Posted on 03/18/2011 6:43:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/03/18/nuclear_power_just_too_expensive/
EXCERPTS:
The nuclear power revival isn’t dead in the United States, but it’s practically on life support.
Consider the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, the last completed nuclear plant in America, where construction began in 1973 and power was first generated in 1996. Construction of a second Watts Bar unit was halted after 13 years of work in 1988 and eventually restarted in 2007. It is scheduled for completion next year.
That’s one of the success stories.
Two new reactors approved for a plant in Georgia are in “pre-construction’’ and come with billions in federal loan guarantees. Plans for another plant in South Carolina are moving along.
That’s not the nuclear power short list. It’s the list of all the serious possibilities, and it happens to be very short.
What changed so dramatically for nuclear power was competition. As the world slumped into economic recession, the price of all types of power declined sharply, so the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants became less competitive. Carbon taxes, which could have narrowed some price gaps in nuclear power’s favor, never got off the ground.
But the real killer is plunging natural gas prices that could make power from any new nuclear plants roughly twice as expensive. Now, new technology to extract America’s plentiful natural gas supplies — though controversial — could provide lots of relatively inexpensive energy for years to come.
“Gas is much cheaper even as we look out over the next couple of decades, compared with people’s assessment just two or three years ago,’’ says Jone-Lin Wang, managing director of global power for IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. “It’s a game-changer.’’
Nuke plants are extraordinarily expensive because of the extraordinary regulation, lawsuits, and other hoops companies are forced to jump through in order to build one.
On a per kW basis nuke energy is a bargain.
Story needs a Barf Alert in the title.
Nuclear power, once in production, is the cheapest power available.
Like you said, it’s the hoops and lawsuits and regulations and licensing that cause the expense and delays (which themselves cost money).
I saw some data yesterday on FR.
Nukes average 80% uptime.
Solar/wind has 8% uptime.
Forget Solar and Wind.
And forget the hysteria about meltdowns.
Let’s just deal with economics.
Let’s talk about the economics of BUILDING and MAINTAINING Nuclear Plants vs Coal Fired vs Oil Powered vs Natural Gas.
I bet Natural Gas wins today when all economics are considered.
Hello? What’s the alternative in France?
They can’t get coal, etc competitively.
And how much does it cost us, cost the WORLD to defend the middle east?
Power costs more than just fuel+infrastructure.
Actually, any “inappropriate” technology is too expensive to introduce or use when you factor in the legal costs that will result from law suits against you by the enviromental weenies.
We’re not talking about France. let’s talk about the good old US of A.
The article concedes that ONCE IN PRODUCTION, Nuclear plants are cheaper to operate. However, here’s the kicker...
“Many free market advocates support nuclear because it costs less to generate nuclear power than it does to generate electricity from any other source (save, perhaps, hydroelectric power), thanks to nuclear’s low operation and maintenance costs. However, someone has to first pay for-and build-these plants and the rub is that nuclear has very high, upfront construction costs ranging from $6-9 billion.”
Do you believe that if we did away with lawsuits, paperwork, inspection costs, regulations ( which we cannot do away with in practice ), the construction cost will be a fraction of $6B to $9 B?
Need to change the format to modular factory built units that run on Thorium.Then the price will fall.
RE: Story needs a Barf Alert in the title.
Story is NOT against Nuclear Power per se. The author wants people to consider the COST of building and maintaining nuclear plants vs other alternative conventional sources.
Can any nuclear-energy-smart FReepers make a case for or against the arguments included in the article? I’d really like to know if it’s valid; I’ve believed for years, because of articles I’ve read in the conservative media, that nuclear energy is the solution to at least part of our energy shortage, and that only intense pressure from anti-capitalist lefists is keeping the govt from implementing it. Am I wrong?
RE: any “inappropriate” technology is too expensive to introduce or use when you factor in the legal costs that will result from law suits against you by the enviromental weenies.
Some questions :
1) Can you totally do away with legal costs? Any huge construction, be it oil, coal or gas fired plants, WILL always incur legal costs -— insurance alone will require LEGAL costs.
2) How much LESS would the cost of construction be if we did not factor in the enviromental weenies? Would it be cost competitive compared to the other conventional sources?
Exactly. Nobody sues when you put up one of those bird exterminators, er I mean wind mills.
The entire US commercial nuclear power plant average is 90% generation versus rated capacity. That 10% includes all down time, refueling, maintenance, etc.
U.S. Nuclear Generation of Electricity
2009 Capacity and Generation:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreact09.xls
I’m listening to the sub anchor on FOX interviewing William Tucker. He has thrown all the hysterical articles from NYT etc. claiming Nuke energy is the Armegeddon of energy providers.
claiming that somehow TEPCO has this a cozy relationship with the Japan Gov. ergo caused problem with plant.
As Tucker pointed out:
They had the 5th largest EARTHQUAKE and a deadly Tsunami.
Frankly I think the plant AND the workers should get kudos for surviving the events and the workers for heroic actions limiting the collateral damage.
Everyone knows the EPA is breathlessly HOPING for increased radiation to hit Calif.
RE: Can any nuclear-energy-smart FReepers make a case for or against the arguments included in the article?
It is very hard to determine that unless we let the free market reign. I am for an all-of-the-above energy strategy with two provisos :
1) No tax payer subsidies, let them compete with each other.
2) REASONABLE environmental regulations.
RE: I’m listening to the sub anchor on FOX interviewing William Tucker. He has thrown all the hysterical articles from NYT etc. claiming Nuke energy is the Armegeddon of energy providers.
_______________________________________________________________________
Let’s throw all the hysterics aside and deal PURELY with the COST and ECONOMICS. The question this article has brought up is this -— assuming people are sufficiently educated on the safety of nuclear energy, WILL CONSTRUCTION + MAINTENANCE be competitive against all other traditional energy sources?
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.