earth permanently.

The EPA is proposing limits on coal power pollution --***there are currently NO LIMITS on how much pollution a coal plant can pollute us with***--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston (AP) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules on Wednesday that would for the first time regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants, including limiting mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gas pollution.

Environmental and medical groups praised the move, which came in response to a court-ordered deadline, saying the new regulations will remove toxins from the air that contribute to respiratory illnesses, birth defects and developmental problems in children.

There are currently no limits on how much mercury or other pollutants can be released from a power plant's smoke stacks. The EPA said the new regulations - which would go into effect by 2014 - would reduce mercury emissions from these power plants by 91 percent.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-proposes-regulating-mercury-coal-pla
----------------------------------------------------------------------

“Increased levels of mercury in our waters – primarily from coal fired power plants – have forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to warn pregnant women and any woman who might want to become pregnant to avoid or limit fish consumption. This year alone, an estimated 630,000 children will be born to women with unsafe blood levels of mercury, as determined by the EPA. This in utero exposure can contribute to severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and seizures.”

-Dr. Kimberly Carter, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, Austin, TX
Oh yeah, we need a lot less nuclear --which will directly result in far more coal burning power plants with no limits on the toxic crap that they push out onto the rest of us.

As for spreading fear by using Japan, my friend, I quoted you directly. Yes, it is a human tragedy and yes you are using the fear of it to push your agenda. One cannot hide from direct quotes from your own posts.

[madokie]

27. Where did I insinuate I was using japan to further any agenda

simply stating facts is not pushing anything. Oh and I don't hide from anyone or anything especially someone on a keyboard somewhere out there in cyberland. You make me :rofl: my ass off with this I gotta win at all cost even if I have to move the goal post to do it attitude. I put one on ignore this morning because of the same shit and looks like I'm going to have to follow up with yet another.
Have a good day and try to stay focused it makes for a much better discussion. :hi:

I want to add: if you want to discuss, say, the ozone start a thread about 'ozone' and we'll discuss that, you do get where I'm going here don't you?

[txlibdem]

30. I get you: coal gets a free pass but other energy sources get raked over the coals

Hehe. See what I did there? It's called humor.

But seriously, what is the difference between radiation and radiation? Coal puts out its radiation with absolutely no controls, and dumps the radioactive and toxic ash into open pits, most of which are polluting the groundwater in those areas.

And, as I showed in another post, there are no limits placed on the toxic Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Boron, Uranium and Thorium that coal plants put out. Is it any wonder that coal is cheaper? They're pushing the costs of all their poisons onto the rest of us. Onto the taxpayers and those unfortunate enough to get lung cancer, asthma, birth defects, or a heart attack from coal power plant emissions.

I mentioned the ozone hole because it was fixed with newer and cleaner technologies. Two plus two equals four. Except when nuclear power is concerned: no new technology could ever make that stuff safer. Nope. Just can't be done.

[madokie]

34. Once again, It is not a coal or nuclear argument

I am not a coal proponent.
I'm going to call for a timeout as I have too much work to do today to continue with this nonsense.
I like you but man you're getting on my last nerve. :-)
Peace and have a good day, I plan too.
I'll see you on the other side when you quit making me out to be what I aren't :-)

[kristopher]

32. You didn't. That is a traditionalist trying tp project his values onto you.

You've clearly and repeatedly demonstrated a value system based on "altruistic" values. The value system of most nuclear supporters is one that is based on "traditional" values.

He is making the same type of projection of values as he does when he claims that if someone opposes nuclear, then they support coal. It is a logical failure designed to pre-emptively attack the "competition" with accusations of something the attackers themselves are guilty of. The method places the respondent in the position of sounding like they are in an elementary schoolyard debate, thus effectively precluding discussion of important facets of the issues.

[madokie]

33. Yup

so true :hi:

[Nihil]

40. Pot, kettle, etc.

> It is a logical failure designed to pre-emptively attack the "competition"
> with accusations of something the attackers themselves are guilty of.

Now where have we encountered that tactic before ...?

:think:

[txlibdem]

42. Is it projection when it is backed up by historical fact? I think most folks would call that truth.

But that word may be unfamiliar to some DUers.

Truth: Since the anti-nuke crowd halted all nuclear power plant construction we have build hundreds of coal power plants instead.

Truth: Each coal power plant spews out 5.8 tons of Uranium and 11 tons of Thorium **each year** --the coal industry does no processing of the coal before burning and whatever is in the rock spews out of the smoke stack and gets dumped into the open pits, just like the one that destroyed a town last year. The coal-lovers call it "fly ash" and I call it toxic waste. This "fly ash" contains Mercury, Arsenic, Lead, Boron, etc. It sounds like only a tiny annoyance when you call it a fly, doesn't it? But it is toxic.

But don't take my word for it, look it up. Here's what wikipedia says about "fly ash"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.<1><2>

In the past, fly ash was generally released into the atmosphere, but pollution control equipment mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to release. In the US, fly ash is generally stored at coal power plants or placed in landfills. About 43 percent is recycled,<3> often used to supplement Portland cement in concrete production. Some have expressed health concerns about this.<4>

In some cases, such as the burning of solid waste to create electricity ("resource recovery" facilities a.k.a. waste-to-energy facilities), the fly ash may contain higher levels of contaminants than the bottom ash and mixing the fly and bottom ash together brings the proportional levels of contaminants within the range to qualify as nonhazardous waste in a given state, whereas, unmixed, the fly ash would be within the range to qualify as hazardous waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was that in the first paragraph? PAH compounds? That doesn't sound bad at all...
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), also known as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, are potent atmospheric pollutants ...snip... As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic.
Mutagenic -- meaning that they cause MUTATIONS.

What's this other bit from the 1st paragraph, DIOXIN. Why those were banned. They are an environmental killer and is fat soluble so its concentration goes up the higher up on the food chain you are (like us humans). Dioxin was used to murder the Ukranian President in 2004. It is also one of the chemicals in Agent Orange (VietNam vets suffered greatly from it). And does anyone remember Love Canal? Google it and learn some truth.

But the fossil fuel folks would have you believe that only "NOOK-YOO-LER" is bad. It's bad, it's bad. Fear. FEAR. Fear!!!!

I, on the other hand, want to treat radiation as radiation. I want all companies that spew out Uranium to follow the same strict and very tightly governmentally controlled safety practices as the nuclear industry -- and that means containment and not dumping it into open pits or open ponds as the coal industry gets away with right now.

Now I really sound unreasonable don't I? Folks, I just can't put it any more basic that this: Uranium, Thorium, Strontium -- those are the things the anti-nukes want you to FEAR. But you don't hear a peep out of those posters when those very same radioactive materials are coming from coal.

Isn't that strange?

[kristopher]

43. Coal is poisonous. Fission is poisonous.

Renewables and a distributed grid are far more sustainable, far cleaner, far less expensive in the long run, provide more social justice, and MORE RELIABLE than a centralized thermal (coal/nuclear) grid.



http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Speaking just of building 100 new reactors in the US:
"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 Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?
by Mark Cooper

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

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

[txlibdem]

46. Again your graph which shows COAL is a POSITIVE -- wrong, wrong, wrong

I post facts, you post cut-and-paste tripe.

Look up my posts and you will see that I have always called for mass produced reactors. I have always stated my contempt for the nuclear construction industry and their greed.

[kristopher]

50. If you only knew how much you amuse me... nt

[Nederland]

8. The anti-nuke industry is nothing but a history of lies (nt)

[w4rma]

9. The Fukushima disaster proves anti-nuke activists correct on most every point. (nt)

[txlibdem]

13. Wrong. Fukushima proves that the anti-nukes are wrong in every way

The lesson from Fukushima is that we need to immediately begin a massive program to build new nuclear reactors, either Thorium cycle reactors or SMRs, that are passively safe and (in the case of Thorium) can never be used to make bombs. SMRs are in the approval process at this time and will be mass produced in American factories, lowering costs and increasing quality. Thorium reactors could similarly be built from mass produced components and be very cost effective.

The only reason there are so many old reactors in the USA is because of the dirty, underhanded trickery and lies of the anti-nuke crowd. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy that one of these will one day have a problem that exceeds its design limits. We need to begin building massive numbers of new reactors and shut the older ones down.

We need to build as many of the above nuclear power plants as possible, as much solar as possible, wind, geothermal, tidal power and wave power plants as possible. This must be our national goal and we must start asap. These zero-carbon energy sources will ensure the world is liveable when your grandchildren are graduating. Coal and fossil fuels are going to make their world a living hell due to global climate change. It's already starting.

[madokie]

16. I doubt seriously if there will ever be another nuke plant brought online here in the good o USA

If I was a bet'n man I'd bet against it happening too.

[txlibdem]

20. If the coal lobby has its way, no.

If we place coal and fossil fuels in their proper place, that of history, then we will need far more nuclear power plants than we have now. Once we have 60% of our energy coming from solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power and wave power we will be able to start phasing out all of the nuclear power plants. UNLESS we have perfected fusion power by then. That is too good to pass on.

[kristopher]

21. Utility CEO critical of EPA says "Coal under attack" "Push nuclear"

Southern Co. chief Tom Fanning urges nuclear push

WASHINGTON -- Japan's nuclear catastrophe should not derail the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S., Southern Co. President and CEO Tom Fanning said Wednesday.

"What's happened in Japan recently has made me more convicted than ever that we need to develop this generation of nuclear for America," Fanning said in a major energy policy speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

<snip>

Fanning, addressing an audience of business advocates at U.S. Chamber headquarters across from the White House, was also critical of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for what he says are aggressive regulations that sidestep the role of Congress is setting national energy policy, and will lead to higher electricity prices for customers.

"The existing coal industry is under attack by some in America," Fanning said. "Decisions are being made today that will limit our ability long term to use coal and therefore negatively impact the nation's economic well-being."...


http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2011/04/southern_co_chief_tom_fanning.html

Coal and nuclear, nuclear and coal - two sides of the same centralized coin.

[txlibdem]

26. "Centralized things are bad"

How is your food made, distributed, and delivered to the grocery store? A centralized system.

When you fill-er-up at the gas station, how does that fuel get there? A centralized system.

When you go to the home center to pick up a few things, how were they made, distributed and delivered to the store? A centralized system.

How does you heart know to continue beating, keeping you alive? A centralized system (most people have one of these).

[kristopher]

29. Who could argue with such an in-depth and thorough analysis.

[txlibdem]

31. Some people on DU are "too smart" so they can't argue anything

They just try to divert the thread off into la-la land with some made up BS or a personal attack.

[wtmusic]

36. +1 nt

[madokie]

22. Man O man it is not a fossil or fissile solution

Neither is necessary to get us where we're going.

We're not going to be building more fissile power plants. You guys wear me out with this false argument of its one or the other., when in fact its neither.
We're wasting time and money on worrying with nuclear. Damn can't you see that? Can you see what's going on in Japan today?

go to bed and get some sleep and hope like hell the Japanese get this disaster under control soon as it has the potential to cause great harm to both the environment, man, fish and beast.

Maybe we need to start thinking of that house you're planning to build in the future and get your mind off this false argument of it's one or the other.

[LAGC]

28. And what magic power source would you power entire cities and industries with?

At night when the sun isn't shining? When the wind isn't blowing?

None of you pie-in-the-sky types have ever answered this question to my satisfaction. I'm thinking dead of winter when everyone has their electric heaters turned up.

If we don't want to endure rolling blackouts from less-than-reliable alternative energy sources, we need a steady base of energy supply. Right now our only economical choices are: coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Only one of these energy sources is low-carbon.

[w4rma]

38. Batteries. (nt)

[LAGC]

39. Cost is still very prohibitive.

I agree that eventually, with enough break-throughs in energy-storage mediums, massive batteries will one day become cheaper than nuclear power generation, and we can rely primarily on solar/wind generators for the bulk of our energy needs. But that is not the case today, or in the near-future. In 10 years maybe with a little bit of luck, but we have a lot of nuclear plants approaching the end of their lifespan before then. What do we replace them with in the meantime? Coal? Natural gas?

[kristopher]

41. Wind and solar. Your view of the role of centralized bulk generation overstates its value.

Spending more money on fission is just locking in the system that is designed around coal - thus preserving the value of coal itself.

[txlibdem]

44. By law: only Pepsi will be sold -- thus preserving the value of Coca-Cola

That is the logic presented in your post. Rather, the lack of logic.

Nuclear power takes away 20% of the profit from the coal industry. Killing nuclear power = more profit for coal, more coal power plants.

Building more nuclear power plants = taking profit away from coal, taking away more market share.

Your posts are antithetical to truth, facts, business practices, and historical data. But please continue to amuse us with your coal+nuclear = bed mates BS.

[kristopher]

45. Really? Explain FERC Chairman Wellinghoff saying that neither coar nor nuclear are needed.

[txlibdem]

47. Go ahead and explain it

You seem to have a point to make -- go ahead and make it.

[kristopher]

48. The Chair of FERC is the point of the spear for grid reliability.

Do you know what Wellinghoff said?

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/

It is towards the end of the second half of the interview.

[txlibdem]

49. Make your point, don't just post a blind link

You had a point about what this person said. Why don't you quote it? Take your own time to make your argument. I have no time to waste on your tomfoolery.

[Javaman]

10. LOL

LOLOLOLOL

>wipes tear from eye<

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

12. +1, they may have started with lofty goals but then it became all about winning-at any cost

Lies, protests, delay tactics, nuisance lawsuits, so-called "experts" coming out of the woodwork like so many termites and cockroaches. It hasn't been about the science or the truth since the beginning. And those who suck up the anti-nuke kool-aide are unfortunately nothing but tools of a few dozen power-hungry men, and unwitting tools of the coal and fossil fuel industries.

All it takes is about a day of study to become educated enough to recognize the lies and fear mongering of the anti-nuke side. All one has to do is look at pictures of the sky in China to see that coal is the true danger to humanity. Over 60 years of nuclear power in the USA and no terrible tragedies, no increased cancer rates in populations near the reactors, none of the scary things they said were going to happen "any day now." How long will it take until the majority of Americans realize that these fear tactics are old manipulations that no longer have any power to frighten us into keeping deadly coal and fossil fuels as the dominant energy sources.

[Terry in Austin]

14. Ratcheting: apparently, not nearly enough

Those evil regulators making us spend money!

[PamW]

17. "The Shoreham Effect"

Yes - and finally there is the "Shoreham Effect" named for the power plant
in the picture of the original post.

The coude de gras came in the form of a particularly egregious abuse of the power
of government. Shoreham is located in the State of New York. Then Governor Mario
Cuomo packed the New York Public Utilities Commission with anti-nuke commissioners.

Before a power plant can operate, the rate of payment for the electricity provided
by that power plant has to be set / approved by the PUC. For Shoreham, the New York
State PUC approved a rate of $0.00 per kilowatt-hour.

The PUC told the plant's owner Long Island Lighting Co. that it had to give away any
power generated by Shoreham for free, and could not charge for it. A nuclear power
plant has to earn its keep. It has to earn back the money it took to build it.

Obviously, if LILCO couldn't charge for the electricity, Shoreham became a
$6 Billion "white elephant", and LILCO had no way to repay the construction loan
for Shoreham, and LILCO had to go into bankruptcy and was dissolved.

THAT is what every prospective nuclear utility currently fears.

They may do everything correct and properly build their new nuclear power plant.

However, if the State government is anti-nuclear, the company could find itself
in receivership. It's a gamble with no way to affect the results.

That's why we have to "bribe" prospective nuclear utilities with "loan guarantees".

If Congress passed a law stating that States could not discriminate against a nuclear
power plant merely because it was nuclear, we could dispense with the loan guarantees.

PamW

[jpak]

19. Shoreham was too close to NYC- you know that California nuclear plants were on the original 9/11

AQ target list

right?

:shrug:

[LAGC]

24. And how, pray tell, could a terrorist expect to sabotage a nuclear plant?

The "flying planes into buildings" shtick was a one-trick pony. And even if they did target one instead of the WTC and Pentagon, what would they hope to accomplish? I think a nuclear smoke-stake could withstand a plane crash or even a truck bomb from the ground.

Terrorism would seem to be the least of our concerns when it comes to nuclear safety. We should focus on hardening them against natural disasters.

[jpak]

35. By flying fuel-laden commercial aircraft into them and destroying the spent fuel pool

not the primary containment

GE BWRs are vulnerable to this

yup

[LAGC]

37. I agree, we need to decommision those aging GE BWRs ASAP.

But what do we replace all that generated electricity with?

[PamW]

51. Not in the opinion of the NRC....

Shoreham was too close to NYC- you know that California nuclear plants were on the original 9/11
====================================

Not in the opinion of the NRC. The NRC granted LILCO a construction permit to build
there, and the NRC knew full well of the plant's proximity to New York City.

BTW - Shoreham isn't the only reactor that is that close to New York City. Just a few
miles south of Shoreham is Brookhaven National Laboratory for your information.

Let's see - they have the large Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor, and the
High Flux Beam Reactor:

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/stewardship/reactors.asp

I wish AQ stuck to the California nuclear plant plan - we'd have only lost a plane full
of people, and not all the people in those buildings. Evidently you are one of those
that has bought into the fiction that nuclear power plants can't withstand impacts
from airliners. Sandia National Laboratory scientists, and the ASME - the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers say that nuclear power plants can withstand airliner impacts.

PamW