How much will nuclear cost U.S. citizens?

[Javaman]

http://www.grist.org/article/how-much-will-nuclear-cost-us-citizens/

Original cost estimate for the two reactors at the South Texas Project, which involves NRG Energy, CPS Energy, and Toshiba: $5.4 billion

Adjusted cost estimate announced last fall: $13 billion

Current cost estimate for the project: $17 billion

Amount in damages CPS is seeking via a lawsuit that alleges NRG and Toshiba conspired to mislead its officials on the reactors’ cost: $32 billion

Much more at link. And all the amounts are linked to sources.

[madokie]

1. Nuclear energy was a mistake to begin with

Its not cheap, its not clean and its not safe. The only redeeming value it has is to the people who own the reactors in the form of MONEY, all else be damned.

[kristopher]

2. Here is some recent polling (across all demographics)

What struck me was that the percentage that support building more coal is almost identical to that supporting more nuclear...

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

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

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

Gallup Poll. March 5-8, 2009. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar?"
Increase 77 Decrease 8 Not Change 13 Unsure 3

"Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from traditional sources such as oil and gas?"
Increase 39 Decrease 30 Not Change 28 Unsure 3

"Thinking now about nuclear energy:
Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity for the U.S.?" N=512, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

2009 Strongly Favor 27 Somewhat Favor 32 Somewhat Oppose 23 Strongly Oppose 14 Unsure 4
2007 Strongly Favor 22 Somewhat Favor 31 Somewhat Oppose 23 Strongly Oppose 20 Unsure 4
2006 Strongly Favor 22 Somewhat Favor 34 Somewhat Oppose 19 Strongly Oppose 19 Unsure 7
2005 Strongly Favor 17 Somewhat Favor 37 Somewhat Oppose 22 Strongly Oppose 21 Unsure 3
2004 Strongly Favor 19 Somewhat Favor 37 Somewhat Oppose 20 Strongly Oppose 19 Unsure 5
2001 Strongly Favor 20 Somewhat Favor 26 Somewhat Oppose 28 Strongly Oppose 20 Unsure 6

"Generally speaking, do you think nuclear power plants are safe or not safe?" N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B)

Safe 56 Not Safe 42 Unsure 2

[phantom power]

3. It also says that people favor nukes w/in 50mi by two to one...

Which, interestingly, is consistent the numbers on that DU poll:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7617357&mesg_id=7617357



My Dark Masters are well pleased with my guerrilla pro-nuke propaganda campaign here on DU!

[kristopher]

4. It said that "of the people who favor nukes" 2/3 are willing to live near one.

Meaning that 1/3 of those who favor them DO NOT want to be anywhere around them.

But the more interesting numbers are that on a strongly progressive discussion board the number who support nuclear power is the same or slightly higher than the norm across all demographics?

And that in polling that samples both issues, the rate of support for nuclear power is EXACTLY the same as the rate of support for coal.

How does that happen?

[phantom power]

5. Aha, good point...

I wonder what those other 33% are thinking? I'm not a fan of nimby-ism, especially if it's the kind that says "I favor X, but only if somebody else has to live near X."

Regarding coal, I think it shows that a lot of people either don't think CO2 and other coal pollutants are a problem, or they haven't given it much thought, or they buy into the "clean coal" meme. Or all of the above.

[kristopher]

8. Support/opposition regarding coal and nuclear are IDENTICAL.

When you get that kind of result in a poll, it is a pretty good indicator that the same groups are probably voting for both.

I'd bet it is consistent across multiple polls.

[GliderGuider]

9. "a pretty good indicator that the same groups are probably voting for both"

Really? Why would you draw that conclusion?

[kristopher]

11. I said "an indicator"

[GliderGuider]

12. No, actually you said "a pretty good indicator"

Why do you feel it's "pretty good"? Does that mean you think it's a valid indicator?

[kristopher]

15. Why do *you* feel the need to pussyfoot around...

If you have something to say, say it.

An indicator is an indicator - it is "pretty good, because it jumps out on a first cut analysis. Given the historic nature of the base of support for nuclear - that it is a mainstay of republican energy policy along side of fossil fuels, the default interpretation is that this is the fundamental picture the number reflects. It isn't definitive, but it is "a pretty good indicator".

[GliderGuider]

16. No, I think it's just _your_ default interpretation.

To me it just looks like a coincidence. I think you're indulging in confirmation bias.

[kristopher]

18. What is your basis for that?

Nuclear power supporters and coal supporters have been in lockstep for decades. I'm guessing you are trying to overlay overall party identity with support for each party's energy policy. Dem energy policy has been a political weakness since Carter so the two do not align.

It is perfectly reasonable to use the traditional alignment as an explanation for the numbers until a better one is established.

[phantom power]

10. Could be!

Examining the joint distribution from the poll results would answer the question immediately. If we had it. Assuming you're right, I gather you think this means something: like, nuke supporters are actually also pro-coal and also that they hate both residents of Appalachia and the Ukraine.

Now, I also see that since 91% of respondents support development of renewables, and 52% support increased coal mining, that at least 43% of the respondents favor both renewables and coal mining. So what do you conclude from that?

In all seriousness: one conclusion that I personally draw is that Americans are concerned about energy independence and jobs, and many of them are agnostic about which energy sources, as long as they're domestic. I imagine we could draw other conclusions as well.

[kristopher]

14. I agree with the last view.

I'd use the term "energy security" as that encompasses the group that consider high prices, price volatility AND foreign entanglements as a high priorities. As you say, they tend to be agnostic about the source to which I'd add that they largely have a black box view of energy supply with little knowledge of the related infrastructure, cost and policy issues.

I thought the most informative results for policy purposes was the Gallup poll results compared to the either/or support/oppose results.

Note that the total support vs total oppose for the Gallup in 2001 is the about the same as the AP/Stanford poll - about 48/48. There were a lot of others that I didn't post, but that 48/48 split is pretty consistent.

When allowed to voice tentative support for nuclear (Gallup 2009) the number rises to (totaled) 59% support vs. 37% oppose;
yet the AP poll shows that when there is a forced choice there has been little change since 2001.

The actual situation is that there *is* a forced choice, we really don't have the money AND TIME to support both.
The primary objection I have to public support for nuclear (besides the significant quantifiable opportunity cost) is that it continues to send mixed signals to the investment community. Markets hate uncertainty. When they get the idea that we have seriously committed to a renewable energy infrastructure, there will be a huge influx of money into all areas of developing the infrastructure.
For an example of why that is significant, recall the story from A123 about EV batteries hitting 2020 targets by 2012. What is leading to that are the market implications of the administration's reaction to GM and Chrysler's bankruptcy where they forced them to commit to EVs.
That can and will happen throughout the entire gamut of renewable energy technologies if we were to provide the same sort of policy signal.

I'm pretty well convinced that the political trouble that has resulted from Blue Dog obstruction of the health bill has forced Obama to sacrifice the optimum path to addressing climate change.

I hope you understand the full price we are paying for supporting nuclear power.

[joshcryer]

30. The Economist has a post-Obama STOU poll here (posted yesterday in fact):

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/our_weekly_poll

Nearly half of Americans (47%) think nuclear power plants are safe. Over half (56%) approve of building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. Mr Obama wants to triple the value of loans for new nuclear plants the government is offering to guarantee.

FWIW.

[kristopher]

32. The same half that favor "drill baby drill" and more coal.

FWIW

[Codeine]

33. You continue to assert that

with nothing to back up the claim. Many here support nuclear technology without any support for the fossil fuel industry.

[kristopher]

34. The problem with your statement is the lack of specificity.

"Many here support nuclear technology without support for the fossil industry."

What kind of number can you assign to "many"?

I am sure that there are progressives that support nuclear; and I agree that doesn't mean they support fossil fuels. However we are talking about trends in broad support. So while what you say is true if we allow great latitude in the meaning of "many" there are damned few PROGRESSIVES that PREFER nuclear over renewables and who would routinely deny solid evidence that a renewable path to a carbon free energy infrastructure is more achievable than the nuclear path.

So how do we explain the fact that here we routinely see lies spread that are intended to move support away from renewable energy?

What is it in the progressive value system that would explain such behavior? The answer is "Nothing".

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

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

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

Fewer people support nuclear power than support more drilling.
The support for nuclear power plants is the same as support for more coal plants.
Support for renewable energy is almost universal.

Those are well established numbers.

It is also well established that the traditional stance of the Republican party (which has strong support among its members) reflects ONLY energy security concerns and is expressed as more drilling, more coal and more nuclear.

The traditional liberal value embraces energy security, but it also places a high value on proper evaluation of the environmental consequences of our actions. That means we have rejected the continued reliance on fossil fuels AND the use of nuclear power in favor of a redesigning our energy infrastructure around distributed generation and renewable energy sources.

If we are to believe the information presented by the nuclear proponents at DU; they claim a dramatic increase in support for nuclear power among liberals. However overall polling shows only a very modest shift in overall acceptance of nuclear - some who strongly opposed now are somewhat opposed; some who were somewhat opposed are now somewhat favorable; and some that were somewhat favorable are now strongly favorable.

That shift brings overall support to the level we saw recently on the DU poll. A progressive website that reflects the general level of support for nuclear power - that is an interesting result.

How can we explain it if Dems are now polling at the average level of support for nuclear power?
A possible explanation would be that the extremely high level of support among Republicans has evaporated down to the average level of support; otherwise the balance between the claimed increased in support from progressives when combined with the very high level of support among conservatives would result in an overall level of support that is much higher than polling indicates it to be.

Another explanation is that the presence of nuclear supporters at DU is inflated far beyond what is representative of the progressive value system and the recent poll was gamed by a LARGE number of non-progressives.

Now I think that is much more probable than the possibility that suddenly large numbers of Rethuglicans have abandoned their support for nuclear power.

[endless october]

6. how much is maintaining global access to fossil fuels costing you?

and how much is it costing our nation once everything is factored in?

nuclear is much better.

[kristopher]

7. And renewables are better still.

All things considered, renewable are superior to either. The point of cost in the OP just makes the environmental and operational advantages of distributed renewable generation that much greater.

[endless october]

13. i completely support renewables.

we should be putting a lot more resources into their development.

[bananas]

20. How much will maintaining global access to nuclear fuels cost you?

Nuclear energy is currently only about 2-3% of final energy globally,
India already passed "peak uranium" because the ore grade is so low in their country.
France is considering going back to the old "Generation II" models because the "Generation III" design is so much more expensive and problematic than they expected; breeder reactors and other "Generation IV" reactors will be even more expensive than the "Generation III" reactors.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=226878&mesg_id=227030

Share of global final energy consumption:
Nuclear 3%
Fossil fuels 79%
Renewables 18%

[TxRider]

17. ROFL this is a deja vu moment

This is the STP nuclear plant in Bay City Texas..

The same plant we were told would cost $974 million when we approved it to be built, and it cost us 5 billion instead, spurring lawsuits and strife that went on for years...

Here we go again!

[kristopher]

19. This was predicted in 2008 independent analysis

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

Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.1

March 24, 2008
Main Findings

... Careful industry analysis of new nuclear power plant costs indicates that the NRG
estimate of $6 billion to $7 billion for the cost of the two new nuclear units proposed to
be built at the South Texas Project site is obsolete and likely incomplete. The best
currently available analyses indicate that it is a serious underestimate of the capital costs
of the project.

An analysis of new nuclear power plant costs filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) with
the Florida Public Service Commission is the most complete and rigorous analysis of new
nuclear power plant capital costs publicly available to date. The FPL analysis is based on
the same reactors, G.E. Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) as the proposed
NRG project. Using this analysis, we find that the all-in total capital cost of the proposed
NRG two-reactor project would be in the $12 billion to $17.5 billion range. This range is
two to three times the lower NRG value of $6 billion and 1.7 to 2.5 times NRG’s higher
estimate of $7 billion. Moody’s October 2007 estimates are within this range, as is the
Progress Energy’s March 2008 estimate. Even these estimates do not take into account
higher imported component cost risks created by a falling dollar or possible continued
real cost escalation due to rising global demand for raw materials and skilled labor.

A 40 percent CPS’ share of the project would make its likely investment in the project in
the $4.8 billion to $7 billion range. Even the lower end of this range is considerably
higher than the total net value of CPS’s total electric plants of $3.9 billion as of the end of
its 2007 fiscal year. The high end would make CPS’s share equal to the high end of the
total NRG cost estimate.

As a municipal utility partnering with a merchant generator, the risks to CPS ratepayers
and San Antonio taxpayers of a large, long-lead time, capital intensive project in a time
of financial turbulence are considerable and need to be carefully evaluated. They should
be publicly disclosed and discussed.

CPS completed its own study of the costs of the proposed project and compared it to
some alternatives in 2007. This study has not been made public; it is being updated.

CPS has made a commendable commitment to the concept that efficiency should be
treated on a par with new investments in coal or nuclear plants. However, this
commitment is only in the very initial stages of operationalization and is at very low
levels of implementation relative to economic potential. The efficiency study of 2004
commissioned by CPS did not cover some technical elements and did not include
combined heat and power or distributed renewable energy sources within its scope. It is
also in urgent need of a financial update in light of increased costs of new coal and
nuclear plants.

An early decision to invest in the nuclear units would pre-empt and possibly even
foreclose full operationalization of the concept that efficiency, distributed generation, and
distributed renewables should be treated on a par with central station investments. This
could result in needless rate increases and financial risk. Additional financial risk may
accrue due to NRG’s approach to the project. For instance, NRG filed an incomplete
Combined Operating License Application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a
fact that has could result in delays in the licensing process.


The CPS study of the costs of new nuclear units and alternatives should be made public.
An independent review of this study would benefit the public and reduce the risks
associated with an investment decision that is likely to be larger than the new value
CPS’s entire electricity system.

The City Council should commission a fully independent study of the NRG’s project’s
capital costs, including risks not quantified in this preliminary report. The study should
also consider other cost elements such as fuel costs, potential consequences of a lack of
federal contracts for spent fuel disposal for new reactors, opportunity costs of water that
would be used by the plants, and reliability of nuclear power plants in times of extreme
heat and drought that may become more common in a warming world.

A study of efficiency, distributed generation, distributed renewables, solar thermal power
plants, large scale wind, and intermediate scale (greater than 100 kW) solar PV on
commercial rooftops and parking lots needs to be completed. This would provide a basis
for deciding a future course of action by comparing combinations of alternative options
for cost and reliability comparison with the proposed nuclear investment.

CPS should work with Arizona Public Service, Austin Energy, regional electric
cooperatives, and other utilities to develop a financial model for treating efficiency,
distributed generation, and distributed renewables on a par with central station
generation. This is necessary for economical operation, the health of the utility, and
achieving least cost solutions within any given set of environmental and reliability
constraints.

NRG emerged from bankruptcy as recently as December 2003. It’s license application
was deemed to be incomplete by the NRC. Its public capital cost estimates for the
project are obsolete. These facts should elicit special due diligence examination on the
part of CPS, its governing board and the City Council prior to a commitment of
partnership in the proposed project.

A decision on any rate increase associated with an investment in the new nuclear units
should be postponed until a sound basis for comparison as described above is developed.
A decision to invest in this project should also be postponed until the studies discussed
above have been completed and publicly discussed.

[TxRider]

25. If I recall correctly

Back in the late 70's and early 80's when this was all going down the first time the cities involved went through quite a legal battle, with I believe San Antonio trying to pull out of their commitment due to the increased costs.

I was younger then and didn't pay it a lot of attention other then it was major fiasco back then, and the cities who funded it all got burned quite badly and squabbled about it for years.

I'm not surprised San Antonio is looking to not get burned badly yet again.

That history may have also played into the decisions Austin Energy has made since the early 80's.

Most Texans aren't very aware of the plant, as it's well out on the middle of nowhere on a relatively sparsely populated piece of coast line. You can't really even see it from the roads driving by.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=stp+nuclear+plant&sll=32.875859,-97.249648&sspn=0.367917,0.883026&ie=UTF8&hq=stp+nuclear+plant&hnear=&radius=15000&ll=28.800157,-96.021194&spn=0.194352,0.441513&t=h&z=11

[bananas]

21. And they haven't even started construction yet!

I can't wait to see the cost over-runs during construction.

[kristopher]

27. I don't think they are going to.

It looks like this project is on it's way to collapsing. The feeling on the part of the public about being lied to on the price is not going to go away.

[grahamhgreen]

22. I think the nuclear industry paid for bloggers are all over this board.

[amborin]

23. Exelon was a big donor to Obama,

and Axelrod worked as a consultant for them for a bit

[phantom power]

24. I feel sure I could provide E/E with much higher-quality shilling if I was actually paid.

:patriot:

[kristopher]

26. So do I.

I've conducted and analyzed over 100 in depth interviews (between 30 min-3 hrs) with a wide range of people on how they perceive our energy situation and the alternatives.

The type of closed minded cheerleading for nuclear I've experienced here is isn't unique, but I've only observed it from paid advocates like Save Our Sound, the group organized by Koch and the past CEO of Phelps Dodge Minerals Mining Service.

Every singe other entity adhered to a level of truth that is totally absent the dialog for nuclear on DU.

Lots of the people I interviewed were willing to consider nuclear, but it wass far from their first choice unless they were in the "Drill baby drill" camp.

[joshcryer]

29. Did they regularly post on an energy related forum?

Really, you have few few options with regards to energy utilization. Nuclear happens to be a hot button issue here (not entirely the fault of the "nukenuts," though one in particular does get overzealous and hateful).

I don't think your "poll" is relevant to the discussions on this forum. And I think that because you are a self-admitted shill for the wind industry, you should put up or shut up, as calling people out like this is explicitly against DU rules.

If there are nuclear shills and you can prove it you should immediately report them to a moderator.

[joshcryer]

28. I think you are making claims you can't support and breaking DUs no call out rule.

But yeah. I won't report you.

[Javaman]

31. Calling someone out is calling out someone specifically.

making general statements is not calling out.