Skip to main content

Questions Worth Asking?

By

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.

Labels:

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,
June 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM
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