Skip to main content

Questions Worth Asking?

falling-money Triplepundit asks the following question:

At some point you just have to ask yourself, what is it that these politicians are getting to push nuclear energy so hard?

Answer: knowledge. It’s a powerful thing. You can read the rest of the post yourself, but we didn’t find it all that noteworthy. The opening question was just too easy.

---

While Congress is contemplating a new energy policy, American women are paying the electric bills at home and making the critical decisions on energy use in their homes and businesses, according to the national Women's Survey on Energy & the Environment, the first in-depth women's survey on attitudes and awareness about energy.

We look forward to finding out what women think about energy. Oh wait, we already know that – from polls – that also include – men. We genuinely don’t get this one.

---

We trust that Mark Miller at the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment means only the best when he writes that building 100 new nuclear plants, as suggested by the Republicans’ stab at an energy plan, would be ruinously expensive – you can find his whole report here – but it rests almost solely on the basis of the admittedly high cost of building a plant. The actual cost of the electricity the plant produces, how much it costs to run the plant, and the the length of time the plant can stay in operation all feed into the price paid by ratepayers – you and me and everyone we know.

If you leave off these other elements, you get “Cooper Study Shows Trillions of Dollars in Excess Costs if US Builds 100 Nuclear Reactors.” If you add them in, you end up with nuclear being highly competitive. See here (for a pdf) or here (for a PowerPoint show) for attempts to give a full picture of the costs of nuclear energy.

Read Miller’s study in conjunction with these and we think you’ll see how easy it is to make nuclear look like a money pit when, in sum, it can be quite the opposite.

“When it rains, it rains pennies from heaven. So when you hear it thunder, don't run under a tree. There'll be pennies from heaven for you and me.” – A rather grim depression-era tune by Arthur Johnston and Johnnie Burke. We guess Mr. Miller has just put us in a mood.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
My research on the cost savings potential of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors suggests that their cost could run as low as $1200 per kW of generating capacity. The potential savings would come from higher density cores that operate at a high temperature at atmospheric pressure, using much less material, far fewer parts, requiring far less labor in factories where many manufacturing tasks are performed by labor saving devices. Such cost saving expediencies as recycling the sire of coal fired power plants, underground housing, using existing grid connections, and other cost saving opportunities could revolutionize nuclear cost,

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…