Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: all_mighty_dollar
a 1982 Commonwealth Edison Cost chart of Electricity Generated by Nuclear Versus Coal which shows Nuke cost/KWh as 2.24 vs coal at 4.33

But in today's environment, nuclear cost more to build and to operate.

Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3

If Saudi Arabia, UAW, and Kuwait ramp production up by 1.0 million b/d, the world would be left with very little spare capacity

There has been an immense building of production facilities and infrastructure around the world the last couple of years. Information based upon production capacities of just two years ago would already be out of date. The building in Russia going on now is huge for example.

expand our existing nuke plants by 100% ... The natural gas peaker plants could be eliminated

Nuclear plants are base load plants. The do not ramp up and down quickly like a peaking unit. They are not interchangeable applications for power.

nuke plants to replace all the coal usage

Using coal for power is one of the cheapest ways to generate electrical power. Reducing our coal usuage increases our dependence on others for energy. We already import more uranium than we produce domestically.

95 posted on 10/04/2007 4:31:20 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: thackney

small competative nuclear energy —

here’s an example still moving forward since 2003

The City of Galena continues to investigate and pursue a 10 megawatt nuclear power plant, as an alternative to diesel-generated electricity and heat....

...There is no other energy source that I am aware of in rural Alaska that would match the 6 to 10 cents a kilowatt that we are talking about”

http://www.kiyu.com/news1006_2.htm

I finally found this reference that I remember reading about on FR 5 yrs ago or so. Gelena, Alaska is insolated and has few options but Nuke energy appears to work even on a small scale plant.


The beaty of such a plant in the US would be the transmission lines wouldn’t have to be built since these plants can be located near the need. California has been debating a North-South link for 20 years & NIMBY will probably never allow an expansion.

The article appears to state that coal was tried and failed as the areas forst choice for energy needs.

found this background —

Galena, Alaska has a problem that may be solved with an innovative application of nuclear power. The remote village in Western Alaska is a long way from the grid that supplies electricity to more densely populated regions. It is a fly-in village with only local roads. The energy supply is limited to fossil fuels transported on river barges, but the river is choked with ice 8-9 months per year.

“The long winters without large volume transport requires the town to maintain very large fuel tanks - the total storage capacity is more than 3 million gallons between the town and the airport, which equates to more than 4,000 gallons for every resident. Fuel purchase, transportation, storage, and financing costs drive the cost of electricity to more than $0.30 per kilowatt-hour....”
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05print.html


104 posted on 10/05/2007 4:48:52 PM PDT by all_mighty_dollar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson