Nuclear power ........too expensive.......Joe Romm

[RedEarth]

Jun. 02, 2008 | No nuclear power plants have been ordered in this country for three decades. Once touted as "too cheap to meter," nuclear power simply became "too costly to matter," as the Economist put it back in May 2001.


Why? In a word, cost. Many other technologies can deliver more low-carbon power at far less cost. As a 2003 MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Energy," concluded: "The prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited" by many "unresolved problems," of which "high relative cost" is only one. Others include environment, safety and health issues, nuclear proliferation concerns, and the challenge of long-term waste management.

..........

Jigar Shah, chief strategy officer of SunEdison, explained to me that he could guarantee delivery to Florida of more kilowatt-hours of power with solar photovoltaics -- including energy storage so the power was not intermittent -- for less money than the nuke plants cost.

Many other forms of carbon-free power are already cheaper than nuclear today, including wind power, concentrated solar thermal power and, of course, the cheapest of all, energy efficiency. Over the past three decades, California efficiency programs have cut total electricity demand by about 40,000 gigawatt hours for an average 2 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. A May presentation of modeling results by the California Public Utilities Commission shows that it could more than double those savings by 2020.

If California's effort were reproduced nationwide, efficiency would deliver 130 gigawatts by 2020, which is more than enough energy savings to avoid the need to build any new power plants through 2020 (and beyond). And that means any new renewable plants built could displace existing fossil fuel plants and begin to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector.

A May report by the Bush Energy Department concluded that Americans could get 300 gigawatts of wind by 2030 at a cost of 6 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines. And the cost of integrating the variable wind power into the U.S. grid would be under 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Wind turbines provide energy on average 35 percent of the time. Nukes average 90 percent availability. That means it takes 300 gigawatts of wind capacity to deliver as much electricity as about 120 gigawatts of nuclear.)

Finally we have the reemergence of concentrated solar thermal power (also known as concentrated solar power, or CSP). Utilities in the Southwest are already contracting for power at 14 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. The modeling for the California Public Utilities Commission puts solar thermal at around 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. Because CSP has large cost-reduction opportunities from economies of scale and the manufacturing learning curve, the modeling foresees the possibility that CSP costs could drop an additional 20 percent by 2020. And those prices include six hours of storage capacity, which allows CSP to follow the electric load, and that is even better than nuclear power, which is constant around the clock.

All of these sources of electricity are considerably cheaper than the electricity that would be generated by new nuclear plants, which the commission estimates costs more than 15 cents per kilowatt-hour before transmission and delivery costs. This entire discussion doesn't even consider the issue of uranium supply, whose price has risen sharply in recent years. A big shift toward nuclear power would no doubt further increase prices. If, as many advocates want, we ultimately go toward reprocessing of spent fuel, that would add an additional 1.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour to the cost of nuclear power.

Sen. McCain keeps saying, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" Wrong question, Senator. The right question is: Why would we? Energy efficiency and renewables are the key to affordable, carbon-free electricity. They should be a focus of national energy and climate policy. Not nukes.


...........more..........

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/print.html

[depakid]

1. I'm sure the experts cited will let us know when wind and solar scale up enough

to produce more than a tiny fraction of the nations energy needs.

Don't get me wrong- I'm a huge supporter of renewables, but I'm also a realist who's numerate enough to look at the numbers (and figure in the externalities).

[kristopher]

12. No you aren't.

[The2ndWheel]

2. Ahhh, efficiency

The destroyer of worlds.

[wtmusic]

3. The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power -- Romm's report (link)

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/nuclear_report.pdf

What's interesting about this is that it comes from Joe Romm who in the past has not been hardcore anti-nuke, and is very much a realist.

[bananas]

9. recent estimates '''have blown by our highest estimate' of costs computed just eight months ago"

From Romm's pdf:

By mid-May, the Wall Street Journal was reporting that after “months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers … efforts to control costs are proving elusive.” How elusive? According to the Wall Street Journal, “Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators—NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc.—‘have blown by our highest estimate’ of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.”

That is, Moody’s is saying actual costs have “blown past” their earlier $6,000/kW estimate.

[diane in sf]

4. Here in Califoria, the desert meets the sea, inland is too arid to support cooling

nukes and the San Andreas fault and related faults run up most of the coast--this is also the populated area of California--not where you want to site nukes. Especially in a state blessed with wind, waves, sunlight and some hydropower.

[Kolesar]

7. I presume you mean cooling water for cooling condensers

:sun glif:

[hunter]

28. Arizona is too arid too.

[shireen]

5. Inhofe

is on CSPAN2 right now talking about a "renaissance" in nuclear energy.
:wtf:

These people are idiots. They have kids and grandkids, and it boggles the mind that they are so clueless about the kind of world they're leaving for their future offspring if their asinine energy policies are implemented.

IDIOTS

[bhikkhu]

6. McCain wants us to do as the French do?

No offense to France, but the article makes the point very well - how about if we lead instead, and other countries might wish to follow.

Solar is a no-brainer if the cost compares well to Nuclear. I hope everyone in congress is aware of this as they consider the $500 billion handout to the nuclear industry Lieberman has cooked up...

[Finishline42]

8. 3 Reasons why the French were successful and the US would have problems

Sen. McCain keeps saying, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

the French were successful in building over 50 nuke plants (there are just over 100 in the US) because of three main reasons.

1) No oil, no gas, no coal, no choice.

2) They have a history of large centrally managed technological projects.

3) the French have done a good job of educating the people on benefits/risks of nuclear power.

They standardized on one design that is managed by the central govt. We have utility companies that are like independent fiefdoms.

Many of their high ranking civil servants and govt officials trained as scientist and engineers, unlike in the US where most of ours are lawyers.

[DCKit]

11. The French also practiced "oversight" during construction...

a concept quite foreign to, and highly frowned upon by the U.S. new-cue-lur cabal.

I'd be a lot less hostile if corruption and graft weren't written into the contracts. The energy bill McCain is associated with right now provides for taxpayers to cover the utilities liabilities and cost overruns for their proposed plants.

Yet another free ride provided by the Corporatist party to their masters. It's Xmas every day for the energy companies.

[Finishline42]

21. That goes back to the Technocrats that run their system

I remember a 60 minutes piece that documented how people where in positions like 'piping engineer' without proper credentials. One of the most critical positions in a nuclear plant construction and having connections was more important than a degree in engineering. Unbelievable.

A number of nuclear plants never made it because of substandard construction and were converted to conventional power gen. Marble Hill in Southern Indiana was one.

Just take a look at the Ethanol from corn to see where it was the lobbyist that made policy.

[diane in sf]

18. The French have a waste disposal problem with their nukes--not something

we want to emulate.

[jpak]

30. 4. France exploited/plundered the uranium resources of its former African colonies

and they got next to nothing for it...

[NNadir]

10. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

I note that the dumb fundie anti-nuke community loves - illiterately, since it exists neither on an exajoule scale nor does it represent base load power - to promote solar energy as an alternative to nuclear.

This is despite the fact that solar energy's external costs - the cost of damage to the environment and to human health - is actually now understood to be higher than nuclear energy. I note, with appropriate contempt, that the only energy industry that includes all of its external costs with its internal costs is nuclear energy. It is neither economically nor even technically for any other energy industry to do the same.

The same illiterate community - beginning with the paid (off) fossil fuel apologist Amory Lovins - has been announcing the "death" of nuclear power for economic reasons for more than 3 decades. Of course if they had been correct at any point, they wouldn't have to come here all the time talking about nuclear power. It would be gone.

What the illiterate anti-nuke fundie anti-nuke community - a fundie is a person who will assert dogma no matter how much data with which it conflicts - is that nuclear power is now recognized to be the lowest cost base load form of energy there is. It is now even cheaper than coal in most places - and that is NOT including external costs.

Dumb fundies have been predicting the "economic" demise of nuclear power for more than 25 years. If the dumb fundies had been correct at any point in this 25 year period, nuclear power would have gone away, and they would not need to come here and whistle in the dark in service to their irrational fears.

The reality of "uneconomic" nuclear power's oft predicted "economic" death is belied by the form of energy's status, by far, as the world's largest source of climate change gas free energy, at nearly 30 exajoules.

Already at an exajoule scale in 1980, when the fossil fuel apologist Amory Lovins first predicted its economic death in an article in the social science journal - not a physical science journal - <em>Foreign Affairs</em> in that year, nuclear power production has expanded by a factor of 4.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

Clearly it is a remarkable claim to claim that a form of energy that set a record for production - on an exajoule scale - has died an economic death.

Now, be they Pat Robertson or Amory Lovins or any other person who spews dogma that conflicts with data, fundies can't understand numbers. In particular we have fundies here on this website who assert, for instance in a effort to announce that solar energy is declining and not rising in California, that 616 > 860.

Now we have fundies announcing that nuclear power is too expensive.

"Compared to what?"

The busbar cost of nuclear energy in many places is now well below 3 cents/kwh. Recently the South Texas Nuclear Power plant produced power at busbar costs of 1.8 cents per kwh.

Meanwhile the solar energy industry - not NNadir but the solar industry reports on its generating costs:

As of this writing it is 21.29 cents per kwh: www.solarbuzz.com

Retail electricity prices are tracked everywhere, even though there is NOT ONE fundie anti-nuke who announces the "economic" death of nuclear power who has bothered to look it up. They don't look it up, because their whispering campaign and their shouting campaign assume laziness and ignorance.

The average retail price for all consumers (industrial and otherwise) was 8.9 cents per kwh.

The average residential price was 10.4 cents per kwh.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat7p4.html

I note that there are zero anti-nuke fundies - and let's be clear that all of them are yuppie brats who couldn't care less about poverty or the needs of the unfortunate - who come here to announce that solar energy is too expensive, even though it is obviously too expensive by direct appeal to something called "numbers".

I can't wait for the next dumb fundie to announce that 21.29 < 10.4.

[DCKit]

13. Why do you hate America?

Nobody's listening to you anymore. We've all heard it and have seen your numbers debunked dozens of times.

We don't want Nnew-cue-lur power. A majority of people - especially those ignorant (the anti-science crowd) enough to still be voting Republican and against their own interests, are TERRIFIED of anything nuclear. Those of us who do understand the implications, understand all the implications and costs involved and we know, KNOW, that the alternatives will work, will provide massive employment and manufacturing and won't kill us all when they explode and/or poison our food, water and air.

Give it up already.

[conning]

14. I'm listening to him

and have been for several years. He's one of the few people who actually understands the science. I read this forum very often.

[jpak]

15. Ask him how his molten salt breeder is coming along....

:rofl:

[DCKit]

16. Fine. Then let's clean up Hanford, White Sands, NE TN and the Native American lands...

and put all the nuclear waste we've already generated into safe storage, and you guys can talk all you want about our next foray into Nnew-cue-lur energy.

"Sorry Timmy, you can't have any more toys until you learn to take care of the ones you have."

[Javaman]

23. not to mention Rocky Flats. nt

[bananas]

17. No, he misunderstands the science

and sometimes he intentionally misrepresents it.
For example, in his post above, the nuclear costs NNadir quotes don't include construction,
which is the largest part of the cost, and which is the subject of the OP and Joe Romm's article.
So either NNadir doesn't know what he's talking about,
or he's intentionally misrepresenting it.

[wtmusic]

20. Since you bring up misrepresentation

Al Gore's complete speech, selectively quoted in your sig line, reveals he is referring to other countries of the world:

"While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size — extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand — and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon."

http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nyu/

[bananas]

27. "my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world's energy future"

It's right there in the excerpt you quoted:
"my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future"

Who's energy future? "The world's energy future".
In his policy address, does he call for a massive build-up of nuclear energy in the U.S.?
No, he doesn't.


I'll bold-face that part in the paragraph you quoted,
in case you have a hard time finding it:

"While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size — extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand — and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon."


In another interview he talks about how some people try to "wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error":

Mr Gore played down the role on nuclear power in fighting climate change.

"I have never been a reflexive opponent of it," he said. "But I am sceptical that it will play more than a minor role in most countries around the world because, let's face it, there are a lot of problems.

"Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error. You still have economics and the costs of these things are very high. They only come in one size: extra large. It takes a long time. It costs a lot of money."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20770595-421,00.html

[NNadir]

25. Um, are you giving lectures on "science" now?

Care to cite any?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

I guess you think that we should believe you even though you produce no data, and are still in denial about the question of whether 616 > 860.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2006.XLS


In the meantime, in a fashion typical of most illiterates, you are completely unfamiliar with the contents of the April 1, 2007 journal article by Kammen et al,

http://www.cleanpower.org/reports_pdf/HultmanKoomeyKammen_ES&T2007.pdf

I note, with similar contempt, that nuclear energy is the only form of energy that is technologically capable of including its external costs.

I also note, with contempt, that the fundie plan for disposing of the electronic waste it's oft promised but never delivered "solar will save us" scheme - is to dump the shit in third world countries.

I note, with contempt, that this article was written almost 1 year before oil prices hit $100/barrel, driving up the extreme price of coal, the true object of all fundie apologetics.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up, fundie.

[bananas]

32. Unfortunately, so much of what he writes is wrong, you may know less now than you did before

There was a study done about tv news, they asked people questions about current events, the people who watched fox news the most got the most wrong answers. There's so much misinformation on fox news, it's as if watching it makes you dumber. The same applies to NNadir's posts.

[NNadir]

24. Really? You "debunked my numbers?" You've proved that 21 < 10?

I note that while you're "not listening to me" anymore, typical of all fundies, you have failed to produce any numbers.

Let me help you with numbers: There are ZERO links in your fundie post that establish that 21 < 10.


If you're "not listening," you're hardly the first fundie who can make this spectacular claim of deliberate ignorance.

The world couldn't care less what a bunch of illiterate fundies think. Nuclear power produced am all time record amount of energy last year.

All fundies, be they Jehovah's Witnesses, or Baptists, declare themselves "the majority." This is mostly because fundies are oblivious to numbers. You ARE NOT the majority except in your own imagination.

I WILL NOT GIVE UP to the ignorant.

Ignorance kills.

[Vogon_Glory]

19. The Real Problem Remains Fossil Fuels, Not Nuclear or Solar

As I see it, the real problem-making fuel isn't nuclear or solar, it's fossil fuels. Fossil fuels make a hellacious negative impact on the ecosystem. From the devastation of coal strip mines to the air and water pollution caused by hundreds of millions of petroleum-consuming automobile engines to the frightening carbon dioxide build-up in the oceans, it's fossil fuel consumption that threatens thousands of species and human civilization, not nuclear power plants or solar.

I like solar energy. I believe solar energy has its place. So doeswind. But I don't believe that solar and other renewable fuels are going to fully replace the fossil fuel energy infrastructure and allow the billions of people on this planet a comfortable, dignified existence. While I'm hardly thrilled about fission power, I believe nuclear power has a much less harmful impact than the pollution-spewing fossil fuel power plants they'd be replacing.

[Finishline42]

22. What you fail to acknowledge

Is that going in large with nuclear (McCain's 700 plants) puts the US in an even worse position with regards to relying on foreign energy supplies. Last year we supplied less than 5% of the worlds supply of uranium. Even though the largest suppliers are currently Allies (Canada and Australia), there's no guarantee that we wouldn't be in the same position with costs skyrocketing. Just look at how much the cost of uranium has gone up in the last year.

[TheWraith]

26. God, not this nonsense again.

Mr. Romm deliberately cherry-picks facts in order to get the answers he wants. For instance, he forgets to mention that even the most optimistic estimates of concentrated solar power fall FAR, FAR below demands, and at triple the price of production for most other technologies.

Further, he ignores the facts that nuclear power, all in, still costs only about 4 cents per kilowatt, and produces at rates typically 100 to 200 times higher than even a major solar concentrator, as well as being 100% reliable no matter the location, weather, time of the year, or time of day.

And no, waiting until 2020 when one company thinks that they might be able to produce a solar plant for a reasonable price is NOT a solution. It's only acceptable if you're one of the people who thinks that burning millions of tons of coal is better than working with a technology that has never caused one death in the US.

[bananas]

29. Romm is using current estimates widely accepted by industry.

You have your "facts" wrong.

[hunter]

31. Anti-nuclear activism is the noisy parrot sitting on the shoulder of the coal industry.

As such, it is currently an acceptable form of dissent in the United States.

Sincere anti-nuclear activists (there are a few...) ought to be thinking about what they will do when the U.S. public turns against the coal industry -- probably about the time climate change begins to significantly damage U.S. agriculture production.

[bananas]

33. So the nuclear industry is now full of anti-nuclear activists?

The nuclear industry finally accepts the independent cost analyses.
I guess that makes them "stupid anti-nukes who can't do math!!!"
Who knew?

[chknltl]

34. WRONG! "100% reliable no matter the location, weather.."

:rofl::rofl::rofl: 100% reliable no matter the weather???:rofl::rofl::rofl: no matter the location???:rofl::rofl::rofl: OMG! Where on earth do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up as you go or something?