Slow Start for Revival of Nuclear Reactors

[jpak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/business/22nukes.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

BALTIMORE — Nobody in the United States has started building a nuclear power plant in more than three decades. Mayo A. Shattuck III could be the first.

As the chief executive of Constellation Energy, a utility holding company in Baltimore that already operates five nuclear reactors, Mr. Shattuck is convinced that nuclear power is on the verge of a renaissance, ready to provide reliable electricity at a competitive price. He has already taken the first steps toward achieving that, moving recently to order critical parts for a new reactor.

But Constellation’s neighboring utility, the PPL Corporation, takes a different view. Even though PPL has successfully operated two reactors since 1983, its chairman, William F. Hecht, said that he had no plans for new nuclear plants.

When nuclear reactors were first commercialized almost half a century ago, every self-respecting electric utility wanted one. They were encouraged by a government that saw nuclear energy as a peaceful, redemptive byproduct of the deadly power unleashed at Hiroshima. The federal official for promoting nuclear energy, Lewis L. Strauss, said it would produce electricity “too cheap to meter.”

<and much much more>

[Mist]

1. Could it be because they've never yet figured out where to put the waste?

[NickB79]

9. Too bad we can't put it into the air

Just like with all the coal plants we've built in the past 25 years :sarcasm:

[Kolesar]

2. Enviros say nukes are dead proposition at 8 cents/kWh

So the utilities won't touch them when coal is ~3 cents/kWh, IIRC.

What I don't like is that the enviros are doing what I call "counting the same money twice". Enviros want carbon taxes or some other means of charging for the externalized costs of coal-fired electricity production. That ought to raise coal-fired electricity to...oh, let's say...more than 8 cents/kWh.


So that was Lewis Strauss' "unforgettable quote"! :wow:

[Viking12]

3. but nuclear power is supposed to be too cheap to meter...

where do I plug in?

[bananas]

4. Look at that - industry insiders agree with Al Gore

This is exactly what Al Gore said a few months ago in Grist magazine.
Could it be that Al actually knows what he's talking about, and doesn't make stuff up?

But even if a few plants are built, industry insiders do not expect nuclear power to assume a significantly greater role. Roger W. Gale, an electricity expert and former Energy Department official, asks several hundred utility executives each year what they foresee in their industry.

While they are convinced that a new plant will be ordered soon, the more than 100 senior utility executives who responded also said they do not expect “a future where nuclear generation represents a larger share of generation” than today.

[phantom power]

5. Those senior utility executives are planning to burn coal.

Just something to keep in mind. They aren't planning to build us a new utopia of renewable energy. Assuming such a utopia is possible even in principle.

[jpak]

6. Where does this strawman Solar Utopia idea come from????

I can guarantee America's energy future will be anything but a "utopia".

Will (coal-burning) nuclear utilities provide us with an green energy utopia????

Don't think so.

The companies that are building renewable energy projects are for the most part independents.

And they are the ones that "get it"...

[phantom power]

7. If you wish, ignore the word "utopia." All I was trying to say was...

when these guys demure on nuclear, it's not a victory for renewables. Conversely, when they demure on renewables, it's not a victory for nuclear.

While we're debating about nuclear and renewables, the people who actually make things happen are moving toward coal. Big time. That, and massive increases to domestic oil/gas drilling, LNG imports, etc.

Just making the observation. I don't really know what it implies, other than that we are all going to be inconceivably fucked by massive climate change.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. The no-nukes folks are on short fuses

Nukes v. No Nukes has become the Left's own little culture war.

I, for one, do not approve. Not that my approval is worth so much as the nitrogen in the copious volume of shit inside my intestines.

The nuclear industry does not listen to the pro-nuclear "groundlings" who are urging better oversight and aggressive scientific development, and the no-nukes side is utterly incapable of such workaday realities as capitalizing alt-energy or political organizing.

It does not look promising. In fact, it looks pretty fucking grim.

--p!

[bananas]

10. The only reason these "proposed" plants are even being discussed

is because they were part of Cheney's secret energy meetings. And we know how everything that came out of those meetings has been a disaster: Enron and Arnie, Iraq, a failed Venezuela coup.

So even with all the financial guarantees and streamlined approval and all the hype from Hill & Knowlton, the reality is expressed in the caption on the graphic from the NYT article:
"... A handful of utilities have expressed interest ... But none have made a firm commitment yet, and industry experts doubt that more than a few of the 27 possible reactors ... will be built anytime soon ..."