Guest Opinion by John Weber
The Nuclear Power Industry is Desperate
By John Weber, 12-03-07
The nuclear industry is pushing for a so-called “Nuclear Renaissance,” which they hope will assure a future when nuclear power dominates energy production.
Why are these businesses spending millions of dollars on advertising now? Quite simple: the nuclear power industry is desperate to get the nuclear fuel cycle and new plant construction started before people get informed, and the booming renewable energies make them obsolete.
Wind and solar power generation is growing at about 40% a year compounded. This outpaces new nuclear generation by far, despite the current higher cost of generation. The only thing limiting the growth is the current lack of supply which, along with new investment, is coming on quickly. Renewable generation companies are some of the hottest issues on Wall Street today. Insiders say the cost of renewable generation will drop to a competitive level within the next three to seven years, through much more supply coming online and with new technological advances.
The people overwhelmingly are demanding wind and solar power as their preferred source of electricity generation, even in Idaho, according to a BSU statewide survey. Both systems can also be used at homes and businesses and tied directly to the grid without loosing significant power in transmission lines. A study from Oxford University shows that intermittent renewables with combined heat and power can dependably provide most of a Britain’s electricity. It states “it puts renewables ahead of nuclear power.” This strategy can be applied to other areas of the world as well. The smart or distributive grid is the future and is more secure than the centralized grid.
The nuclear industry spin, better known as “Green washing” is trying to put a green spin on something that is not green. Everyone knows green sells! The industry’s advertising tactics say that nuclear produces no greenhouse gases, but they don’t tell you many greenhouse gases are produced in the mining, milling, and enriching of the uranium fuel used to power the plants. They don’t tell you of all the non-green problems that come with the activities used to get the fuel.
The industry does not have a long term solution for the radioactive waste it produces. They are asking the federal government to pay for it. This industry is very highly subsidized by our tax dollars and without the subsidies cannot compete with other sources of generation.
Nuclear power is a very centralized generation source, making outages more serious. The few jobs, in comparison to renewable generation, are located in one area. Renewable jobs are distributed over all geographic areas. The profits from renewable generation are spent in the communities they service, not kept in the hands of a few shareholders likely living a long ways away.
If we, the people, allow the nuclear industry to rebuild, they will grow in size and power. With this increased power they will lobby to reduce the little funding for renewable energy generation even further. This would lead to taking away these renewable or “democratic” sources of generating power and robbing us of our independence. Ultimately this will all increase the cost of the electricity which we purchase. Maximizing the use of renewables is clearly the best choice for Idaho families.
Publishers note: John Weber, not to be confused with NewWest founder Jonathan Weber, lives in Boise.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
See also the Interantional Atomic Energy's thoughts: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/index.html
We are reaping the effects of our stupidity from the 70s and 80s with oil now at 100 and we will be repeating those mistakes again by not going nuclear on the forced war footing.
Mr Weber...I wish we could say nuclear is the ideal answer, it is not. But it is the ONLY answer. And, BTW......I suspect you have even considered thorium as the replacement to uranium. In time.
Here is a tip read up before you publish something next time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
More important, thanks to developments in the broader environment, many longtime critics are changing their tune. As a co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore used to call nuclear energy "synonymous with nuclear holocaust." But he now believes "nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of any major energy alternative source. He says that nukes are cheap and reliable, unlike alternative-energy sources such as wind and solar. Neither do nuclear plants spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, as coal-powered plants do, or create massive volumes of CO2 emissions, as gas-fired plants do.
<<<<<<<<<<
That being said, I don't believe that the industry should be lobbying for public subsidies to the tune of $50-$100 billion dollars to guarantee capital construction loans. As a component of the energy sector, the industry should stand on its own economic merit. As far as I am concerned, the only legitimate areas for federal funds for the nuclear industry is in the areas of research and development.
“the nuclear power industry is desperate to get the nuclear fuel cycle and new plant construction started before people get informed”
Are you kidding me? One of the main reasons the nuclear industry is having a comeback is quite simply because people ARE being informed of the benefits of nuclear power.
“Wind and solar power generation is growing at about 40% a year compounded. This outpaces new nuclear generation by far, despite the current higher cost of generation.”
That’s great for them but do you know how much electricity they are actually producing in the U.S.? Both industries combined produce slightly more power than the largest nuclear plant in the U.S. - Palo Verde.
“The industry’s advertising tactics say that nuclear produces no greenhouse gases, but they don’t tell you many greenhouse gases are produced in the mining, milling, and enriching of the uranium fuel used to power the plants. They don’t tell you of all the non-green problems that come with the activities used to get the fuel.”
Yeah we do. Here’s a link to the NEI website with links to many studies analyzing the lifecycle emissions from nuclear. Not only that, you can also find information on wind and solar’s lifecycle emissions. Basically, all these studies conclude the lifecycle emissions of nuclear are equivalent to the lifecycle emissions from wind, solar and other non-emitting sources of energy.
“The industry does not have a long term solution for the radioactive waste it produces. They are asking the federal government to pay for it. This industry is very highly subsidized by our tax dollars and without the subsidies cannot compete with other sources of generation.”
You’re right we don’t have “a long term solution.” We have three long term solutions. One is dry cask storage. The second is reprocessing. And the third is deep, geological burial of the leftover used fuel from reprocessing. Right now the used fuel is being safely and securely stored in dry casks which the dry casks will last for at least 100 years. I’m sure by then reprocessing and a burial site will have been implemented.
Where did you hear or read that the federal government is paying for the waste? One-tenth of a cent per kWh of nuclear electricity generated goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund paid by the utilities which operate nuclear plants. Right now, about $30B is committed to the fund. The government is not paying anything for the commercial industry’s waste. This is Nuclear 101. A basic search on Google would have shown you your claim is false.
You say nuclear is highly subsidized. Here’s a little bit of research for you to read up on before you make that claim again.
There is a dramatic difference between raw advocacy and intelligent decision making. Advocacy depends on developing momentum in a desired direction. Often resorting to stirring the emotional pot out of fear, anger, etc. Facts really don't matter to achieve this reaction as emotional belief replaces any receptivity to processing facts contrary to those beliefs.
For those still able to think and critically evaluate the issues I direct your attention to this discussion that is compete with citations to authority: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2087.cfm
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/228392.html
>>>>>>>>>
John Weber from the Boise Sustainable Living Community said that he contacted Caldicott about speaking in Idaho because of his concern over Boise’s location downwind of the proposed nuclear power facility to be built at Bruneau.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Furthermore, the nuclear power/nuclear weapons connection exists via:
a) infrastructure
b) expertise
c) covert research
d) the fuels themselves (uranium, plutonium, tritium) and
e) the failed, ineffective and non-enforceable safeguards system itself.
http://www.icanw.org
Dry your clothes on the line instead and this in itself would circumvent the need for nuclear power.
There are many people in the environmental movement that disagree with her. See their comments here: http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/environmentalists/
For instance:
“My views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be an energy source that can help save our planet from another potential disaster: the serious negative impacts of climate change.”
– Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Jose Mercury News op-ed
Feb. 25, 2007
“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.”
– James Lovelock
Author
“The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”
July 2006
“Nuclear power’s ability to contribute significantly to a low-carbon future over the next 50 years depends on the ability of the nuclear industry to start expanding nuclear generating capacity in the next 10 to 15 years, as well as the resolution of cost, safety and waste storage issues.”
– Agenda for Climate Change
Pew Center on Climate Change
February 2006
“Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all … global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and on civilization will be a universal permanent disaster. … So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. … The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power. … It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. … Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy,’ combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”
– Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
“Environmental Heresies”
Technology Review (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
May 2005
“I have been a committed environmentalist for many years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.”
– Rev. Hugh Montefiore
Former Bishop of Birmingham (UK) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth
“Why the Planet Needs Nuclear Energy”
The Tablet (UK)
Oct. 23, 2004
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
You stated "And I believe that Dr Caldicott has in the past shown that US nuclear capacity is approximate to the power consumption of clothes dryers alone."
Nuclear power generates roughly of the US energy consumption. Clothes dryers use of our consumption? That is laughably unbelieveable.
The nuclear power - weapons connection:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=288871569
Nuclear incidents (a partial time line):
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=289277470
Frankly, I'd rather my great-grandchildren were left with high efficiency buildings and appliances, wind farms, solar panels, bio-mass and geo-thermal plants than huge piles of deadly waste, obsolete nuclear plants that must be dismantled and the radioactive parts dealth with...At HUGE taxpayer expense.
Ah, but the really great thing about nuclear energy, the waste and all that goes along with the whole nuke picture is that it is a silent killer, usually not bringing death for years after exposure. Pretty convenient!
Allow the coal fired plants to produce electric, allow drilling, allow nuclear power, and stop these *#!* lawsuits that are costing us more and more everyday and causing grief for honest citizens.
>>>>>>>>>
Her conclusion? Every day spent burning coal for power translates into damaged lungs and ecosystem destruction. If the world wants to keep plugging in big-screen TVs and iPods, it needs a steady source of power. Wind and solar can't produce the "base-load" (or everyday) steady supply needed, and the only realistic -- and safe -- alternative is nuclear.
Wired News talked with Cravens on the phone from her home in New York.
Wired News: You don't argue that nuclear power is entirely safe, but that it's vastly better than coal and fossil fuels. Do we have to choose between them?
Gwyneth Cravens: I used to think we surely could do better. We could have more wind farms and solar. But I then learned about base-load energy, and that there are three forms of it: fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. In the United States, we're maxed out on hydro. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear power, and most of the fossil fuel burned is coal.
In the U.S., 24,000 people a year die from coal pollution. Hundreds of thousands more people suffer from lung and heart disease directly attributable to coal pollution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In my most humble of opinion, nuclear power is the way to go to address a variety of enrivonmental issues while producing the necessary power that people demand for their needs. Perhaps BSU could host a talk from her as well.
Thanks for posting this. It is basically the argument I have been making for the past year here at New West on energy issues. Nuclear is certainly not an ideal choice for our energy needs, but it is a vast improvement on fossil fuels because of the significant threat to the long term well being of our biosphere from AGW.
That being said, I do still prefer to see a vast increase in our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar along with public assistance to these emerging technologies to provide them with the same competitive advantages previously granted to big oil and big uranium. I do not like the idea of the gov't providing $50-$100 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry, while offering meager crumbs to renewables. Legitimate public investment in nuclear power are in the areas of research and development (new reactor designs; fuel reprocessing; waste management; etc.).
I will not “shiver in the dark” nor am I responsible for “greatly increased CO2 emissions” as a couple of comments have suggested. I live in a passively heated and cooled house with solar hot water and electricity generation. It uses no natural gas, wood, or other source of power besides electricity. My last electric bill showed at credit of over $31. This design is available for all houses and businesses and will save the owner much money over the life of the building.
Google went public last week with it’s plans to make solar, wind, and geothermal “cheaper than coal”, which is cheaper than nuclear. They plan on doing this in 5 years. They have the brains and the money to get it done. I note, they are not desperate or asking for handouts for the gov’t.
I am a business person. I studied economics and finance in college as well as power generation (including nuclear). The kicker for me is the economics. In June of this summer the Keystone Center printed the “Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding” report. This report was funded by the nuclear power industry. On page 30 it states the “cost of nuclear power is between 8 and 11 cents per kWh delivered to the grid, before transmission and distribution costs”. So, who wants to pay a whole lot more for their electricity?
It's too bad Idaho and other surrounding states didn't pass a similar initiative--they would have avoided the enormous financial losses from the WPPSS nuke plants in Washington, as well as the wasted intellectual energy and dollars that will be spent to fight the new proposed nuke plant near Boise.
The reasons for banning nuclear power in 1978 in Montana are as true today as they were 30 years ago. Here's the actual language from the passed initiative laying out the rationale for banning nuclear power plants in Montana:
(1) The people of Montana find that substantial public concern exists regarding nuclear reactors and other major nuclear facilities, including the following unresolved issues:
(a) the generation of waste from nuclear facilities, which remains a severe radiological hazard for many thousands of years and to which no means of containment assuring the protection of future generations exists;
(b) the spending of scarce capital to pay the rapidly increasing costs of nuclear facilities, preventing the use of that capital to finance renewable energy sources which hold more promise for supplying useful energy, providing jobs, and holding down energy costs;
(c) the liability of nuclear facilities to sudden catastrophic accidents which can affect large areas of the state, thousands of people, and countless future generations;
(d) the refusal of utilities, industry, and government to assume normal financial responsibility for compensating victims of such nuclear accidents;
(e) the impact of nuclear facilities on the proliferation of nuclear bombs and terrorism;
(f) the increasing pattern of abandonment of used nuclear facilities by their owners, resulting in radiological dangers to present and future societies as well as higher public costs for perpetual management; and
(g) the detrimental effect of the large uranium import program necessary to the expansion of nuclear power on American energy independence, defense policy, and economic well being.
(2) Therefore, the people of Montana reserve to themselves the exclusive right to determine whether major nuclear facilities are built and operated in this state.
--
This still serves as a well written intiative that's stood the test of time for three decades--So let's quit wasting time discussing nuclear power, and get on with developing more wind, solar, and energy efficiency in Montana and the rest of the region.
There is a wide gulf between the base-load power needs and the capacity to produce the necessary electricity from alternative power sources. Please refer to the Gwyneth Cravens inteview in Wired Magazine: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/nuclear_qa
It would not take them long to turn us into a 3rd world country if we have no power ofrfuel sources that we can use. Think about it.
As for Mr P Moore...
"his claim that only coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power can provide reliable 'baseload' electricity is demonstrably false.
Several renewable energy sources are capable of reliably providing electricity – geothermal, hydroelectricity, and bioenergy. Dispersed wind power, with a small amount of gas-powered back-up, can also replace other baseload plant. Solar with storage can also provide baseload electricity - indeed a 2006 report by the Australian-government-funded Cooperative Research Centre argues that solar thermal technology "is poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia" and will be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
Lastly, energy efficiency and conservation measures can reduce the demand for base-load, intermediate-load and peak-load electricity." - Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth.
As for France...
Platts, 26 November 2007
France imports 'record levels' of power on nuclear outages: Report
France imported "massive" levels of power to make up for a shortfall in nuclear power production in the country during October and the start of November, according to a report Monday.
The report in French daily Les Echos quotes Dominique Maillard,
chairman of the French grid manager RTE, as saying state power company EDF is being forced to import "record levels" of power.
Output is down because technical problems at several nuclear power plants have prolonged periods of maintenance, leaving some reactors offline for longer than scheduled periods, the paper said.
A recent fall in temperatures to below seasonal norms has made this situation worse, it added. Over the year, the availability of France's nuclear power reactors is set to fall to 80%, "its lowest level for eight years," the report said.
Already in October, France increased its imports of power by 143% and reduced its exports by 21%, and "the scenario is likely to repeat itself often this winter," according to Les Echos.
According to the report, EDF's biggest headache concerns the cleaning of steam generators. The company has had problems with reactors at the Bugey, Chinon, Cruas, Paluel and Saint-Alban nuclear power plants, the paper said.
Some 13% of France's total nuclear power generating capacity is
currently off-line, according to last available information from EDF on Friday. Seven reactors representing 7,900 MW from a total nameplate generating capacity of 62,720 MW were stopped in the week to November 23, according to information from EDF.
Neither RTE nor EDF were available immediately Monday to comment on the report.
Furthermore...
EDF nuclear power plant construction faces legal challenge
December 04, 2007:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-21406700.htm
There is not a credible authoritative expert today in the US that will lay their credentials on the line and claim that alternate energy sources are sufficient to fill the gap between base-load power needs in the US, now and in the future, and what alternative energy sources offer. That's the fact that Gwyneth Cravens discovered.
We have to have more fuel and more energy production, we have lots of natural resources including coal, oil, gas, and uranium. Unhappily we also have lots of activists who are determined to prevent the use of those resources, they offer no alternative, and refuse to accept any alternative. Wind is fine until they glimpse a windmill on a hillside, then no no no; ethanol is fine until they find out farmers are making money selling it, then they don't want that either.
I would happily support any positive actions by an environmental group, but I just do not see a single positive idea coming forth. And most assuredly not a dime of the billions they take in every year is spent on research for acceptable alternatives.
Corporate and utility-sponsored assessment shows that energy efficiency, not nukes or coal technologies, are most economical and beneficial ways to reduce carbon in US:
-----------
U.S. Could Cut Carbon 50% and Not Feel a Pinch
30 November 2007
Energy Efficiency Is Key;
Capturing Coal's Carbon or Nuclear Power Is Not
Forget building new nuclear power plants or trying to outfit every American coal plant with expensive technology that can capture carbon emissions.
Through relatively painless steps, the United States could cut its emissions of carbon dioxide — the leading greenhouse gas fueling global warming — by somewhere between 28% and 50% by 2030, and save money in the process.
"The United States could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies," a new analysis concludes. "These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency.
Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future."
That's according to a report by McKinsey & Co., a management consulting firm, detailed in USA Today, the New York Times, Newsday and other newspapers today. Significantly, those who paid for the study weren't just environmental groups, but also big for-profit utilities and companies.
The report echoed some of the plans proposed by Democratic presidential candidates, including the rejiggering of energy markets so that there is a financial incentive for power companies to improve the efficiency of their clients, encouraging new energy-efficient building standards and putting a price on carbon pollution.
But the study also undercut the notion that carbon sequestration and other dramatic changes to industry or power generation would pay big dividends. Overall, the report said, the collective actions by individuals to reduce their energy consumption had the greatest potential, and at the lowest cost.
Full study available here:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp
---
So let's get on with it. Quit wasting our time and money on pursuing nuclear power and clean coal, and get on the energy efficiency and renewables bandwagon. That's where our money and intellectual creativity is best spent.
The copy and paste job of the press release you didn't cite wrote a sloppy interpretation of the full study. If you or anyone bothers to read the study, they will find it projected U.S. nuclear capacity to increase by about 50 percent by 2030 to help avoid the 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2e in its mid-level and high range cases (p. 19).
While energy efficiency may be cheaper on the demand side and will obviously help to abate CO2 emissions, we still need solutions on the supply side. If you look at the graph on page 20, you will find the authors think nuclear power is cheaper than wind, solar, biomass, gas and CCS in terms of reducing emissions. Not quite the conclusion you thought the study made.
>>>>>>>>>
It is the IPCC that my former colleagues in Greenpeace, and most of the mainstream environmental movement, look to for expert advice on climate change. Environmental activists take the rather grim but measured language of the IPCC reports and add words such as "catastrophe" and "chaos", along with much speculation about famine, pestilence, mass extinction and the end of civilisation as we know it.
Until the past couple of years, the activists, with their zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, have succeeded in squelching any mention by the IPCC of using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels for electricity production. Burning fossil fuels for electricity accounts for 9.5 billion tonnes of global carbon dioxide emissions while nuclear power emits next to nothing. It has been apparent to many scientists and policymakers for years that this would be a logical path to follow. The IPCC has now joined these growing ranks advocating nuclear energy as a solution.
In its recently issued final report for 2007, the IPCC makes a number of unambiguous references to the fact that nuclear energy is an important tool to help bring about a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Greenpeace has already made it clear that it disagrees. How credible is it for activists to use the IPCC scientists' recommendations to fuel apocalyptic fund-raising campaigns on climate change and then to dismiss the recommendations from the same scientists on what we should do to solve it?...
Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar energy, both of which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels, hydroelectric plants and nuclear power. Given that we want to reduce fossil fuels and that potential hydroelectric sites are becoming scarce, nuclear power is the main option. But Greenpeace and its allies remain in denial despite the fact that many independent environmentalists and now the IPCC see the situation clearly.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
When it comes to politics, we don't often find ourselves in agreement with Bonnie Raitt or Graham Nash. But now that they are campaigning against new nuclear plants, they're our friends. Raitt, Nash, the Indigo Girls and other vocal rockers are attacking a provision in pending Senate legislation that would award what they call "massively expensive loan guarantees--potentially a virtual blank check from taxpayers" for nuclear power plant construction.
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is also editor of Cato's Regulation magazine.
More by Jerry Taylor
More by Peter VanDoren
Even without the new legislation there's plenty of federal money being doled out. In September NRG Energy, an energy wholesaler in Princeton, N.J., applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a two-reactor nuclear plant near Bay City, Tex. The NRC is expecting 19 similar applications in the next 18 months. If approved, they will be eligible for loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero.
A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).
Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal- or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine.
What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing.
A nuclear plant's costs are not only higher but more uncertain. Investors have to worry that completion will take place late--or never (witness the abandonment of the reactor at Shoreham, N.Y.). Accordingly, nuclear power would have to be substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market.
So why does NRG want to build a nuclear plant in Texas? Two factors are in play. First, the license costs a relatively small amount compared with the cost of construction. Second, the federal government would guarantee up to 100% of the $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion NRG might borrow from capital markets (as long as it doesn't exceed 80% of the project cost). Without such guarantees no investor would lend significant amounts of capital to NRG.
How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.
The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal.
What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing. There is no more to the right-wing case for nuclear subsidies than there is to the left-wing case for solar subsidies.
If the permitting process is broken, then by all means fix it. If plant safety regulations are excessive, then by all means reform them. If greenhouse gas emissions prove to be a problem, then impose a reasonable carbon tax across the board. But once those tasks are complete, the role for government ends.
We like nuclear power as much as anyone else on the right. But friends don't let friends get hooked on subsidies. We're glad to see Raitt and her rocker compadres agree.
Objecting to the obscene giveaway of our federal tax dollars to the nuclear industry should be one of the primary reason for opposing nuclear power--but even investing enormous amount of federal dollars to try to prop up this decrepit radioactive beast won't save it from oblivion.
A good carbon tax in the US would quickly let the true cost-effective and carbon-neutral energy sources rise to the top--energy efficiency, solar, wind, and geothermal.
Nuclear power can never make it in the free market--let's smother this radioactive baby in its sleep and move on.
If you oppose nuclear plants because they will receive loan guarantees then you have to be opposed to new wind farms, solar plants, hydro dams, "clean coal" plants and energy efficiency because those projects are eligible for the same loan guarantees as nuclear. You can find out more here.
If you want to understand how the loan guarantee program actually works for the nuclear industry, click here for the third post of three blog pieces.
When the opportunity to 'belly-up-to-the-bar' and pay the tab, noone is there. In the US I would think California would be all over this solar idea what with their hostility to nuclear, commitment to cutting CO2, very fragile power capacity, scarce water resources, and blessed with a lot of sun in the desert.
nice article in the Australian press today summarizes why Nuclear Power is dead on arrival.
-Jon
=====================
Nature gives us all we need to tackle climate change
December 13, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/12/12/1197135554022.html
The most effective way to limit the risk of dangerous climate change "is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels".
Even if you don't take into account the problem of nuclear proliferation, the threat of terrorism or the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, renewable energy and efficiency are the clear winners on both economic and practical grounds.
First, the potential of renewable energy is far greater than that of nuclear power, not to mention energy efficiency that is safe, pays for itself and reduces waste. While the International Solar Energy Society clearly demonstrates how today's renewable technology alone can generate six times the current global demand, nuclear power currently accounts for only 6% of the world's energy.
Nuclear power is not cheap. In country after country, we have seen nuclear construction programs go considerably over budget. In the US, an assessment of 75 of the country's reactors showed predicted costs to have been $45 billion but the actual costs were $145 billion. Similarly in India, which has the most current experience, completion costs of the past 10 reactors have averaged 300% over budget. Wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power even without considering the costs of nuclear waste disposal.
A report released in Bali at the weekend (Renewables 2007 Global Status Report) shows that renewables are thriving. This year, global investment in renewable energy will top $US100 billion. Furthermore, the renewable energy industry employs more than 2.5 million people globally.
Timewise, renewable energy and energy efficiency are also streets ahead. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a warning of what would happen to the planet if we did not act on emissions in the next eight years.
Nuclear power just can't make it. Analysis by the World Energy council shows the average construction time for nuclear plants has increased from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months between 1995 and 2000.
And MIT and other studies estimate that for nuclear power to have any effect on global warming, we would need to build a minimum of 1000 reactors worldwide. This is not possible in the next decade, particularly as the nuclear industry has lost most of its engineers to the renewable energy sector. We don't have time to wait, and there's no reason to.
Renewable energy is ready now. A wind turbine takes three days to erect. The first offshore wind farm in Britain, in north Wales, took only eight months to build. And while solar and wind are variable, they are highly predictable. Meanwhile, other renewable energy technologies such as solar thermal, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy are more reliable than coal or nuclear, with none of the hazards.
Cheaper, faster and safer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are being favoured globally, and this momentum is unlikely to, and shouldn't, change. But even if power plants were safe, and there was a solution to radioactive waste, even if we had an endless supply of uranium at zero cost, nuclear plants could not be built in time to make the smallest contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change.
Nuclear power does not have the power. It is nothing more than a dangerous and unnecessary distraction, which diverts time and money away from the practical solutions of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
=============
>>>>>>>>>>>
LONDON (Reuters) - Anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof joined the global warming debate on Thursday with a call for the rapid expansion of nuclear power, describing renewable energy as a "Mickey Mouse" answer to the climate crisis.
The Irish former rock star, known for his campaigning on poverty relief in Africa, was writing on a blog set up by carmaker Lexus to promote hybrid road vehicles.
"The reality is that we need to do much more than change the type of car we drive to make an impact on climate change. In the UK, we'll soon have to scramble for more nuclear power," Geldof wrote.
"On this issue, I don't care what anyone says: we're going to go with it, big-time. We may mess around with wind and waves and other renewable energy sources, trying to make them sustainable, but they're not. They're Mickey Mouse," he added
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't imagine Toyota/Lexus were too keen on these statements for marketing their hybrids.
What we need are carbon-free energy "gazelles" we can turn to quickly. We need solutions now. Nukes are big lumbering radioactive elephants that could never be developed in time to have a serious impact on climate change. Renewables and energy conservation are the only approaches that can react in time.
Some quotes below from an article in yesterday's (Dec 12) UK Guardian:
"Scientists at the conference in Bali said the world needed urgent solutions and emissions needed to peak within the next 10 to 15 years.
But building a nuclear reactor typically takes decades.
"Even if we started scaling up nuclear power tomorrow we couldn't do that because it would take longer than that to get a serious impact from new reactors," "The real answer is more renewable, sustainable energy and greater energy efficiency."
-Jon Cheever
What renewables are you referring to? Right now, hydro power produces 51 percent of the electricity in the world of the sources which do not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear accounts for 47 percent, wind/solar only 2 percent and geothermal 1 percent.
New hydro is an option for developing countries but what about the U.S. and the developed countries who have largely tapped out their hydro potential?
Wind is a growing resource which is great but both wind and solar need to increase their worldwide generation by at least 24 times to even equal current nuclear generation. Do you think that could happen in 10-15 years?
The antis complain nuclear can't make a difference in reducing emissions in the short term yet they fail to recognize the technology has been doing just that for the past 30-40 years.
Right now all the nuclear plants in the world avoid more than 2 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. The only other source which provides the same amount of reductions is hydro.
You say "Renewables and energy conservation are the only approaches that can react in time." So far nuclear and hydro are the only ones in the race.
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/pressrelease.html
Carbon Free and Nuclear Free—A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
"A technological revolution has been brewing in the last few years, so it won't cost an arm and a leg to eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, author of the study and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "We can solve the problems of oil imports, nuclear proliferation as it is linked to nuclear power, and carbon dioxide emissions simultaneously if we are bold enough."
Here’s a summary from the book of the policies that will ensure we become energy self-sufficient in the US without needing to use fossil fuels or nuke energy. They're not easy, but they sure beat the hell out of wasting billions more on coal and nuclear sideshows:
1) Enact a physical limit of CO2 emissions for all large users of fossil fuels (a “hard cap”) that steadily declines to zero prior to 2060, with the time schedule being assessed periodically for tightening according to climate, technological, and economic developments.
2) Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels and nuclear power (including guarantees for nuclear waste disposal from new power plants, loan guarantees, and subsidized insurance).
3) Eliminate subsidies for biofuels from food crops.
4) Build demonstration plants for key supply technologies, including central station solar thermal with heat storage, large- and intermediate-scale solar photovoltaics, and CO2 capture in microalgae for liquid fuel production.
5) Leverage federal, state and local purchasing power to create markets for critical advanced technologies, including plug-in hybrids.
6) Ban new coal-fired power plants that do not have carbon storage.
7) Enact at the federal level high efficiency standards for appliances.
8) Enact stringent building efficiency standards at the state and local levels, with federal incentives to adopt them.
9) Enact stringent efficiency standards for vehicles and make plug-in hybrids the standard U.S. government vehicle by 2015.
10) Put in place federal contracting procedures to reward early adopters of CO2 reductions.
11) Adopt vigorous research, development, and pilot plant construction programs for technologies that could accelerate the elimination of CO2, such as direct solar hydrogen production (photosynthetic, photoelectrochemical, and other approaches), hot rock geothermal power, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2.
12) Establish a standing committee on Energy and Climate under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.
--
Time for us to quit throwing money down the nuclear and coal rathole, and get on with cost-effective and carbon-free solutions.
-Jon Cheever
The opportunity for job creation, especially in engineering, installation, maintenance and marketing in solar, wind, and geothermal, will create a much larger boost to the US economy than any similar investment in nuclear, without the terror threats and the burden of storing nuclear waste.
The staggering cost of nuclear plants, the time it would take to build them, combined with their relatively short useful lives and the centuries -- no millennia -- of costly waste isolation make them a terrible investment, not to mention ramping up the threat of nuclear proliferation at a time when we are leaning on rogue states like Iran not to develop "peaceful" nuclear programs.
This would be doubly true if "recycling" (the misnomer applied to dangerous fuel reprocessing facilities that create large amounts of bomb-grade materials) is advanced to supply the proposed expansion of nuclear power. Even with these facilities, the supply of uranium, like oil, is limited. We could be going from the frying pan to the fire in terms of the cost of nuclear electricity as compared with the cost of fossil fuels. We are past the point of cheap oil, but we are also past the point of cheap uranium too.
The nuclear power industry that has never been right about anything. They are wrong now, and we should not believe their pipe dream this time. The words are changed but the music remains the same and we have heard it before.
Let's focus on what we can do together to make things better, not argue about divisive nuclear "solutions" that are slower, costlier, dirtier and more dangerous.
It is time for sensible energy solutions for this century—energy efficiency, solar, geothermal, and wind, not a retreat to failed nuclear "solutions" that are impractical artifacts of the Cold War.
Thankfully this is a non-partisan argument: nuclear is wasteful, short-sided spending, terrorist target, environmental disaster, spent fuel nightmare, etc....
We can be a leader in the world again if we, first, cut the amount of energy we are currently wasting, in half (without even noticing it) and then invest that saved money in solar and conservation. At least that's what I think!
>>>>>>>>>>
MUMBAI: Nuclear power is one of the major mitigating technologies in the world affecting climate change, provided a "closed fuel technology" is used, a top nuclear scientist said on Saturday.
"Nuclear power is going to be inevitable for mitigating global warming and climate changes on earth as there is no carbon dioxide emission," Principal Scientific Advisor to Government of India, R Chidambaram, said after inaugurating the three-day exhibition on Science & Technology and society here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Good points about the danger of nuclear power in India. You're correct to worrry about the grandchildren in India who may suffer from nuclear energy development in that country
The leading newspaper in India ran an editorial about a month ago pointing out the dangers in proceeding with the nuclear energy madness in India. Here is an excerpt from that article:
Nuclear energy is toxic
21 Nov 2007
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
What makes nuclear energy itself so dangerous is that every commercial nuclear reactor produces 400-500 pounds of plutonium in a year, along with other nuclear waste material. Just 10-20 pounds of plutonium is needed to make a bomb. An average nuclear reactor, therefore, produces enough plutonium waste to make 50 nuclear bombs in a year.
Lethally radioactive plutonium thus brings nuclear reactor technology dangerously close to nuclear weapons technology.
One of the most dangerous consequences of running a nuclear reactor is that it can release radioactive material into the environment. A lethal radioactive byproduct of a nuclear reactor is plutonium, produced in large quantities.
Less than one-millionth of a gram of plutonium is carcinogenic. If one pound of plutonium is uniformly distributed through the earth, it will cause lung cancer to every inhabitant of this planet.
-----
It is unfortunate that the Times of India has written such a poorly researched article regarding commercial nuclear power. The plutonium waste generated in a commercial plant is not fissionable and thus could not be used to make any nuclear bombs. That being said, it is still radioactive and could be used to make a "dirty" bomb.
More insight on this issue from that Times of India story below:
Nuclear energy is toxic
21 Nov 2007
The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
"Even if the US nuclear energy industry is able to prevent plutonium spillage with 99.99 per cent perfection, it will still afflict 500,000 people with lung cancer every year for 50 years.
Plutonium lives in the environment for at least 500,000 years, more than one hundred times longer than the entire span of recorded history. It is more than 50 times the geologically estimated time span from the end of the Ice Age to the present. It is more than 10 times the length of time that human beings have been in existence.
Once plutonium is made, there is no known antidote to its continuous poisoning of the environment. If plutonium poisons a living organism, its toxicity is not spent in the process. There is no threshold below which plutonium is safe. This distinguishes it from, say, acidic sulphur dioxide and mercury.
How can we leave behind such a toxic legacy for future generations?"
--
Just stop. The amount of misinformation you are providing is ridiculous. First, if you are going to discuss plutonium you need to be specific as to which isotope you are referring to.
Let's start with this from you:
"Just 10-20 pounds of plutonium is needed to make a bomb. An average nuclear reactor, therefore, produces enough plutonium waste to make 50 nuclear bombs in a year."
The plutonium isotopes generated in a typical reactor is comprised of about 57% Pu-239, 23% Pu-240, 13% Pu-241, 5% Pu-242 and 1% Pu-238. Typical weapons grade plutonium consists of about 93% Pu-239 and 6.5% Pu-240. The plutonium from a reactor is not suitable for nuclear bombs because the concentration of the isotope Pu-240 is too high. Therefore, the average nuclear reactor does not produce 50 nuclear bombs in a year.
Here's another poor quote you cite:
"Once plutonium is made, there is no known antidote to its continuous poisoning of the environment."
Oh please. Ever heard of "fast reactors"? The used fuel from many of the existing reactors can be reprocessed to use the plutonium and uranium to create a mixed oxide fuel. This mixed oxide fuel can be burned up in a fast reactor as fuel for electricity therefore reducing the fissile Plutonium isotopes.
"Less than one-millionth of a gram of plutonium is carcinogenic. If one pound of plutonium is uniformly distributed through the earth, it will cause lung cancer to every inhabitant of this planet."
One gram of sulfur dioxide inhaled from the combustion of fossil fuels does the same thing. People aren't dying from plutonium in the air, they are dying from fossil fuel combustion.
If you want to learn some basics about Plutonium, start on page 57 of this pdf: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lweston/nuclear.pdf.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=289277470
Think how lucking third world countries without a grid won't have to tear it down. Renewable energy sources have only one cost the collector and storage batteries, soon to get very interesting.
Japan is the warning, the greed should be the Fear, only those who use gobs of energy fret over the cost, corporation, the leaches of society, the lazy bastards who leave the city and more to the West thinking we can afford to waste. We make no energy for you.
We make no money for you, we the people are racists, we loathe rich folks with bad manners.
Did you hear the rumor from Ruby Ridge? Open season on the rich
$0.25 per pelt, they have become vermin. Freedom is not for sale.
Cellular Matrix Study
Power Produced Peacefully with the Planet.