Comments on: Magic Beans for 100 Nuclear Power Plants

By: jim walker

jim walker — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:07:32 +0000

Correction: The last order for a nuclear reactor that was actually completed and connected to the grid in the US was placed in 1973 and began operation 23 years later in 1996 as TVA’s Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee.

A total of 115 reactors were cancelled between 1972 and 1984, costing the utilities more than $20 billion. By 1992, a total of 121 reactors hade been cancelled.

(Source: Insurmountable Risks, Brice Smith, IEER Press, 2006. Page 10)

Seems as if it’s easier to cancel orders than fill them.

By: thomas lewis

thomas lewis — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:01:31 +0000

comments from everyone well taken..my openion ;nuck generation is efficient yes,BUT,what about iys waste?after dismantle & clean up add that cost back into the equasion of costs per kwh..mothballing old nuck. plants for any period of time will only put off the inevitable higher cost to be devided among the consumers & how many other states will ban the disposal of hazardious waste in the time lapse?like agent orange in viet nam “it wont hurt our troops”,what will we find in the future?the source i see that gets less R&D money thrown its way is hydro ,the oceans currents are never ending they cover 70% of the planet ,doesnt care if the sun doesnt shine or the wind doesnt blow,& leaves a clean footprint..hydro power was used in the age of the greeks & romans ..a producer of electricity?the lowest cost of generation & maintanance the world has ever had …documented for the last 100 years of all generation means..why dont we look at this means ?no fat cats in DC getting anything out of it…GET REAL …it works!!!!

By: Charles Barton

Charles Barton — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:59:11 +0000

Myth Number 1: Nuclear is more expensive than renewables:

By: RobCra

RobCra — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:22:29 +0000

Shel, your comment is a good example of the misinformation we nuclear defenders have to overcome. First, your objections are all imaginary; none of the mishaps you describe have happened in the US or in any country except the Soviet Union, a country unique in its abject failure at everything.
Please look for better information sources than Amory Lovins, a college dropout who calls himself a scientist even though he has no qualifications as one. No doubt, his misrepresentations are the reason for your misconceptions on this important subject. I invite you to look at the true cost of renewables, including high energy inputs and toxic waste. Your position that solar is widely applicable and environmentally inoffensive reflects a stubborn refusal to be objective.
No one doubts that renewable energy can reduce the use of fossil fuels, just as you say. But the world won’t rely on part-time energy sources and if nuclear isn’t developed in a major way the world will continue to use fossil fuels at a rate that will destroy the world’s habitability in less than a century.

By: Shel Horowitz

Shel Horowitz — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:54:19 +0000

It’s shocking to see how many nuclear defenders have commented. Back in 1979, I wrote my first book about why nuclear power was a terrible idea, and I remain convinced that it is a terrible path. Decommissioning is only one of dozens of serious problems. Waste disposal, enormous consequences in event of accident, poor safety record to date, net power loss, susceptibility to terrorist attacks all along the fuel cycle (not just the heavily protected plants themselves), centralization of police-state force to protect them, thermal pollution, radiation leakage…just to name a few.
To those who say nonpolluting renewables are just as if not more expensive… 1. Take a look at the work of people like Amory Lovins, who demonstrates over and over again that when you take a whole-systems approach to locally-grown solar and wind power, economies show up that conventional design and engineering miss completely–like the abiity to eliminate a furnace. 2. Count the true costs of nuclear, without all the subsidies and hiding costs by moving them into other budget streams, and the picture is different.
I put solar hot water on the roof of my 260-year-old farmhouse in cloudy Massachusetts and the system paid for itself in about five years. I admit that the pv system we put in a couple of years later has not performed as well, but I suspect some poor siting choices have much to do with that.
But even so, solar is widely applicable, environmentally inoffensive, and, coupled with an aggressive program of conservation, could remove the “need” for many nuclear and coal plants. The days of centralized power generation and remote transmission to user sites are probably coming to a close; far too much energy is wasted in transmission.
On the conservation side, I happen to have written a short, inexpensive e-book called Painless Green: 111 Tips to Help the Environment, Lower Your Carbon Footprint, Cut Your Budget, and Improve Your Quality of Life – With No Negative Impact on Your Lifestyle: http://painlessgreenbook.com/ – this is stuff you can put into practice immediately, and most of the tips cost nothing or almost nothing.

By: RobCra

RobCra — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:22:31 +0000

Jason, thanks for taking the trouble to comment. There are so many aspects to this subject we always have to hit one or two points to hold the comments to finite length. Your points are valid and deserve answers and I’ll answer to the best of my limited ability.
There are a lot of people talking pro-nuclear, including serious environmentalists. That is a recent development, I think owing to the new attention given to nuclear’s importance in dealing with global warming. The recyclability of wind-energy and solar-energy materials is an advantage. The greater amount of materials required offsets that advantage.
Please check your source on capital intensity of various energy sources. Of the sources I’ve seen, the only ones who argue that nuclear is more capital-intensive are political groups promoting a particular viewpoint and depend on misinformation or at least distortion of facts. Typically, such sources quote a price for rated power capacity and ignore the reality that part-time energy sources only produce a fraction of their rated capacity.
Generally, most people agree with your conclusion that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources are major parts of the solution. Clear-headed analysis shows, however, that they will not give us the reductions in fossil-fuel consumption needed to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. The conversation we’re having now is exactly what is needed so we can get past this quandary and start taking effective action. For some information supporting the point that nuclear is necessary, please look at The Case for Nuclear Energy.

By: jason

jason — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:32:04 +0000

I find it amazing that so many nuclear people are chiming in here at Triple Pundit. Isn’t this about the triple bottom line? How does nuclear take ecological performance into consideration? You guys can sit here and talk about nuclear being carbon-free, but you always seem to disregard or play down the waste issue. And uranium mining isn’t an environmental winner. I understand mining has to be done to get materials to build any power plant. Nuclear, wind, solar, coal, whatever. But at least with renewables, you don’t need to keep mining for fuel. I may be in the minority here, but I think this guy’s opinion on nuclear is spot on!
And as far as that comment about “bad mouthing” the cost of nuclear. The last time I checked, nuclear was the most capital-intensive form of power generation. Plus, the costs continue for waste disposal and decommissioning. Solar runs while the sun is out, wind runs while the wind is blowing, geothermal runs all the time, and energy efficiency measures can help reduce load. Tie all this together and we have a decent contribution from cleaner forms of energy. But you decided not to mention that, didn’t you. How convenient.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:14:39 +0000

Its time we starting moving forward with more nuclear plants.

The US generates more electricty from nuclear plants than France. Yes France has a greater mix but this is not a science experiment for the US.

No one has ever been killed in a nuclear plant accident in the US - including Three Mile Island. How many deaths a year are attributed to mining and burning coal?

The electrification of the transportation industry finally breaks the bond between energy generation and energy consumption. How we generate electricity is completely our own choice unlike who we pay for oil/gas. Forget Exxon's profits, Saudi made $700B from the US last year.

Its going to be a long process but it starts with Congressional leadership (both parties). Let's open the door on identifying sites, fast tracking permits and clearing red tape. We could potentially break ground on 100 plants in 5 years with a decade long construction phase. These would come on-line just as a significant number of PHEV and EV's hit the road. Time for some long term planning.

By: Charles Barton

Charles Barton — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:21:02 +0000

Triply-brainless might be a better tag for this blogger. I have over the last two years repeatedly compared the cost of nuclear power with the cost of reliable renewable power – reliable meaning that the lights will actually come on when you turn the switch. Even given far more favorable cost assumptions for renewable than for nuclear, the cost of nuclear generated electricity turns out to be lower than the cost of reliable renewable generated electricity,
Why? The answer is simple. The sun does not shine at night, and the wind does not always blow. The cost of providing electricity when the sun is not shining ad the wind not blowing wiill make renewables more expensive. Renewables advocates seldom are trying to hid how much making renewables reliable will cost by bad mouthing the cost of nuclear. t
his is just so stupid and so, so, so dishonest.

By: Charles Barton

Charles Barton — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:20:55 +0000

By: carletes

carletes — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:42:52 +0000

I’m a little confused. How is a concrete structure, sitting in the middle of nowhere, with no fuel, a safety concern?
Renewables.. i.e. windmills, solar panels etc. Do you think anyone is even considering their decommissioning? At least the Nuclear industry invested money to be prepared.

By: RobCra

RobCra — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:34:28 +0000

Correction: the ExternE study is located here.

By: RobCra

RobCra — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:14:51 +0000

As far as cost and environmental issues go, every objective comparison done has shown that wind energy has costs and effects equal to those of nuclear, with the added disadvantage of only part-time availability. Costs and effects of solar energy are several times higher. For example, see the ExternE study. It certainly is true that the first plant built will be expensive, as the first of anything is. As manufacturing and construction proceeds, the costs will go down. We know they will because it has always been that way.

As the AP article makes clear, the nuclear companies did put away enough capital to pay for decommissioning, but their investments have seen the same devaluations as everyone else's. If the stock markets don't recover, too many nuclear plants will be the very least of our concerns.

You don't gain credibility with this article. According to you, anyone who looks at the facts and comes down on the other side has to be getting bribes. If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to take a harder look at the issue and not simply seek to justify your preconceptions.

By: unimpressed

unimpressed — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:47:12 +0000

What do you mean- “who cares?”
Nice- beat up on the one other person that actually read your article.
“Can’t be done” That’s the misleading whole point of your article- that according to you it can’t be done.
Consider me this- there is NO way we get renewables up to any significant MAJORITY of electrical supply in 20 years also.