tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post6767323232322626781..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: A Critique of Craig Severance's New Nuclear Cost PaperUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-83658411917348043932009-08-04T14:15:15.704-04:002009-08-04T14:15:15.704-04:00Craig, thanks for the update. I didn't see you...Craig, thanks for the update. I didn't see your response until yesterday and hadn't had a chance to post an update yet.David Bradishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439638522932781068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-14320231899619322802009-08-04T13:40:23.734-04:002009-08-04T13:40:23.734-04:00Since David took the trouble to post two "Upd...Since David took the trouble to post two "Updates" when I was traveling and I had not yet posted a response article, I expected he would post another Update when I did post my response article, which was Friday (July 31st). <br /><br />Here is a link to my article:<br />http://energyeconomyonline.com/NEI_Debate_Continues_.html<br /><br />I encourage the discussion. <br /><br />Craig A. SeveranceCraig A. Severancehttp://www.energyeconomyonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-82756673909021014462009-07-30T12:43:54.615-04:002009-07-30T12:43:54.615-04:00More ignored externalities:
http://www.frontpagema...More ignored externalities:<br />http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35750<br /><br />Gone With The Wind<br /> By: Tait Trussell <br />FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2009<br /><br />The statuesque and towering windmill represents one of Barack Obama’s grandiose hopes for renewable energy in our future. But windmills also have a troubling feature: They can be bad for your health.<br /><br />Dr. Nina Pierpont has conducted substantial research on what she calls “wind turbine syndrome,” the clinical name she has given to the “constellation of symptoms experienced by many (though not all) who live near industrial wind turbines.” These include sleep problems like insomnia; headaches; dizziness; unsteadiness and nausea; exhaustion; anxiety; anger and irritability; depression; memory loss; eye problems; problems with concentration and learning; and tinnitus (ringing in the ears).<br /><br />Dr. Pierpont is no agenda-driven fright merchant. She received her PhD in behavioral ecology from Princeton and her M.D. from John’s Hopkins School of Medicine. But she does believe that the enthusiasm for wind power, espoused by the Obama administration, is seriously misguided. “As industrial windplants proliferate close to people’s homes and anywhere else people regularly congregate (schools, nursing homes, places of business, etc.) Wind Turbine Syndrome likely will become an industrial plague,” Dr. Pierpont warns.D Kosloffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-2807465493805103672009-07-28T21:54:04.938-04:002009-07-28T21:54:04.938-04:00The effect on last wave construction costs caused ...The effect on last wave construction costs caused by design changes mandated after Three Mile Island is another factor which is often overlooked. Or maybe downplayed.<br /><br />On one hand, its mention dredges up a lot of bad memories. On the other, it opens the door to the overall exemplary record of safety, and how it comes at a cost.Bryan Kellyhttp://www.suretyinsider.com/american-energy-act-hr2828.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-56263848539341243842009-07-28T19:43:27.864-04:002009-07-28T19:43:27.864-04:00Mr. Severance's analysis is interesting but co...Mr. Severance's analysis is interesting but contains numerous misconceptions and inaccuracies. There are several references to EIA official data when it seems convenient, but EIA data is apparently ignored when it does not support the author's claims. For example, on page 26 for example, Mr. Severance chooses a high uranium term contract price of $95 per pound in 2007, even though the official EIA data shows a contract term price of only $32.78 per pound (i.e., Mr. Severance's number is 300% higher than the official U.S. data). <br /><br />He likewise escalates the uranium enrichment costs by using 1975 data from old, first generation gas diffusion plants while ignoring the new lower cost enrichment sources from gas centrifuge plants that are currently in operation and under construction in the United States. <br /><br />There is an assertation to the effect that: "It is uniformly agreed uranium price increases will be necessary to stimulate new world uranium production." However, these claims seem to fly in the face of world experience with new low cost in-situ uranium recovery plants. <br /><br />As another example, on pages 7 & 8Mr. Severance attempts to explain how a nuclear utility must meet a "prudence" standard set by the State Public Utiity Commission. he says: "What is prudent business judgment? In practice, prudence means avoiding the choice of high-risk options, when a lower-risk option will “get the job done”. Unfortunately though, in practice, his definition and concept of prudence does not match the defintion which the PUCs, FERC, and Administrative Judges use. <br /><br />As another example, Mr. Severance claims on page 4 that: "While coal and natural gas are primarily domestic fuels, the opposite has proven true for uranium. For example, per the Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review 2007,<br />“Table 9.3, Uranium Overview, Selected Years 1949-2007", in 2007 the U.S. purchased imports<br />of 54.1 million lbs uranium oxide vs. only 4.53 million lbs of domestic concentrate production." Again, this is a distortion of EIA's official data. The USA currently holds the 4th largest known uranium reserves in the world. And while the 270 billion short tons of US coal reserves are the largest in the world, their energy content is dwarfed by the energy content of U.S. uranium. In fact, the energy content of U.S. uranium reserves is about FIVE times the energy content of our coal reserves. When all possible U.S. uranium resources are considered, the energy content is about 23 times that of the U.S. coal reserves. So clearly uranium is a LARGE domestic energy resource - much larger in fact than domestic oil, coal and natural gas combined. Also, contrary to the article, the U.S. and world production of uranium declined in the 1980s because of production oversupply not shortages. And the fact that the USA currrently imports most of its uranium, is related to the market price and not a lack of domestic resources.J Joostennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-36826692429204881412009-07-28T14:00:42.951-04:002009-07-28T14:00:42.951-04:00David Bradish: So does Mr. Severance ask the same ...David Bradish: <i>So does Mr. Severance ask the same question to the renewable folks?<br />Furthermore, if Mr. Severance is so concerned about subsidies, he may be interested to know how much loan guarantee volume has been recently issued to other technologies:</i><br /><br />You're off the mark thinking Severance is promoting renewables. Actually, he's promoting natural gas. <br /><br /><a href="http://energyeconomyonline.com/Cap_and_Trade_as_Friend.html" rel="nofollow">energyeconomyonline.com /Cap_and_Trade_as_Friend.html</a><br /><br />With some success: "Natural gas is the cheapest, <b>low-carbon</b> baseload power around." (emphasis added.)<br /><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/climate-action-game-changer-unconventional-natural-gas-shale/" rel="nofollow">climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/climate-action-game-changer-unconventional-natural-gas-shale/</a>Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749459207189576328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-73696878096975114832009-07-28T13:01:26.266-04:002009-07-28T13:01:26.266-04:00I'm always surprised by cost estimates and cos...I'm always surprised by cost estimates and cost comparisons that don't take into externalities and availability. This is a silly exercise. From the get go, such a comparison assumes away nuclear power's strong points.<br /><br />Yes, fossil fuels have a remarkably slight competitive advantage relative to nuclear power because fossil fuels are simply allowed to dump waste products into the environment, whereas nuclear power must carefully sequester every iota of waste for an indefinite period. And yes, wind power has a competitive advantage over nuclear power, in that wind power is free to add to the grid in dribs and drabs whenever it feels like it, rather than actually underpinning the grid and operating at 100% full power for months on end. There would quite rightfully be no competitive mercy or leeway for a reactor operator who provides 10 to 20% capacity factor, like a wind farm might. Such a reactor would be shut down quickly. <br /><br />But these competitive advantages are regulatory, artificial and temporary. If we change our underlying assumptions to include externalities for fossil fuels (e.g., the Externe study), and penalize diffuse power sources for their lack of availability, it is clear there is nothing competitive with nuclear power.perdajznoreply@blogger.com