Skip to main content

Hertsgaard and the "Real" Cost of Nuclear Energy

By
Last month Marketplace on NPR ran a commentary by Mark Hertsgaard from the Nation on the "High Cost of Nuclear Energy". If you've never heard of him, he wrote a book back in 1983 titled: Nuclear Inc. The Men and Money Behind the Nuclear Industry.

Eric and I have been playing with podcasting for the site and would like to share our first podcast on Mr. Hertsgaard's commentary. Listen here for the critique.

As well, I was interviewed last week by John Wheeler from "This Week in Nuclear" discussing nuclear's costs and the MIT study Mr. Hertsgaard references. In the coming weeks John and I plan to discuss nuclear's subsidies which Hertsgaard claims nuclear can't live without.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Can the NEI please get an annual tally for the total cash flow from the nuclear power industry back to public coffers (state, federal and local property taxes)? Property taxes alone must total more than 1 billion annually. And don't forget user fees to the NRC. My suspicion is that net subsidies (subsidies received minus taxes paid) to the nuclear power industry are actually way, way negative, but I don't have the data to prove it. This seems like a job for NEI.
August 16, 2006 at 5:22 PM
Randal Leavitt said…
I guess I missed the training day when everyone learned that subsidies are a bad thing. Lots of good things are subsidized: sewars, police, army. What's the problem with subsidies, even if they are needed? The anti-nuke cult is speaking in code when the word "subsidies" is read out, and everyone in the audience is supposed to go "oooooo" at that point to show that they are true cult zealots. I think I lost my cult membership card a long time ago.

Let me state this another way - I would rather be alive using subsidized clean energy than baked to death due to global heating caused by unsubsidized dirty energy. And it is really hot outside today.
August 16, 2006 at 5:45 PM
David Bradish said…
Anon, we are working on pulling together some papers on subsidies received by the industry as well as other fuel sources.

Preliminary results suggest the most subsidized industry is oil and gas primarily due to the subsidizing of exploration and drilling.

We do have studies done on individual plants and the economic benefits paid to the community. Check it out here.

Randall, you're exactly right. When lawmakers subsidize an energy source it means that they want it badly. Nuclear received a great amount of R&D back in the '70s when everyone wanted it.

Now 30 years later the antis are using these costs to say its a bad thing even though only 103 reactors provide 20% of the electricity in the U.S. without producing emissions. There are over 3,000 coal units producing 50% of the electricity.

I'd say that's efficiency and that the R&D money was well spent.
August 17, 2006 at 9:46 AM
M said…
Im actually very fond of subsidies when it comes to things like alternitive energy. Im just not in favor of nuclear power.
August 17, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more