Posted on 03/23/2011 6:47:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Economics, not fears of a meltdown or radiation poisoning, prevented a resurgence in nuclear energy. Natural gas power plants are much cheaper to build and operate.
To all those who may be concerned that the catastrophic events at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will derail the heralded renaissance of nuclear power in the U.S., you can relax.
The reason is simple: There is no renaissance.
Not even Exelon Corp., the nation's biggest nuclear generation company, has been holding its breath for a surge in orders or appreciable increase in new generating capacity.
The reason has little to do with an unreasoning public's fear of nuclear meltdowns and radiation poisoning, and almost everything to do with pure economics. As John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, told an audience at a Washington think tank two weeks ago, you can build a new natural gas plant for 40% less than a new nuclear plant, and the price of its fuel is at rock bottom.
"Natural gas is queen," he says. (To be fair, Exelon also makes a lot of money from gas.)
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Economics my arse!
Let’s be honest....the libtards and RINOs have been blocking any meaningful energy development in this country for well over 30 years now.
When was the last time that a refinery was built in this country?
Stroker’s ILLEGAL drilling moratorium has cost us over 13 THOUSAND jobs in the past 8 months!!
What is Congress doing about it?
NOT A DAMNED THING!
Economics wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for the the libtards CAUSING the “economic issues”.
Stop the continual lawsuits and non-sensical regulations.
Lawmakers should consult nuclear and structural engineers for regulations, not leftist environmental groups.
Nuclear power is CHEAP, once it’s “going”.
It’s just getting the thing actually built that’s the problem.
we could start researching and building thorium nuclear reactors. Call it “sustainable fission based green power” since most libs don’t know what fission is your good to go. All they see is geren.
You’re just as well off not to build them if you don’t have a safe, secure place to send the spent fuel rods. And thanks to Obama and Harry Reid shutting down Yucca Mountain, we don’t have that and probably never will.
Then why are there something like 36 pending applications?
We’ve had 3 new nuclear reactors approved in the last year. 2 at South Texas, 1 in Georgia. And 1 more that was approved in 2007, another reactor at Watts Bar, TN is underway.
After no activity for 30 years, that certainly sounds like a renewal of the industry to me.
New nukes are being considered in Iowa and Missouri.
Probably some other states I just haven’t heard about yet.
I would love to see an analysis of the actual costs to build and operate a nuke plant vs. a gas plant, with regulatory costs backed out.
Regulations can be changed. Economics involving building and operating costs cannot, at least not quickly or easily.
Common sense would say that the nuke plant would still be more expensive to build than the gas plant, regardless of regulations, due to the nature of the power source.
However, once fueled, the nuke plant is fueled for “good”.
Obviously the fuel life is finite, but it’s LONG.
Other things to consider are the facts that 1.) The NRC and the Energy regulators have not “approved” the newer, far-and-away safer designs. Therefore, you are shoehorned into utilizing older (but bureaucratically approved) technology, and 2.) The STNP underwent numerous design changes and other stops during construction because the bureaucrats had approved something, then changed their minds. Sometimes after the concrete had been poured. Re-doing the same thing 2 and 3 times gets very expensive.
Simple regulatory approval is only one aspect of the gargantuan costs of building a nuke power station.
I disagree with the basics of that concept. The economics for nuclear power in the US are GREATLY inflated by fear generated by those against it. Manipulating government policy and regulations by playing on a uninformed public fear has created our economic blockages in the US.
I’m sure you’re right, and I intended to include those costs in my question.
I just want to compare the costs of the two systems without government intervention. I’m sure somebody has the numbers.
If system A costs 20% more than system B because I impose restrictions on system A that double its costs unnecessarily, we don’t have an accurate comparison of “real” costs.
nuke power bump for later.......
There are Two very large holes in the ground near Columbia, SC. Approval is expected later in the year.
How would we have costs without the regulations? The designs of the units are based upon the regulations.
The NRC staff has issued the following design certifications:
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) by General Electric (GE) Nuclear Energy
System 80+ by Westinghouse Electric Company
Advanced Passive 600 (AP600) by Westinghouse Electric Company
Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) by Westinghouse Electric Company
http://nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html
From the same web site:
The USA is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2018, the first of those resulting from 16 licence applications to build 24 new nuclear reactors made since mid-2007.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.