Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> Mitch Haley wrote:
>
> >Jack Dingler wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, where are they? Show me a few. We need them now. What's the hold
> >>up to getting dozens of these into production this year? And if not this
> >>year when?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >When people stop protesting and blockading nuclear facilities?
> >
>
> Do you honestly believe that makes a difference?
Well it is certainly reasonable to believe that it has some effect, athough the
particular "blockading" example might be intentionally trite.
"U.S.: The U.S. has the most reactors and generates the most electricity from
nuclear energy. However, the anti-nuclear movement succeeded in stalling new
commitments to nuclear plants. There is only one reactor currently under
construction. [2003: probably finished by now.] Nuclear energy generates about
20 percent of U.S. electricity. Early problems with reliability have been mainly
overcome, and nuclear plants have reached an average of 75 percent availability.
Republicans generally favor resuming construction, and Democrats generally
oppose it. 2003: Reliability is now over 90 percent.
There is plenty of coal in the U.S., so decisions can be long delayed without
serious consequences - provided global warming and the contribution of coal
burning to respiratory problems can be ignored. The utilities have made their
peace with the environmental organizations and the activist, lawyer dominated
regulatory commissions and will use whatever technology the regulators approve
regardless of costs.
Conclusion
The politics of nuclear energy is unlikely to change rapidly. When the cost of
petroleum goes up a lot, the countries that have had nuclear programs will have
a competitive advantage that will put pressure on the backward countries. The
danger that anti-nuclear politics would succeed in suppressing nuclear energy
everywhere seems to have passed.
1999: The politics of nuclear energy has improved slightly in the U.S. Congress
has mandated that the Government take the nuclear waste that it has been
charging the companies for taking. There is still stalling on the repository.
The repository for Government low level waste has finally opened in New Mexico.
There is a one stop law on licensing plants. The undamaged Three Mile Island
power plant has been sold to an energy supply company. With all that, a company
proposing to build a new nuclear power plant might still face expensive delays
from lawsuits.
Most of the new power plants in the US have used natural gas. The CEO of
Entergy, an operator of nuclear plants bought from utilities, said that a
natural gas price of $5.00 per million BTU should trigger the construction of
new nuclear plants. It's above that in late 2003.
2003: Congress passed a bill, and President Bush signed it specifying that a
waste site in Nevada will be used. With the expected lawsuits 2010 is the
earliest that waste will be stored. The energy bill that almost passed in Fall
2003 provided for a Government subsidy to construct a nuclear plant to produce
hydrogen. The delays in passing the bill have involved conflicts over subsidies
for ethanol, MTBE, etc. and have not involved the nuclear part. So far as I
know, the opponents of the bill have not raised anti-nuclear issues."
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-politics.html
"Economical.
Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production.
Fuel costs for an equivalent amount of power run from 1/3rd to 1/6th the cost
for fossil production, and capital and non-fuel operating costs are roughly
equivalent, resulting in the overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity
running 50% to 80% that of other sources. This is in spite of the fact that
capital costs have been hugely inflated due to lawsuits, court injunctions, and
other delaying tactics used by individuals and organizations opposed to nuclear
power."
http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html
"The root cause of the troubles and frustrations, moreover, is commonly thought
to be more political than economic. The promise of nuclear power in the United
States is said to have been dimmed primarily by an eccentrically risk-averse
public and an unusually hostile regulatory climate. Practically nowhere else, it
is said, have political and legal institutions been so uncooperative. Supposedly
the central governments of most other advanced countries have lent far more
support to their nuclear industries. And because those governments are assumed
to be more aggressive in combating pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions
from burning fossil fuels, surely "the rest of the world'' has been doing much
more than America to level the playing field for the development of nuclear
energy. But just how valid is this conventional picture?"
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm
No firm needs that headache -- so they just build coal or gas plants which emit
greenhouse gases and radioactivity.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
> That just sounds like
> and poor excuse and at best naive.
>
> Maybe they just cost so much, no one wants to put the money up? May they
> know they won't get a positive return on them. And from a politcal
> point of view there's better porkbarrel projects out there?
http://www.nei.org/documents/US_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Ownership.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/World_Plants_Under_Construction.pdf
Actually, the private firms that own the plants (and their customers) can pay
the costs themselves. The spent fuel rods are a problem because radioactivity
is so hazardous. The government *wants* the waste because it is, for one thing,
a national security issue. I have no problem of the users paying the cost of
the federal storage. Yes, nukes should compete based on actual costs. Nuke
costs may be higher, or may appear to be so, depending upon how costs are
accounted for.
Also, the basic argument about greenhouse gases is that the costs are not fully
accounted for. It is difficult to account for greenhouse gas costs, because no
one really knows what the cost is. Nukes don't make greenhouse gases. None of
these fundamentally "big sources" of energy are perfect -- so the decision is
about tradeoffs, not perfection.
> The Camanche Peak Nuclear Facility cost ten times it's estimated cost
> and had to be underwritten by the US Gov to keep Ft Worth's utility
> prices from going sky high. The extra $540,000,000 it cost was
> attributed to their having to hire a dozen more security guards for six
> months.
Those are some expensive security guards! ;-) Are they hiring?
In any case, if nukes aren't competitive today, they will be someday. The
initial capital costs of a nuke are quite high, for whatever reason. The world
will increase its energy consumption. This means there will be increasing
competition for fossil fuels and other forms of energy. On that you can count
on 100%.
http://www.nei.org/documents/Status_Report_Competitive_Outlook.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/Status_Report_Events.pdf
