Replies

Sorry, the fuel could be free, but the capital cost and O & M of the plant is so astronomical that when it is allocated to the cost of each unit of output, it will be very costly.

For example, I don't believe that any nuclear plant in the US has costed out at a lower cost per KWH than the conventional capacity it replaced or supplanted.

Nuclear is more expensive per KWH than coal or natural gas, it's true, but not that much more.

Furthermnore, the cost of generation via coal and natural gas isn't fully captured in market prices. Coal has a massive environmental costs that are not priced. Dependence on natural gas carries massive securities costs (since so much of it is produced in the Mid East). If coal and natural gas were taxed so that its price would reflect these unpriced costs ("externalities" as economists call them), nuclear would be cost effective.

>>
Furthermnore, the cost of generation via coal and natural gas isn't fully captured in market prices. Coal has a massive environmental costs that are not priced. Dependence on natural gas carries massive securities costs (since so much of it is produced in the Mid East). If coal and natural gas were taxed so that its price would reflect these unpriced costs ("externalities" as economists call them), nuclear would be cost effective.
<<

This if from the Hopeful School of Economic Speculation. It is an attempt to stretch facts to fit the desired conclusion.

Putting aside that the cost of making ethanol from corn isn't fully captured in market prices, this is a shopworn refuge of people whose position is on the wrong end of simple facts.

First, very little gas is imported from the Middle East in absolute numbers and almost none, compared to how much the US uses.

Second, all these "externalities" are mere speculation. We could say the same about the price of butter or steak, because the consumer doesn't include the cost of treating his future heart attack or nursing home care when he suffers a disabling strokd. There is hardly a single aspect of human life that includes in the market price, the present value of future speculated costs.

In human history that aspect of living has been called "risk" and people gladly accept it. Those who think at least a little about it buy various types of insurance policies such as life, accident or health insurance to help cover losses.

It has often been said the US consumer doesn't pay the full price of oil at the pump because of the costs of our military. But the US maintains a presence in over 100 countries. We don't pay the full price of importing BMWs either when you count the cost of our military that is still in Germany! We don't pay the full price of Sony Playstations when you count all the US service men and women stationed in Japan.

The reason we maintain a large and expensive military is quite a bit disconnected with our importation of oil. We don't contribute to a large peacekeeping force on the border between Egypt and Israel to protect oil. We do it far more for broad political reasons than for oil.

Of the several reasons that the US invaded Iraq, access to oil was the least.

If we didn't import a drop of Saudi crude, we still would protect them in the Gulf Why? Because it is in our economic interest to help the Europeans. We would still keep a number of aircraft carriers stationed off Iran (from whom we don't buy a drop of oil), because their nuclear weaons development program is a grave threat to a lot of peoples and interests.

But if we are to talk about the full cost of every energy source, then where indeed would nuclear power compare? The US government has spent billions and billions on research that supports that industry. And, as an active pilot, I know firsthand the US military's expensive role and ongoing in protecting each of the nation's nuclear power plants. Then there are the civil defense aspects of power plants and the affect that such a plant has on the security and health of people located within quite a large radius of every plant.

If we are intent on fully capturing the costs of nuclear power, we must also include the enormous cost of the implied liability that the US government has assumed as a matter of national policy.

The Price-Anderson Act limits liability in the event of a nuclear accident. Under this law, homeowner insurance policies no longer have to cover such things as destruction or contamination. The federal government has assumed this risk almost in full. In the insurance business this would be called "super-cat" insurance and would carry a hefty premium. The premiums charged under Price-Anderson are, especially for people concerned about paying the full cost, almost a joke.

A single nuclear incident could incur tens of billions of dollars in liability.

When you add all these hidden subsidies up, nuclear power is even far less economic than other forms of power generation.

We may choose nuclear power for other reasons, but please don't try to say it is as inexpensive as burning coal.