Don’t buy Obama’s greenwashing of nuclear power

[Javaman]

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-08-dont-buy-the-greenwashing-of-nuclear-power/

On Feb. 16, while President Obama was in Maryland announcing an $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, inspectors at the Vermont Yankee reactor were finding dangerously high levels of tritium, a radioactive cancer-causing chemical, in the groundwater near the plant.

The next week, the Vermont state Senate voted overwhelmingly to shut down Vermont Yankee when its current license expires in 2012.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) called the timing of the nuclear loan guarantee announcement and the Vermont Senate's decision "ironic." More than just some coincidence, though, the Vermont Yankee situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama's recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you've bought in to the administration's greenwashing of nuclear.

President Obama has justified his proposed $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors by misrepresenting nuclear reactors as the largest "carbon-free" energy source in the United States. That's like saying McDonald's should be put in charge of a nationwide obesity campaign because it's the largest restaurant in the U.S. that sells salads.

[NJmaverick]

1. Yes it's important to forget that nuclear power produces ZERO green house gases

and is available NOW.

[Donnachaidh]

2. yeah, let's overlook the 24 THOUSAND year half life of plutonium waste

Because it's available ***NOW***

:eyes:

sheesh...

[NJmaverick]

5. Nuclear waste can be dealt with, global warming not so much

[Statistical]

6. While waste does last thousands of years the vast majority decays a lot quicker than that.

The spent fuel is not a single isotope. It is a combination of fission products.

96% of the spent fuel is unchanged uranium. Same uranium that is naturally radioactive and radiates you, me, and the whole planet every day. Just like it has done for the last 5 billion years (luckily due to half life radioactive output is about 1% compared to begining of the earth). So 96% is good ole NATURAL uranium. 100% natural uranium in -> 96% natural uranium out.

Of the remaining 4%
About 1 % s plutonium (combination of Pu-239, Pu-240) with half-lives of 6500 and 24,100 years respectively. Some long term stuff but remember it is only 1% of the waste by mass.

The other 3% is fission products. The weird and cool products made from smashing atoms. There are 127 different fission products from the uranium chain.



However many have very short half lives. 65% of them have halflives of less than a year. Thallium-208 for example has a half life of just 3 minutes. So one hour after the fuel is removed from reactor only 0.0001% of Th-208 remains (0.5^(60/3). One day after it is removed from reactor only one part per trillion remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield
t½ in years yield
1 to 5 - 2.7252%
10 to 100 = 12.5340%
2 to 300,000 - 6.1251%
1.5 to 16 million - 13.4494%

Remember these are % of the 3% which is fission products so.

After 100 years roughly (20% of 3%) 1.5% of fuel remains as non-uranium isotopes. The rest is either original natural uranium or it has decayed to non-radioactive form.

This chart kinda highlight how saying 20,000 years without context (or even understanding the context) is pure hysteria.



After 2 years only about 1% of "activity" (radioactivity) remains.
After 1000 years only about 1/1000th of 1% remains.

[NJmaverick]

13. Thank you for that excellent summary

I hope people take something away from it.

[wtmusic]

11. LIfe on earth will be toast in under 1,000 years

if climate disruption is not dealt with immediately.

There will be no one around to be irradiated. What's so hard to understand about that? :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

12. There is nothing hard to understand

it makes a lot of sense and it's about priorities. Unfortunately some people don't have their priorities straight (as saving the world isn't on the top of their lists)

[kristopher]

24. If that were your priority you'd support renewable energy deployment instead of nuclear.

Renewables are faster to deploy, they are less expensive than nuclear, and they do not have the externalities of waste and proliferation.

There is no basis for spending money on nuclear if your goal is energy security, climate change or human mortality. Funding for nuclear is an example of a political boondoogle.

[Ferret Annica]

3. Obama is an idiot for shilling for this industry

Nuclear power is dirty and creates horrible poisons that stay with us an incredibly long time.

He needs to get his head out of his ass on this advocacy. This makes me doubt his sanity.

[blueworld]

4. Extremely important issue, but I fear we're on a runaway train. Again.

A train powered by moneyed interests.

From mining, through processing, transport, use & disposal of waste, nuclear is insanity & hardly "green".

[Statistical]

7. lifecycle CO2 emissions for nuclear is 40grams per kWh that is per the IPCC

That compares to 27grams per kWh for wind and 60grams per kWh for hydro.

Fossil fuels are a magnitude more.
400grams per kWh for natural gas and 1000 grams per kWh for coal.

Is the IPCC "greenwashing nuclear also". For what reason?
Founder of Green Peace is pro nuclear, IPCC is pro nuclear, Obama is pro-nuclear. Man a lot of enviromentalists seems to be going through a lot of trouble "greenwashing" this technloogy.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-2.html

Total life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are below 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (10 gC-eq/kWh), similar to those for renewable energy sources (Figure 4.18). (WEC, 2004a; Vattenfall, 2005). Nuclear power is therefore an effective GHG mitigation option, especially through license extensions of existing plants enabling investments in retro-fitting and upgrading. Nuclear power currently avoids approximately 2.2–2.6 GtCO2/yr if that power were instead produced from coal (WNA, 2003; Rogner, 2003) or 1.5 GtCO2/yr if using the world average CO2 emissions for electricity production in 2000 of 540 gCO2/kWh (WEC, 2001).

Maybe it isn't greenwashing. Maybe it is just accepting reality. Being a purist is fun but rarely accomplishes anything.

While there is mining, enriching, and transport involved one needs to put how little is needed into context. A 1 GW nuclear reactor will use 20 tons of fuel per year. A single coal plant uses about 3.5 million tons. 20 tons of nuclear fuel = 9 billion kWh of energy.

The mining, enriching, and transportation of all 104 nuclear plants for their entire lifetime (60 years) is about 120,000 tons of fuel. A lifetime of nuclear power is a tiny fraction of the raw material used in single coal plant for a single year.

The amount of nuclear fuel (and thus amount of mining transportation, enriching necessary) used for an average American household (2.5 persons) over their entire lifetime is about 2 pounds.

[blueworld]

8. Thank you for your statistics, but IMO the context is death & disease for the planet

It reminds me of old cartoons where the main character destroys their house in order to rid themselves of mice or other vermin. CO2 can be mitigated in safer ways.

Reactors take 20 years to build are subject from start to finish to human error. Geothermal is available in much of the country and reduces fossil fuel usage significantly & it's associated CO2.

Are there statistics on the health issues affecting the miners, transporters, processors & disposal personnel in the nuclear industry? If a train carrying radioactive ore or waste overturns in a populated area the damage could be horrific. If the train were carrying solar panels, it would simply be a big mess.

I believe nuclear fission will seed the future with horror on levels we may not even understand yet. I'd rather ration my driving & heating than resort to that.


EDIT: I mistyped "fusion" & changed to fission.

[Statistical]

9. Reactors do not take 20 years to build. That is a myth.

Japan has built 4 reactors in less than 5 years each. All of which started after year 2000.

Uranium ore spilled from a train doesn't present an immediate health risk. Uranium is an alpha emitter (radiation is blocked by a piece of paper) so unless you make a sandwich out of some uranium ore it presents little risk to humans. Now long term it could cause problems however the people cleaning it up wouldn't require much protection beyond hospital mask.

However it seems you arguments are all emotional ones.

[blueworld]

14. There are different types of reactors - please educate yourself

First, uranium ore presents an immediate health risk to the first responders handling the clean-up. NJ mandated radon testing for home ownership years ago since the emitted radiation is natural.

Second, you didn't address my comment about a spill of waste or enriched uranium.

Third, construction time is dependent on permits in the US and other political issues. Here's a primer for you:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/nuclear_101/

Last, you mark yourself when you attack others who disagree with you. My arguments are not emotional. Your spelling seems to be, however.

Apparently we disagree. You have a right to argue for nuke power; I will always do my best against it. Have a lovely day.

[Statistical]

15. The regulatory structure in the US has been streamlined.

Regulatory approval is now about 4 years. Permits for first reactors were put in 2 years ago. The first 6 will be approved in 2011, the next 8 in 2012. Once reactors start being built new permits can be put in on a revolving basis creating a continual queue of reactors in planning, constructions, and operational stage.

Throw in 5 years for construction and you could see 12+ reactors built by 2017. Substantially less than the anti-nukkers claim of "it takes 20 years to build a reactor". Nice link to Greenpeace, are you aware the founder of GreenPeace is no pro-nuclear?

20 years for 1 reactor makes it look like a solution involving nuclear power is impossible, which is the intent of the claim.
Potentially 12 new reactors in next 7 years vs a single reactor 20 years from now kinda changes the dynamics huh?


As far as transportation:
Once again uranium is a alpha emitter. You can't change the physics just because it isn't as bad as you claim. Alpha particles can not penetrate skin, clothing, or even a single sheet of paper. The only protection a first responder would need is a simply hospital mask to avoid inhaling dust. Also there is no need to move uranium ore very far. Enrichment and fabrication plants are very close to the mines.

Enriched uranium presents even less of a risk. The fuel rods are sealed and the package is designed to handle the intense heat and pressure inside a reactor. If a train carrying a load of these derailed they would sit there. The alpha particles emitted by uranium can't even penetrate the fuel assembly. You could take a nap on top of the fuel assembly with no ill health.



Spent fuel requires a little more planning but can be done safely. They are transported in reinforced shipping casks.



At a minimum they must prevent leakage after:
* A 9 meter (30 ft) free fall on to an unyielding surface
* A puncture test allowing the container to free-fall 1 meter (about 39 inches) onto a steel rod 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) in diameter
* A 30-minute, all-engulfing fire at 800 degrees Celsius (1475 degrees Fahrenheit)
* An 8-hour immersion under 0.9 meter (3 ft) of water.
* An undamaged package must be subjected to a one-hour immersion under 200 meters (655 ft) of water.

Sandia National Laboratories conducted full-scale crash tests on spent nuclear fuel shipping casks. Although the casks were damaged, none would have leaked. Since 1965, approximately 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been transported safely over the U.S.'s highways, waterways, and railroads. There isn't a single incident of a shipping cask breaking or injuring a single person.

[blueworld]

16. Gee, I guess you should be on TV then, so much of the world doesn't seem to agree with you.

You're talking technology & I'm talking humanity. IMO there are better safer ways to achieve energy independence. If you want to sit with uranium ore or a nuclear reactor in your backyard, enjoy - I don't; I lived near Three Mile Island.

Of course I'm aware that Greenpeace is pro-nuclear, that's why I picked it. They still contradict several of your points. No construction project is EVER on time or under budget, particularly not one as controversial as this. I believe I can predict that no plant will be built here in 5 years or less. If I'm wrong, call me on it.

You won't convince me & I won't convince you. I think nuclear is insane for large-scale power plants, but a remarkable gift for medicine & small-scale power (subs, for instance).

[Statistical]

18. 4 plants were built in Japan in under 5 years.

Can we do it in the US? Well we will see but to say it is impossible isn't true.

Nuclear needs reasonable construction times. The utility borrows money to start construction. While construction is going on the interest capitalizes.

If you borrow 11 billion for 2 reactors at 7% interest the loan will grow to
5 years construction time ... $15.4B
6 years ... $16.5B
8 years ... $18.9B
10 years .. $21.6B
12 years .. $24.8B
15 years .. $30.3B
20 years .. $42.5B

So once construction is complete and reactor goes critical the utility will convert the loan to amortization schedule and make monthly payments (usually over 40 years). The difference between $16.5B and $42B.5B in lifetime principle and interest is staggering (once again power of compounded interest).

On 5 year construction timeline it works out to $95 million per month for a total of $46 billion.
On a 20 year construction timeline it works out to $264 million per month for a total of $126 billion.

The same reactor, same lifespan, same amount of power sold however the simple difference of increasing construction timeline increases the lifetime cost by ~$80 billion.

That is the difference between highly profitable and impossible to generate enough power to pay for the loan.

If first couple reactors take 10 years to build then utilities will stop buying them. It really is that simple. Utilities are in the business of making money. Construction timeline beyond 6-8 years doesn't make money.

[blueworld]

19. Philosophically I don't believe in taking the cheapest or easiest way out of a problem

For example, when you look at Japan, you seem to see cutting-edge technological innovation. I see insanity. I would prefer to take a safer, more expensive alternative.

It seems to me that an island country in the Pacific "Ring of Fire" would be ideally placed to benefit enormously from geothermal, tidal & solar power. Instead, they choose to build nuclear reactors on fault zones in one of the most earthquake-prone areas of the world. To me, regardless of financial savings, this is an insane danger to people & the planet.

I haven't previously signed up for the Energy Forum here at DU, but since you seem passionate about the subject and well-informed, I will do that, assuming that you post regularly. Perhaps you can ultimately educate me to see your way of thinking. Personally, I doubt it since I have less faith in "technology" than you apparently do & I see many other safer ways of achieving our goals. Nonetheless, I'm willing to be convinced.

Please start by showing me a well-built nuclear plant whose technology & safeguards haven't seriously been breached. I will try to research well-built plants that aren't surrounded by cancer clusters. I welcome the dialogue, but predict we will have to agree to disagree.

[madokie]

20. The nuke industry does not accept any responsibility for any cancers at all

No matter how much evidence shows otherwise they deny it and deny it and deny it. All the while hoping the more vocal of us who don't believe that nuclear is a safe, sane nor clean mode of making our electric power will simply go away. Now that you're here hang around a while and see how many digits you have that it takes to count the zealous pro-nukies here. Not many but very outspoken and when you don't accept what they say, they'll get very rude.
I've been on this playing field for a long time and its always been the same, obfuscate and when that doesn't work then outright lie.
We stopped PSO from building blackfox nuclear power plant only a few miles up wind of me back in the 70s and I will work towards doing the same again if ever the occasion arises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nuclear energy is not a safe or clean nor a sane way of producing our electrical power. :hi:

Recently we've been reading that the Europeans have been disposing of radioactive waste by farming the disposal out to the mafia and they are simply burying it at sea in old ships loaded down with the stuff and sank. I wonder what makes them think that is an acceptable mode of disposal as I doubt the aquatic life has any better handle on what to do with this shit than the rocket scientist who thought this shit up to begin with do. Do a google on nuclear waste, mafia and sea to get some idea as to what is and has been going on for some time now.

Not long ago the argument would most always end with wait until we get the gen 4 reactors but that argument has been debunked now also so you don't see that excuse used much lately.

[Statistical]

22. You mean medical and industrial waste right?

For a second I thought you were the one obfuscating by pretending that mafia story was about waste from nuclear energy when you know it was about toxic medical waste.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2687605.htm

Thought I would correct your "typo" before you accidentally obfuscate.

[madokie]

23. Who is to say that is all they have been disposing of in that manner

that is what the story said but that was only a couple of the more than 40 suspected sinkings. The fact is the nuclear power industry will lie to us like a rug, always have and I suspect always will. You want to believe them then knock yourself out, I don't and I won't be believing them anytime soon. You believe the lies where I don't. The solution to all our questions has always been just around the next bend and its been that way from the early days and still is today.

[Statistical]

27. You made a claim not based on any facts other than you don't trust nuclear industry.

Who is to say they DID sink spent fuel?

Your obfuscated the facts by pretending like there was spent nuclear fuel on those ships. There is no evidence that the mafia sunk boats with spent fuel. You seem to be indicating that it is proof it is nuclear fuel because there is no proof it ISN'T nuclear fuel.

Here let me try:
"Who is to say it wasn't waste from solar panels? Since you can't prove that it means The mafia DID dump solar panel waste at bottom of ocean. See you can't trust the solar industry".

To call that circular "logic" is being nice.

[madokie]

30. Talk to the Somalians about what's been going on off shore there

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/somalia-the-mafia-the-nuclear-waste-dump-zone/

Add another: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,656681,00.html

I could go on and on and on here but at the moment I have other things to take care of. Do a google on the subject sometime

[Statistical]

21. Convincing you really isn't the point.

I like the IPCC believe nuclear energy is an effective method at combating GHG and thus Global Warming. The goal is more to correct misinformation and provide another point of view to others who might be viewing the forum. I doubt I will convince you any more than you will convince me that nuclear energy is the monster people make it out to be.

"Please start by showing me a well-built nuclear plant whose technology & safeguards haven't seriously been breached. I will try to research well-built plants that aren't surrounded by cancer clusters. I welcome the dialogue, but predict we will have to agree to disagree."

Virtually all US plants are well built there is nothing wrong with the designs. Some were poorly built or operated and thus were shutdown that doesn't damn the entire design though. Even TMI the Emergency Coolant System worked as designed to cool the overheating core and prevent a core breech. In essence the Emegency Coolant System at TMI saved people from people. It was operator error that allowed the situation to become critical at TMI. Despite human failure the system designed on safety cooled the reactor anyways.

If you want a specific plant I would name the one nearest where I live, Surry Nuclear Generation Station in Surry, VA. It is an older and smaller plant but has operated with a good safety record. Still all the plants in the United States today are Generation II plants. I do not support building any new ones. Not that I think they are unsafe rather than Gen III+ plants are even safer.

AP1000 is one well designed Gen III+ reactor. It is currently under construction in Japan and China. There are no reactors under Construction in the United States however AP1000 is the reactor chosen for Vogtle, GA that Obama talked about. If NRC approval continues as scheduled construction could begin in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html

The AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 2.41 × 10−7 per plant per year. With even 1000 plants worldwide that works out to a core damage event once per planet per 8300 years. A core damage event doesn't mean radiation release rather a critical malfunction that requires the emergency coolant system to work.

A key goal of GenIII+ plants is passive safety. Gen II reactors require electricity to run emergency systems. While a situation has never occured where all redundant power systems are lost Gen III+ reactors attempt to improve safety even further by allowing cooling without any power (or even any operator alive).

Power reactors of this general type continue to produce heat from radioactive decay products even after the main reaction is shut down, so it's necessary to remove this heat to avoid meltdown of the reactor core and possible escape into the containment or, very unlikely, beyond the containment. In this design Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS) uses less than twenty explosively operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action.<5> The electrical system required for initiating the passive systems doesn't rely on external or diesel power and the valves don't rely on hydraulic or compressed air systems.<2><6>

If the active process to turn on the passive system works the design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which the PCS gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Passive_Core_Cooling_System

So while I believe existing reactors are safe I think we can do better.


AP1000 is just one of many GenIII+ designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generation_III.2B_reactors

I am not a big fan of the EPR however ESBWR and APWR rely on passive safety systems similar to AP1000.

[joshcryer]

33. "If first couple reactors take 10 years to build then utilities will stop buying them."

Indeed, so we have a verifiable test here. If it works, it will work very well, if it doesn't, then we won't get nuclear power in the USA.

[kristopher]

35. That's called a LOWBALL and it isn't true.

If we commit to building nuclear we won't wait to see how this batch pans out before the nuclear industry starts claiming "success" and enticing everyone onto the "bandwagon". There is nothing here or elsewhere in the world that justifies your rosy scenario; nothing that is, except nuclear industry propaganda. Cooper's analysis reveals this "Bandwagon Effect" clearly.



http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

[joshcryer]

39. If it won't work it can't. That's true.

What apparently has the anti-nukers freaking out on this forum is the prospect of success, otherwise they wouldn't keep making dishonest and untrue statements on a near daily basis. Statements full of scarmongering.

If you don't think nuclear is economical and you are right, then it won't be.

[Statistical]

40. Exactly.

Look despite being pro-nuclear I am not positive it will be financially successful. I think success is very likely but nothing ever is guaranteed.

MIT study clearly lays it out:

$6000 per KW
6 year construction
7% interest
92% capacity factor

means the lifecycle costs work out to <$0.06 per kWh.

MIT study (despite being bashed here) isn't saying 100% nuclear will never cost more than $0.06 per kWh. They are saying that IF nuclear achieves those goals then it is economical.

That IF is what scares the anti-nukkers. If it does achieve those goals you are going to see a massive worldwide expansion in nuclear. The shift in public opinion will also lead to funding for Gen IV reactor research, long term storage, work on transmuting waste, research into lower the cost of reprocessing, etc.

I am ready to do a 180 on nuclear if it is over-budget, over-schedule, and under-capacity. We should have a good picture by 2016-2018 timeframe. In US and around the world another 26 reactors will be built by 2018.
Do you think any of the antis who claim nuclear is not economical are willing to do a 180 if nuclear is economical and has the ability to reduce GHG? No. Of course not. It is a matter of emotions and faith, not science.

[kristopher]

42. No that isn't "what scares the anti-nukkers".

The track record of the nuclear industry worldwide is unequivocal - cost containment like you predict has no record of sustained success. The thing I worry about is the waste of money when this political elephant fails to deliver yet again and we find ourselves still pumping out massive global quantities of CO2 while also drowning in nuclear wastes.

Pretending those wastes are not an issue is what we've done for 60 years, so your derision and cavalier attitude on the topic is not persuasive. They do exist, there is no magic technology for "transmuting" them into harmless substances, AND there are BETTER alternatives that EXIST NOW.

Given that those better alternatives exist, WHY should we accept the drawbacks of nuclear power and pay MORE for the privilege of being poisoned?

[kristopher]

41. I thought your priority was climate change?

Obviously that's another falsehood. If you were interested in climate change, you'd be more discriminating on how the scarce dollars we have for an energy transition are spent:

study's section on nuclear"

CONCLUSION

The 1960s and 1970s may seem like ancient history, but the new proposed cohort of reactors could easily be afflicted with the same problems of delay and cost overruns. Inherent characteristics of large complex nuclear reactors make them prone to these problems. Reactor design is complex, site-specific, and non-standardized. In extremely large, complex projects that are dependent on sequential and complementary activities, delays tend to turn into interruptions. Inherent cost escalation afflicts mega projects, a category into which nuclear reactors certainly fall.35

The endemic problems that afflict nuclear reactors take on particular importance in an industry in which the supply train is stretched thin. Material costs have been rising and skilled labor is in short supply. These one of a kind, specialized products have few suppliers. In some cases, there is only one potential supplier for critical parts. Any increase in demand sends prices skyrocketing. Any interruption or delay in delivery cannot be easily accommodated and ripples through the implementation of the project.36

The severe difficulties of Finland’s Olkiluoto nuclear reactor being built by Areva SA, the French state-owned nuclear construction firm, provide a reminder of how these problems unfold.37

Touted as the turnkey project to replace the aging cohort of nuclear reactors, the project has fallen three years behind schedule and more than 50% over budget.38 The delay has caused the sponsors of the project to face the problem of purchasing expensive replacement power; the costs of which they are trying to recover from the reactor builder. The cost overruns and the cost of replacement power could more than double the cost of the reactor.39

A description of the process by which the U.S. ended up with hundreds of reactors that were “too expensive to build,” written in 1978, before the accident at Three Mile Island changed the terrain of nuclear reactors in the U.S., bears an eerie resemblance to the past decade in the U.S.: At the beginning of 1970, none of the plants ordered during the Great Bandwagon Market was yet operating in the United States.

This meant that virtually all of the economic information about the status of light water reactors in the early 1970s was based upon expectation rather than actual experience. The distinction between cost records and cost estimation may seem obvious, but apparently it eluded many in government and industry for years...

In the first half of this crucial 10-year period, the buyers of nuclear power plants had to accept, more or less on faith, the seller’s claims about the economic performance of their product. Meanwhile, each additional buyer was cited by the reactor manufacturers as proof of the soundness of their product...The rush to nuclear power had become a self-sustaining process...

There were few, if any, credible challenges to this natural conclusion. Indeed, quite the contrary. Government officials regularly cited the nuclear industry’s analyses of light water plants as proof of the success of their own research and development policies. The industry, in turn, cited those same government statements as official confirmation. The result was a circular flow of mutually reinforcing assertion that apparently intoxicated both parties and inhibited normal commercial skepticism about advertisements which purported to be analyses. As intoxication with promises about light water reactors grew during the late 1960s and crossed national and even ideological boundaries, the distinction between promotional prospectus and critical evaluation become progressively more obscure.
From the available cost records about changing light water reactor capital costs, it is possible to show that on average, plants that entered operation in 1975 were about three times more costly in constant dollars than the early commercial plants competed five years earlier. 40

The similarities between the great bandwagon market and the nuclear renaissance, and the fact that utilities not only steadfastly refuse to accept the risk of cost overruns but also are demanding massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies to build the next generation of reactors, should give policy makers pause. The one major difference between the great bandwagon market and the nuclear renaissance is that there has been an extensive challenge to the extremely optimistic cost estimates of the early phase, a challenge from Wall Street and independent analysts. It may be impossible to escape the uncertainty of cost estimation, but it is possible to avoid past mistakes. Reflecting the poor track record of the nuclear industry in the U.S., the debate over the economics of the nuclear renaissance is being carried out before substantial sums of money are spent. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, when the vendors and government officials monopolized the preparation of cost analyses, today Wall Street and independent analysts have come forward with much higher estimates of the cost of new nuclear reactors. And, because the stranglehold of the vendors and utilities on analysis has been broken, the current debate includes a much wider range of options.

As important as bad analysis was, it might have had little impact if it had not been combined with another critical mistake. The nuclear reactor vendors had delivered a small number of reactors at fixed prices and eaten massive cost overruns. After a few loss leaders were delivered, they shifted tactics. Unwilling and unable to sustain those losses, as the Forbes article put it, the

Great Bandwagon Market was impelled by evangelisms, optimism and seemingly irresistible economics... But the suppliers had learned their lesson. The new generation of plants would be built under reimbursable-cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. Without that, the nuclear power program would probably have sputtered out in the mid-Seventies, when cost lurched out of control.41

The contemporary policy debate takes the effort to insulate utilities from the high cost of nuclear reactors even farther. In addition to a broad range of general subsidies and the cost plus rate treatment, they are seeking large federal loan guarantees and treatment by state public utility commissions that would grant preapproval and recovery of construction costs.

Cooper report download
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

[Statistical]

44. I trust the IPCC.

Their conclusion is that nuclear is an effective method of reducing GHG.

Total life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are below 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (10 gC-eq/kWh), similar to those for renewable energy sources (Figure 4.18). (WEC, 2004a; Vattenfall, 2005). Nuclear power is therefore an effective GHG mitigation option, especially through license extensions of existing plants enabling investments in retro-fitting and upgrading. Nuclear power currently avoids approximately 2.2–2.6 GtCO2/yr if that power were instead produced from coal (WNA, 2003; Rogner, 2003) or 1.5 GtCO2/yr if using the world average CO2 emissions for electricity production in 2000 of 540 gCO2/kWh (WEC, 2001). However, Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2005) give much higher figures for the GHG emissions from ore processing and construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

...

Improved safety and economics are objectives of new designs of reactors. The worldwide operational performance has improved and the 2003–2005 average unit capacity factor was 83.3% (IAEA, 2006). The average capacity factors in the US increased from less than 60% to 90.9% between 1980 and 2005, while average marginal electricity-production costs (operation, maintenance and fuel costs) declined from 33 US$/MWh in 1988 to 17 US$/MWh in 2005 (NEI, 2006).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-2.html

I guess the IPCC is just yet another person in the long list of "industry shills" who happen to have no connection to the industry.
When the IPCC (the world expert on GHG) changes their opinion I will consider changing mine.

[kristopher]

46. That is marginal costs which excludes capital costs - the biggest slice of the pie.

The only other thing they say is that it is *an* effective *option*; not that it is the best option.

Independent analysis:

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

What is the final analysis by Mr. Severance?

Putting it All Together – Total Generation Costs/kWh
“MOST LIKELY” SCENARIO
Projected Total Generation Cost/kWh of New Nuclear Power
(In Nominal Dollars in Projected 2018 First Year of Full Operation)
COST COMPONENT $/KWH
CAPITAL COST $0.22
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE W/O FUEL $0.01
PROPERTY TAXES $0.02
DECOMMISSIONING & WASTE COSTS RESERVE $0.02
FUEL CYCLE COSTS $0.03
TOTAL DOLLARS/KWH $0.30

The “Lower Cost” Case has Capital Costs of $0.17/kWh, thus a total $0.25/kWh.

[Statistical]

48. I know you don't actually expect people to read the stuff you post but I did.

First I have never claimed nuclear is the best solution. I am in the same view as IPCC it is a good solution. I don't think putting all our eggs in basket is a good idea. A mix of nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal IMHO is the best solution to reduce GHG in the medium term.

I 100% agree with Mr. Severences numbers under the assumptions he outlines:
$10,000 per kW overnight costs
14.5% capital costs (interest)
10 year construction
40 year lifespan
80% capacity factor

under those conditions nuclear will have a capital cost of $0.25 per kwh. I 100% agree with that. However I think those assumptions are far too pessimistic.
I do not believe that will happen. If it does I will do a 180 on nuclear and be the largest critic of nuclear for the rest of my life. I have always said nuclear is only economical (and thus a reducer of GHG) under certain conditions.

A study is only as good as the assumptions.

Using his same exact methodology and the following assumptions:
$6,00 per kW overnight cost
7.5% capital costs
6 year construction
60 year lifespan
92% capacity factor

results in a lifetime capital cost of $0.03 per kWh add in another $0.02 per kWh for ongoing costs and you have $0.05 for total lifetime cost.

Interestingly there is some basis to that because MIT study concluded lifetime costs are $0.06 under similar assumptions.

I would post the math but you and I know you really don't care so really why bother? Right?

[kristopher]

50. Except that his assumption have a realistic foundation and yours do not.

While utilities campaigning for new nuclear power claim it is the least expensive electricity source,
independent evaluations of the economic competitiveness of new nuclear power have come to the
opposite conclusion.

A major MIT study entitled “The Future of Nuclear Power” was published in 2003. Although it
recommended “the nuclear option be retained” strictly because of global warming concerns , MIT also
stated “Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice. Moreover, unlike other
energy technologies, nuclear power requires significant government involvement because of safety,
proliferation, and waste concerns.” The study outlined four challenges — costs, safety, proliferation,
and wastes – that would all need to be overcome for nuclear power to be a viable option. Its
economic analysis was done before recent capital cost escalations occurred, that now indicate much
higher construction costs for nuclear plants. Nevertheless even with low capital cost projections,
the MIT economic analysis found nuclear power to be a more costly method of power generation than
coal or natural gas. (The study specifically did not consider other energy generation options such as
wind, solar, or geothermal.) Only with a combination of very high carbon taxes and several
“plausible but unproven” possibilities to reduce nuclear power costs did the study find the cost per
kWh of nuclear power could be competitive with coal or natural gas.16

Although the MIT study advocated exploring whether nuclear power costs could decrease, what has
in fact occurred since the study was published is a rapid increase in nuclear power plant costs.
The year 2007 was marked by nuclear industry leaders announcing new cost estimates, and declaring
not a single new nuclear power plant could be built unless Federally Guaranteed Loans were available
for construction costs.17 The nuclear lobby did in fact succeed in obtaining authority for $18.5 Billion
in Federal loan guarantees. The need for government backing is extraordinary, as the utility industry
is normally considered to be one of the safest of investments. We do not see industries constructing
coal, natural gas, or even solar or wind generation facilities declaring they have been unable to obtain
private financing and must now rely on Federally Guaranteed Loans.

Early in 2008, the Wall Street Journal and several other publications carried headline news stories
about skyrocketing cost projections for new nuclear power plants, indicating new projections it may
cost $9 billion to $12 billion to build a single new nuclear power plant18 (the estimates were for different
size reactors, therefore both translate into $8000 - $8500 per KW of capacity).

In June 2008 Lazard, a preeminent financial advisory and asset management firm, published “Levelized
Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 2.0" comparing recent estimates of the cost/kWh of various power
generation sources including renewables, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.
Lazard’s analysis indicated the range of costs/kWh for new nuclear power plants, estimated by
Lazard to be approximately 10 to 13 cents/kWh in 2007 levelized dollars, are now projected to be
higher than the price available for virtually any other power generation option.

The Lazard analysis compared the costs of technologies already widely in service by U.S. utilities
— wind power, natural gas combined cycle, and coal’s current technology. Lazard’s projections
of 2007 levelized costs for these existing technologies, which already have well-known costs from
actual experience, indicated new nuclear’s projected costs were significantly higher than costs for
wind power (4 to 9 cents/kWh), natural gas combined cycle (6 to 12 cents/kWh which includes a
wide range of prices for natural gas fuel), and coal’s existing technology (approximately 7 to 10
cents/kWh also incorporating a range of fuel prices for coal).

Lazard also examined costs/kWh in 2007 levelized dollars for several other generation technologies
which are now becoming more widely utilized: geothermal electric power generation (4 to 7
cents/kWh), landfill gas (5 to 8 cents/kWh), biomass direct (5 to 10 cents/kWh), and solar thermal
electric generation (9 to 15 cents/kWh).

Significantly, some new electric generation technologies are on downward cost curves because they
are primarily not built on-site, but instead are mass produced in factories. For example, Lazard’s
analysis projected costs by 2010 for solar photovoltaic - thin film technologies should be in the range
of 8 to 12 cents/kWh. Lazard also noted that solar manufacturing costs are actually projected
to further decrease – indicating a projected generation cost in the range of only approximately 6
cents/kWh by 2012 for solar thin-film photovoltaic.

Because many are not yet ready to give up on America’s abundant coal reserves , the Lazard
analysis also examined the additional anticipated costs to a coal plant for 90% carbon capture and
compression. According to the Lazard analysis, the total projected cost/kWh for “clean coal”
(expressed as the “high end” for coal costs on Lazard’s graphs) was in the same range, or only
slightly higher (approximately 11 to 14 cents/kWh expressed in 2007 dollars levelized costs) than
the projected cost/kWh for Lazard’s nuclear scenario.

Important studies have concluded that several already existing technologies have significantly lower
cost per kWh than new nuclear power – including technologies fully compatible with a carbon-
reduced future, such as wind power, biomass, land fill gas, and natural gas combined cycle.
If there were a need for a utility to bypass these well-proven existing technologies, these same studies
indicate that among the range of new technologies (new nuclear, new solar electric, and coal with
carbon sequestration), new nuclear power is not expected to show a cost advantage, and is in
fact projected to be at least as costly if not more costly than other new technologies.

Severance pg. 9-10

[Statistical]

52. I will flip it around.

The MIT study has realistic expectations and your guy doesn't.

Even if we quible about overnight cost there are a couple glaring issues.

1) 14.5% capital cost? Really? GA issued munibond at 6.6%. 14.5% is credit card rates. I strongly recommend not putting an AP100 on your CapitalOne card.

2) Lifespan. Old reactors rated for 40 years have been extended to 60. Reactors like AP1000 are rated at 60 years PLUS 60 more after overhaul. Given you admit nuclear has a negligble marginal cost there is no reason to shut a plant down early. Even if someday it is no longer profitable to build new plants it will still be profitable to operate the plant until end of life.

3) Capacity Factor. 80%? Even the global average is 85%. US capacity factor is 92%. Using capacity factor of 80% because it was like that in the 1970s would be like using Solar cost of $35 per watt ($35,000 per KW overnight) because that is what is was in the 70s.

So maybe we can argue on construction time 6 years vs 10 years. Or overnight costs of $6K per KW vs $10K per KW but those three are sorely out of date.

[kristopher]

54. Please stop the nonsense...

All text from open access document:

"GA issued a munibond at 6.6%?" That's your basis of your claim for the interest costs?
What happened to your faith in MIT:
Severance Note 32 (also quoted in context below):
15% after-corporate-tax ROE (As assumed by the MIT study, which includes a 3% “risk premium” on equity for nuclear utilities), payout from facility before 39% corporate taxes is thus 24.59%; 6.25% interest on debt portion; 45% equity/55% debt. Avg. Weighted Cost is thus = (.2459 x .45) + (.0625 x .55). Note the 6.25% interest rate is below recent bond rates.

Now, what is meant by "weighted costs"?

Estimate of Nuclear Power Capital Costs Using Realistic Cost Escalation Rates
It is useful to run an analysis of nuclear plant construction costs to completion, using power plant
construction cost escalation factors more consistent with actual utility experience.

Effect of Economic Downturn
One might say that with a severe U.S. recession and worldwide downturn apparently underway, that
price escalations may cease. However, if there is a severe U.S. recession, then the proposal to build
a new power plant would need to be re-examined as a whole because the projected growth in
customer demand for electricity, which the plant is built to serve, may also evaporate during this
downturn.

Both the increased demand for electricity, and the increased cost of those factors feeding power
plant construction cost escalations are tied to a growing U.S. and world economy. In particular, the
growth of the Chinese and Indian economies have been noted as major underlying factors in the rapid
cost escalations worldwide for a wide range of commodities, and increased competition for skilled
labor and technical resources. No one expects these overall trends to abate, although they may
certainly be slowed temporarily.27 . Given nuclear’s long lead time and the fact most nuclear costs
occur after year 5, construction of a nuclear power plant will outlast any normal length recession.
If other countries suffer less than the U.S., cost escalations may actually return even before the
U.S. economy recovers.

Starting Point: “Overnight” Cost Estimates
The starting point for a capital cost estimate is the “overnight” cost – what it would cost to build
the power plant “overnight”– i.e. at “today’s prices” – with no further cost increases, and zero
cost of capital (financing costs) during construction (since the plant is built “overnight”). Overnight
cost estimates are developed, because we can best determine “today’s prices”. It is very important
this “overnight” cost estimate not be confused with total capital costs. Rome wasn’t built in a day,
and a nuclear plant also takes considerably longer than a day to build.

...With such a wide range of indicators of possible overnight construction costs for new nuclear, to
be conservative we will use $4,070/KW in 2007 Dollars – midway between FP&L’s Case A and
Case C estimates, for a “Most Likely ” estimate, and FP&L’s Case A estimate of $3,596 for a “Low
Cost” scenario.

...The Rest of the Story: Other Costs to Complete Construction
Explicit in the above description of “overnight” cost are the costs not included in “overnight” cost
but which certainly become part of the project’s capital costs. (The discussion below discusses
details of the “Most Likely” estimate – see Appendices for details of “Low Cost” scenario):
Construction Cost Escalations: Clearly, it is too late to build a nuclear plant for “2007 Dollars” –
as each year goes by, costs increase. As the PCCI tracks “hard costs” of construction covered in
EPC’s, the PCCI average cost escalation 2000 - 2007 of 12.76%30 is used for future cost escalation
for these costs, which comprise approximately 51% of the total “Overnight “ Cost Estimate.

Other costs included in the “Overnight” Cost Estimate – e.g. fees, owners’ costs, and transmission
integration, may be less affected by rapid worldwide cost escalation. For 45% of the Overnight
Cost Estimate, a moderate escalation, equivalent to the Handy-Whitman “All Steam Plus Nuclear
Generation Plant” last 7 year average31 of 4.85%/year may be more appropriate. The remaining 4%
of “Overnight” Costs will be set to inflate at an assumed 3% general economy inflation rate.

Cost of Capital: If you wanted to build a house and it took 10 years to build it, you can easily
see how the cost of interest during construction would be a major component of the construction
cost. This is exactly the situation with the costs of building a new nuclear power plant. As both
equity and borrowed funds are used, and both expect requisite returns, an average weighted cost
of capital of 14.5% is assumed .32 The Cost of Capital never goes away – money always has its
cost. Some utilities propose to “lower costs” by charging financing costs to ratepayers during
construction. However, “early recovery” charges simply force ratepayers to pay extra financing
costs to make ends meet. You can hide, but not eliminate the Cost of Capital.



Note 27: CERA’s Power Capital Costs Index for 2008 3 Qtr has now slowed to a point of
224, a 3% decline since 2008 1st Qtr’s 231. However, during this same period most
worldwide commodity, stock market etc. indices fell much more drastically, by double digits,
indicating underlying forces pushing power plant construction costs upward are still strong.

Note 28: The Future of Nuclear Power, Ch. 5, p. 39 of Study, MIT, 2003; escalated to 2007
dollars using CERA’s Power Capital Costs Index; Actual Realized Cost last generation nuclear is
from Energy Information Administration, “An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Construction
Costs, DOE/EIA-0485 (Washington, D.C. March 1986) p. 18, as quoted in “Commercial Nuclear
Power in the United States Problems and Prospects”, U.S. Energy Information Administration,
August 1994; actual realized costs were in 1982 dollars – escalated to “2007 Dollars” using a
rough calculation 1982-2002 escalation equal to same multiplier as Consumer Price Index then
2002-2007 using CERA PCCI 2002-2007 multiplier; Florida P&L estimates quoted from Florida
Power & Light, Docket 070650-EI, Direct Testimony & Exhibits of Steven D. Scroggs for FP&L
before FLA Public Service Commission, Oct. 16, 2007; Exhibit SDS-8

Note 30: Note the PCCI showed low cost escalation from 2000 to 2002, and much higher cost
escalations in more recent years. Using the full 7 years avg. may thus approximate a 2 year
recession followed by a resumption of rapid cost escalations.

Note 31: Handy Whitman “All Steam Plus Nuclear Generation Plant” index was 353 for 2000 and
had risen to 490 by 2007. This is equivalent to avg. escalation factor of 4.85%/year.

Note 32: 15% after-corporate-tax ROE (As assumed by the MIT study, which includes a 3%
“risk premium” on equity for nuclear utilities), payout from facility before 39% corporate taxes
is thus 24.59%; 6.25% interest on debt portion; 45% equity/55% debt. Avg. Weighted Cost is
thus = (.2459 x .45) + (.0625 x .55). Note the 6.25% interest rate is below recent bond rates.

[Statistical]

55. Except not a single utilitiy has indicated they will be issuing equity to pay for nuclear reactors.

See what I mean about false assumptions?

First of all the MIT study never assumed a weighted cost of capital of 15% (or at least the 2003 & 2009 versions don't). They assumed 10% (3% risk premium over natural gas).

The MIT study using that higher capital cost and realistic numbers (capacity factor, overnight cost, lifespan) came up with lifecycle cost of 8.4 cents per kWh.
Lowering the capital cost to 7.8% (similar to natural gas plant) reduced life-cycle cost to 6.6 cents.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf (pg 8)

For this reason, the 2003 report applied a higher weighted cost of capital to the construction of a new nuclear plant (10%) than to the construction of a new
coal or new natural gas plant (7.8%).

Lowering or eliminating this risk-premium makes a significant contribution to making nuclear competitive. With the risk premium and without a
carbon emission charge, nuclear is more expensive than either coal (without sequestration) or natural gas (at 7$/MBTU). If this risk premium can be
eliminated, nuclear life cycle cost decreases from 8.4¢ /kWe-h to 6.6 ¢/kWe-h and becomes competitive with coal and natural gas, even in the absence of carbon
emission charge.

You can't realistically assume high price of equity capital (23% annualized) if not a single utility plans to finance their operation via equity offering.
All plans so far are via govt loan guarantee (unknown interest rate but likely around 30 year T-bond rate) plus private bond issuance to make up the difference.
The bond issuance by GA utility was incredibly good. 6.6% taxable is far less than I figured it would be (and less than MIT "reduced risk premium" scenario).

The reality is the plant in GA will not be financed at anything close to 15% cost of capital.

I find noting wrong with the authors methodology just the assumptions used. The cost of capital assumption is already being proven wrong. As time goes on and we get closer to criticality we will see the other assumptions are unrealistically pessimistic.

[kristopher]

57. THE GOVERNMENT LOANS ARE MONEY SPENT; IT ISN'T FREE.

All you are doing is hiding costs with that claim - data trimming Schrader-Frechette calls it.

Business Risk #2: Construction Schedules May Be Delayed
The capital cost estimate above assumed the same beginning and ending dates as the most optimistic
schedule put forth in new U.S. nuclear plant applications. It is therefore still a very conservative cost
estimate.

If the project were to be delayed for any reason, “brick & mortar” costs would rise significantly,
as every year that goes by brings more increases in construction costs, and these cost escalations
have been running very high for power plant construction costs. As noted by CERA in its May 2008
Press Release on the PCCI data, “a power plant that cost $1 billion in 2000 would, on average, cost
$2.31 billion today.”

The Costs of Capital for funds used during construction (financing costs) would also dramatically
increase, as each year of delay involves more financing costs, for a project that is still unproductive
until it comes on line.

As overall costs spiral upward, they may materially exceed available funding lined up to finance a
project. It could then become impossible to raise enough funds to complete the project, and the
project may need to be abandoned partway after billions have already been spent. This actually
happened with several nuclear projects in the last generation.

History of Nuclear Construction Delays
The nuclear industry’s long delays in the 1970's and 1980's are legend. Nuclear plants typically took
at least 10 years and in some cases almost 15 years to complete. A classic example was the Vogtle
facility near Augusta, GA whose 2 Westinghouse plants (2400 MW total) took over 14 years to
complete, and cost $8.87 billion by the time they were finished in 1989 .36

Many utilities did not even finish their projects. After literally spending billions, those utilities
abandoned or suspended their nuclear projects, as allocated funds ran out, and it proved more
feasible to find alternatives than to finish the nuclear projects. The worst example was the Washington
Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) which experienced massive cost overruns and scheduling
delays. At the same time, load growth came in lower than projected. WPPSS abandoned
construction on 4 of the 5 reactors it had begun, and defaulted on $2.25 Billion in bonds, the largest
default in the history of the municipal bond market. 37

...Will it be any better for new generation reactors? Current experience with projects now underway
indicates the nuclear industry’s pattern of extensive delays may be repeating itself. Finland’s effort
to build the world’s first new generation nuclear reactor at Olkiluoto is now over 2 years behind
schedule after beginning in 2005, and construction cost estimates have already overrun by at least one
billion euro. The recently-released “2008 World Nuclear Industry Status Report – Global
Nuclear”(16 Sep 2008) surveyed the current global status of all new nuclear projects, and states
“two thirds of the under-construction units have encountered significant construction delays, pushing
back officially announced start-up dates.” 38





Now you believe that can't happen, but you really have no basis for that belief, do you?

[Statistical]

59. Who said it was free? I certainly didn't.

The utility will pay an interest rate (cost of capital) on the govt guaranteed portion (80%) and the private portion (20%) of the debt. No utility has announced plans to issue equity to pay for reactor construction. They all will draw upon govt loan (80%) and issue bonds for private portion (20%). So a realistic cost of capital based on current condition is the weighted cost of those two funding sources.

Of course the govt loan will have interest, I don't dispute that. I just dispute that it will be 15%. Why the fuck would anyone get a govt guaranteed loan to turn around and pay 15%? I got a govt guaranteed loan to pay for my college education. I did so because that REDUCED my cost of capital. If govt loan was going to be 15% hell it would have made just as much sense to put college on a my personal credit card. The interest will likely be around 30 year T-bond rates which for foreseeable future will be very low. The DOE hasn't announced the exact rate. I will be watching but my guess is it will be <6%.

Still for the sake of argument lets ignore the cheaper govt guaranteed portion and look at the more expensive private funding portion. GA issued $2.5 billion in taxable munibonds this month to private buyers to finance the non-govt portion of it's reactor cost. Cost of capital..... 6.6%. Still nowhere near 15%.

So MIT study says 10% cost of capital = 8.5 cents per kWh. Lower 7% cost of capital = 6.6 cents per kWh. What do you think 6.5% would do?

We have govt guaranteed loans at <6%? and private portion at 6.6% and you want me to believe the cost of capital is magically 15%.

I strongly recommend not building a home PV array financed by credit cards (15%+) much less an $11 billion pair of reactors. 15% cost of capital will cut most any project.

[kristopher]

60. You are in lala land...

Money has a cost, and that cost is set by the market. When the government gives both a loan guarantee AND makes the loan they are doing it for a reason - the risk of loss that the market sees makes the investment prohibitively expensive since the LOSSES are expected to be so large that the higher interest rate must be charged to cover those losses. That risk didn't disappear because the government has assumed it on behalf of the taxpayer.

What you are claiming is that since the losses will accrue to the taxpayer, they don't count as part of the cost that we should assess against nuclear. The GAO estimated in 2003 that the risk of default for a nuclear loan guarantee was "well above 50%" and the Government Accountability Office estimates a loss rate above 25%.

[Statistical]

63. Of course that ignores discount to future value, the owner equity & recovery value.

A loss rate of 25% in the future doesn't result in a 25% cost to the taxpayer.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKWNA597920081007

Just like a foreclosure doesn't result in a 100% loss to the bank.

For example, if a 1,000 MW nuclear unit built at $6,000 per kilowatt,
with 80% financing from the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) is rated 'BB-' with a
recovery of 70%, we estimate that the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
subsidy cost model could result in a substantial $288 million payment, while a
'BB' rated project at the same recovery may have to pay about $192 million.
Given the publicly expected range of capital costs and the substantial
economic advantages in terms of low dispatch costs that nuclear plants enjoy
in the wholesale markets, and which will only strengthen with the passage of
carbon legislation, we expect that nuclear plants should generally have
recovery expectations in the 60% to 90% range. We emphasize that our
calculations are only rough estimates and should only be used as a guide to
arrive at the possible range of costs, not as an exact prediction of the
result that would be produced by the OMB's model, which is proprietary.

Take the higher of the two sums. $288 million on $6 billion reactor.
That is 4.8% of project value. Not 4.8% a year but 4.8%.


Now this risk premium can be absorbed one of many ways
1) taxpayer can accept risk
2) govt can require guarantor payment equal to risk value
3) govt could obtain private insurance based on risk value

Either way someone absorbs a 4.8% risk premium which raises cost of capital but not materially.

Remember the flip side of that coin is that it allows the utility to borrow at rates only the govt can.
Govt can borrow at 4.67% over 30 years, obtain private insurance or simply acts as a self-insurer and increase cost of capital enough to offset the loss. At 4.67% and 4.8% risk premium the govt "break even point" would be a lending rate of 5.2%.

For the utility 5.2% is still superior to private muni-bond market of 6.6%. So the weighted cost of capital would be somewhere around 6% which is what I said 2 posts ago but you want me to spell it all out to you.


Any way you slice it a 15% cost of capital simply doesn't exist. Most states have prohibited utilities from raising rates during construction (another method to finance construction costs).

[kristopher]

65. How high can you stack the bullshit.

The CBO estimates the risk premium should be ^30%. The nuclear industry, of course, feels it should be 1%.

Want to guess who is closer to the mark?

The availability of Federally guaranteed loans, and/or a guarantee of the ability to charge ratepayers (often during construction) for the costs of a new facility, are no substitute for prudent business judgment. Simply shifting the burden of risks from the utility’s shareholders and executives, to the taxpayers and ratepayers does not make any risks go away. It simply sets up yet another situation where profits are privatized while risks are socialized, allowing those who make bad decisions to walk away from the effects of their own imprudence. After hundreds of billions of such outcomes this year alone, the public has no stomach for more of this.
Severance p. 8

[Statistical]

67. The CBO didn't estimate the risk premium is 30%. They estimated the loss at 30%.

Risk premium is much less than a loss rate.

Why because in a default it isn't like the reactor disappears. The partially complete reactor will still have value and the govt will own it. The govt can sell the reactor to 3rd party (who will see lot of value in it because they only need to complete the reactor to get the full functional value from it).

That combined with the fact that govt gross loss is only 80% of project value means that risk premium is a small fraction of loss rate.

Of course that risk premium does need to be accounted for however it still isn't 15%.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKWNA597920081007

Try 4.8%.

--------------------------------------------

Your "logic: would be like doing this.
Your risk of getting in car accident is 30%. The insurance companies maximum loss in an accident is $100,000 (policy limit).
Therefore your annual car insurance premium should be $30,000. Max loss * loss rate right.

-------------------------------------------

Don't take my word for it talk to AmericanProgress
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/nuclear_financing.html



So the govt loans 80% of project.
Say the risk of default is 50% (I don't believe that but since you are doing so badly I throw you a freebee).
Also say that the govt collects only 60% Recovery (by selling the partially completed reactor to another party).

The govt loss would be 10%. So to cover the taxpayers loss the govt would need to collect 10% upfront from the utility for the loan.
So on $6000 KW overnight cost the govt portion would be $4800 per KW. The premium would be $480 per KW. That just raised the utilities overnight cost to $6480 per KW however the utility would now be able to borrow at 4.67%.

$6480 @ 4.67% is the same as $6000 @ 5.4%. Get a loan calculator if you want.
The capital costs including risk premium (paid for by utility) are 5.4% which is lower than the private bond rate of 6.6% and both are lower than that joke of 15% capital cost you quote.

[kristopher]

68. Sorry no. Note that dollar amounts don't reflect either the 80% exposure or current costs.

...Based on information from DOE about preliminary construction plans at three sites, we expect that the department would provide credit assistance for six nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Based on information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and industry sources, CBO expects that construction of the first new nuclear power plant would begin after 2010. Estimates of the cost for such a plant range from $2.1 billion to almost $3 billion, including engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as costs associated with construction delays, and first-of-a-kind engineering costs.

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

In its 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that production from new nuclear power plants would not be cost-competitive with other power sources until after 2025. EIA also reports that current construction costs for a typical electricity plant range from $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural-gas-powered combined- cycle technology to $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology. Although construction costs could diminish significantly as a new generation of nuclear plants are built, a new nuclear power plant starting construction in 2011 would have a construction cost of about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity. By 2011, that cost would result in capital costs that are 40 percent to 250 percent above the cost of capital for electricity plants using gas and coal. Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs.

Assuming the nuclear plant is completed, we expect it would financially default soon after beginning operations, however, we expect that the plant would continue to operate and sell power at competitive market rates. Thus, over the plant’s expected operating lifetime, its creditors (which could be the federal government) could expect to recover a significant portion of the plant’s construction loan. The ability to recover a significant portion of the value of the initial construction loan would offset the high subsidy cost of a federal loan guarantee.

Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, funds must be appropriated in advance to cover the subsidy cost of such loan guarantees, measured on a present-value basis. CBO estimates that the net present value of amounts recovered by the government on its loan guarantee from continued plant operations following a default and the project’s technical and regulatory risk would result in a subsidy cost of 30 percent...

[Statistical]

70. So much misquotation. You referenced an estimate from a bill in 2003 that was never signed into law

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=478

That bill was related to non GENIII reactors under a completely different program (in which govt would step in and take ownership of reactor in failure).
The often quoted CBO nonesense is from a bill that never made it into law 7 years ago.

Sad the CBO needs a FAQ section on it because it is incorrectly quoted by anti-nukkers so much.

The good news is it looks like under Title 17 (loan guarantee program that DID make it into law) the utility is required to pay the risk premium in advance thus raising capital costs (but not to no 15% BS) and removing risk from taxpayers.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

79. The CBO analysis was of the nuclear industry and its economic viability.

The law it was designed to inform doesn't matter except that the current law and administration proposal escalates taxpayer exposure to loss dramatically over the proposed bill. The technology and the industry remain the same...

[Statistical]

83. So you know MORE about the costs then the Director of CBO does?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=478

A number of people have inquired as to whether the information in those estimates is relevant to estimates of the credit risk of the announced loan guarantees. The short answer is: not necessarily.

....

After taking into account the amounts the government would recover from continued plant operations after a default, CBO estimated a net subsidy cost to the government equal to about 30 percent of the amount guaranteed. S. 14 was not enacted into law.

...

The assumptions and analyses supporting that estimate reflected information about the technical, economic, and regulatory environment as it existed in 2003, almost seven years ago. Such generalized estimates of credit risk may not apply to a guarantee for any particular power plant because of variations in the technical, economic, regulatory, and contractual characteristics of each project.

...

Whether the government will incur subsidy costs for the program as a whole, or for individual projects, will depend not only on the characteristics of the projects, but also—critically—on what fees the Department of Energy will charge to cover the government’s potential costs. What fees will be charged for the guarantees for the two reactors in Georgia is not yet known.

The CBO subsidy amount you love to quote was based on:
1) assumption US govt would operate defauled reactors. Repayment on reactors is a very long time (decades) thus increasing potential cost of any default. Current bill would have DOE sell defaulted reactor to third party thus reducing length of time taxpayers are compensated.

2) The 2003 bill didn't charge the utilities for use of loan guarantee program. The current bill does. The govt will collect fees to offset any future loss from utilities before issuing funds.

3) Director indicates the amount of fees and thus any cost is not currently know.


However you know more than the Director of the CBO. Right? You *know* it will cost taxpayers 30%.

[kristopher]

86. ROFLMAO- You are correct, it is obsolete...

In the 2003 plan he 30% subsidy cost is based on loan guarantees that covered only 50% of the money invested in the project; but NOW (because even 50% coverage wasn't enough to entice investors) they've upped the loan guarantees to cover 80% of the money borrowed, so the exposure is greater. Additionally, in the 2003 plan, the government was FIRST IN LINE for repayment during any bankruptcy proceedings. NOW the taxpayers have no priority over other creditors and we are going to get LESS in the event of bankruptcy than we would have in the 2003 plan.

The things you've listed have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the nuclear industry as a competitive enterprise which is what the 50% default rate is based on.

While there is going to be a charge for the subsidies, the rate the nuclear industry is starting with is that they theink they should only have to pay 1% of the loan up front for the guarantee. YOU said 4.6% is fair. Yet the CBO estimate of 30% is obviously far, far too low to cover the losses if the CBO predicted default rate materializes. (And since the financial community won't touch these loans with a 10 mile poll even with 50% guarantees, private capital's actions demonstrate prima facia support that the CBO estimate has more validity than not.

[Statistical]

88. Once again private investor are buying nuclear bonds.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-bonds-test-muni-markets-appetite-for-risk-2010-03-03

At record low interest rates too. I figured rates would be 8%+. Might be nice to lockup 8% until year 2057. No such luck. So much demand it was bid down to 6.6%.

[kristopher]

91. That's because they ARE guaranteed

Per the WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

[Statistical]

94. Which is no guarantee MEAG won't default on bonds.

MEAG has a guaranteed source of income. That exists with or without nuclear reactor. It exists with or without the bonds. 47 years is a long time. There is no guarantee that MEAG won't default on the bonds. None.

CA has plenty of sources of guaranteed income. The risk of munibond default in CA now is very real.

Guaranteed income does not equal guarantee on bonds. Just look at well CA mismanaged funds and put themselves in a risky financial situation. MEAG could do the same thing. They could overpay so much on the reactor that even guaranteed income stream puts the bond obligations at risk. They could be sued for enviromental damage or EPA violations with further deplete cashflow.

Despite your spin the BOND ARE NOT GUARANTEED. NOBODY GETS 6.6% GUARANTEED. NOBODY - ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

The reality is another one of your false claims is crumbling. Private investors are buying guaranteed munibonds to back the construction of first nuclear reactor in 30 years. This won't be the last one either.

All your claims are unraveling in real time (construction time, regulatory approval, private capital, cost of capital, capacity factor).

[kristopher]

96. Riiiiiight....

Per the WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

[Statistical]

99. You have no idea what that means do you?

Ever heard of a musician with lifetime royalties. A guaranteed source of income. Yet they file for bankruptcy. How is that possible?

Well like MEAG like the singer has a finite amount of guaranteed income. If expenses exceed revenue even guaranteed revenue they company will have negative cashflow. Negative cashflow can lead to bankruptcy.

You honestly think nobody anywhere in the history of the world with guaranteed income has filed for bankruptcy? :rofl:

All you can do is cut and paste. You have no idea what you are cutting and pasting. It is sad man.

[kristopher]

100. Riiiiight...

Per the WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

That quote is from the paragraph on the muni offering you are discussing. I'm sure the WSJ is just confused.

[Statistical]

102. Where did WSJ say the bond is guaranteed?

Nowhere. :shrug: Because it isn't.

The risk of default is low due to the creditworthiness of the issuer and their guaranteed source of revenue but risk of default exists. The vast majority of munibonds never default, it doesn't mean they are guaranteed it simply means they have very low risk of default.

[kristopher]

104. .

The total cost of the reactors, which are expected to begin operation in 2016 and 2017, has been estimated at $14 billion. MEAG's share is around $3.7 billion.

MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational.

Wednesday, pricing information was out on one part of the three-part deal. About $1.2 billion in Build America Bonds, due April 1, 2057, were launched at 205 basis points, or 2.05 percentage points over the yield of comparable Treasurys, according to lead bookrunner Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS).

That is less than expected, suggesting there's good investor demand. Indeed, orders totaled over $3 billion, according to a market participant.

"We liked this portion of the deal because of the take-or-pay power purchase agreement (PPA) with Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)," one buyer, John Flahive.




Duh....

[Statistical]

105. Once again where did he say it was guaranteed,

Did I miss the quote where he said "We like this portion of the deal because it is guaranteed against default"? :shrug:

No. I don't think I did.

[kristopher]

107. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234990&mesg_id=235230

[Statistical]

108. Just because you don't understand bond financing doesn't mean people are crazy.

It simply means you lack knowledge on the subject.

Almost all utilities have guaranteed sources of income. They couldn't build any new capacity without it. All govt have guaranteed sources of income, they are called taxes. Still munibonds are not guaranteed against default.

I am glad however that you final realize that nuclear bonds are extremely low risk and this will reduce the cost of capital and make nuclear energy even more economical.

[kristopher]

110. .

per the WSJ, "The total cost of the reactors, which are expected to begin operation in 2016 and 2017, has been estimated at $14 billion. MEAG's share is around $3.7 billion.

MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational.

Wednesday, pricing information was out on one part of the three-part deal. About $1.2 billion in Build America Bonds, due April 1, 2057, were launched at 205 basis points, or 2.05 percentage points over the yield of comparable Treasurys, according to lead bookrunner Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS).

That is less than expected, suggesting there's good investor demand. Indeed, orders totaled over $3 billion, according to a market participant.

"We liked this portion of the deal because of the take-or-pay power purchase agreement (PPA) with Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)," one buyer, John Flahive."

[Statistical]

113. You have no idea what you are copying and pasting do you? n/t

[joshcryer]

120. Like with the deniers, this is a verifiable situation. If you are right, we will see.

If they are right, we will see. It is unfortunate that we cannot look critical at actual numbers and make sane conclusions though.

[joshcryer]

122. You've reached a point of disconnect, usually happens when you're right.

Basically it's designed to bury your post. Your best solution is to respond at the subject level so that readers who are not invested in the discussion can actually know your position.

[bananas]

73. kristopher, they're insane, you can't talk to crazy people

one of the problems with internet discussion forums.

[joshcryer]

119. "They" are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x235236

Let's be honest with ourselves here, there are two, count them, two very loud anti-nuclear people on this forum. Those of us who post here who are environmentalists are iffy about nuclear but by no means don't bring out these dishonest arguments all day and night. I can name 15 posters here who are at least ambivilant about nuclear or pro nuclear, and all of them could be considered environmentalists.

The non-environmentalists here dumb down CO2 effects, dumb down infrascture building effects (transmission lines), dumb down mineral extraction effects (large swaths of poisoned land), and even are pro natural gas. And at least one of them is not an environmentalist by any measure of the word.

[bananas]

131. The dishonest arguments are coming from the nuclear industry.

The post you linked to was meant to lighten things up.

[Nihil]

76. If what you say is true ...

> so much of the world doesn't seem to agree with you

... then it shows how stupid, ignorant and easily misled that
"much of the world" is.


> You're talking technology & I'm talking humanity.

No: He's talking technology and you're talking emotional bollocks.


> IMO there are better safer ways to achieve energy independence.

Depends on the definition of "better" but yes, I'd agree with that
statement as it stands. The critical points that you've glossed
over with that statement are i) rate of change & ii) external
constraints.


> If you want to sit with uranium ore or a nuclear reactor in
> your backyard, enjoy - I don't;

You'd probably be surprised at the amount of natural radioactivity
you are encountering every second of every day. That applies double
due to your apparent confusion upthread between uranium and radon.


> I lived near Three Mile Island.

My G-d! We have a ghost posting on DU!

Everyone knows that thanks to the devastating nuclear incident
at Three Mile Island the entire population of the surrounding states was
wiped out!

Oh ... my bad, it wasn't ... BUT IT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED!!!

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

121. LOL!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

28. "The regulatory structure in the US has been streamlined." AKA oversight has been reduced.

Sacrificing safety for money (time is money) seems great until the real bill comes due.

[joshcryer]

32. AKA dishonest assertions.

Nuclear plants cannot be built unless they undergo very stringent oversight.

[kristopher]

34. You "streamline the process" by removing the ability of oversight authorities to impact the process.

QED

[joshcryer]

38. Authorities can impact the process before construction.

And authorities can impact the process if construction does not go as planned.

[kristopher]

43. That doesn't address the issue at all. Streamlined = reduced.

One example of many many possible problems. If a whistleblower can't go to the NRC because the NRC is part of the problem, then who do they appeal to, their Congressman? Not according to stats. He says congressional oversight has been removed? How about local authorities? Nope. They too have no say.

[Statistical]

45. That is a gross micharecterization of what I said.

Congress has authority over NRC.
DOE has authority over NRC.

A Congressman could start a Congressional inquiry into corruption, fraud, abuse at the NRC. The media is also a source that whistleblower could go to. The Vermont Yankee tritium issue is a good example of that. I never claimed the NRC is the final authority and even if we are building graphite moderate reactors with high risk of meltdown nobody anywhere can do anything about it.

Rather the goal is to streamline the regulatory process. It makes no sense to build a reactor over course of decade have it be certified as 100% safe and then fail to issue an operating license for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nobody won in that scenario.
1) Regulators lost because they came across looking like idiots
2) The utilities lost because they spent billions and a decade building a perfectly functional plant which was never allowed to generate electricity
3) The environment lost because 2 hastily built coal plants were used to provide capacity this reactor was suppose to provide
4) The taxpayers lost because after the utilities sued the taxpayers (well technically ratepayers) ended up paying the cost of buying then tearing down a functional reactor. They will finally pay it off in 2019.


A whole crap ton of regulators with overlapping responsibilities, confusing regulations that often contradict each other and no clear guidance on who is the final authority rarely solve anything. The financial crisis in 2008 could tell you that. We had 9 regulatory bodies with overlapping responsibility and a lot of finger pointing after the crisis.

[kristopher]

47. ...

Quote: "There are windows to seek legal challenges against the site, the design, and the COL during the approval process. So unlike in the 70s and 80s there are no challenges once construction begins by any anti-nukkers who take it to the courts, or their congressman, not length "Congressional oversight" committees, no lets stop and do yet another 3 year environmental study. Those "games" in the 70s are what killed nuclear. Many utilities went bankrupt and many more simply abandoned the half built reactors because they knew it would take decades more to finish them.
So the "theory" is all 3 certs will be obtained before construction (and thus heavy capital and interest cost) begins.
As long as all 3 certs are obtained and the utility follows conditions in them they can't be delayed during construction."


Those are your words, not mine.

[Statistical]

49. Exactly.

As long as the certs are obtained, construction meets those requirements, the utility complies with all oversight durring construction it can't be halted willy nilly like it was in the late 70s.

The funny thing about you is you love to have your cake and eat it to.

You love to claim nuclear reactors will take 20+ years to construct and then you love to complain that the regulatory loopholes that allowed that 20 year timeframe to exist are gone.

You and I know both know that 99.9% of complaints against reactors during construction were BS. They were thrown out of court and construction resumed however every dollar and every day added to the delay pushed nuclear towards unprofitability.

Nuclear is massively capital intensive and has insanely cheap operating costs (1.7 cents per kWh per IPCC and 1.2 cents per kWh per DOE).

The easiest way to bankrupt nuclear is to increase those capital costs with necessary delays. Anti-nuke groups in the 70s even bragged about how many millions of dollars per day it was costing the utilities to fight worthless lawsuits.

[kristopher]

51. And the unavoidable corollary is that valid complaints are also stifled.

You are the one wnting it both ways, the present safety record of US plants is a direct result of the intense scrutiny afforded by various oversight avenues. You can't claim the new system has a comparable chance of achieving the same safety record if you remove the process that created that safety record.

And again you ignore the main point - renewable energy can do the same job for less money, faster, and with NONE of the safety issues associated with nuclear. There is no reason for accepting risk of the scale of nuclear; no reason at all.

"Putting all all your eggs in one basket" is an absurd basis for spending trillions more than necessary with a technology that is slower to meet out CO2 reduction targets.

[Statistical]

53. No they don't.

As far back as the 80s the other agencies have all but abdicated responsibility to the NRC. The NRC is sole regulatory body on nuclear reactors for last decade. Other agencies provide insight (EPA for example sets limits on tritium but the NRC monitors it). Safety record of nuclear hasn't gone down in the last decade.

You claim that renewables are cheaper but studies like MIT one refute that. I will reserve judgment until I see some factors on the new plants being proposed in GA
a) actual construction cost
b) actual construction time
c) actual interest cost (well we already know that 6.6%)
d) actual capacity factor

I concede that nuclear MAY be too expensive depending on the outcome of those factors above. However it may be the cheapest emission free, always on power we can produce. All of it boils down to what is the correct value for those factors

a) is it $6K per KW overnight or $10K per KW overnight
b) is it 6 years or is it 10 years
c) is it 6% of 15%
d) is it <80% or is it 92% (6 newest plants are actually 96% capacity factor).

You just want everyone to accept that it is too expensive. The plant in GA will be built. Maybe the others never will but the GA plant is far enough along (the municipal utility already borrowed money) that it will be built. I want to see the outcome of that reactor.


I am willing to put the facts on the line. My continued support for nuclear is contingent on the outcome of what happens in GA. Is your continued opposition on the line?
No need to answer that I already know it isn't. That is the difference between us. If GA reactors don't live up to the claims I will no longer support nuclear. I will even actively oppose it. I suspect the reverse isn't true.

[kristopher]

56. There is sufficient data to make conclusions now, not 100 billion dollars later.

Severance isn't using 10K as an overnight cost, he is using $10K/kw as an "all in cost". The overnight cost portion is actually
“Overnight” Cost Estimate (in 2007 Dollars): $ 4,070/KW
Construction Cost Escalations $ 3,370/KW
Cost of Capital Used During Construction: $ 3,114/KW
Total Estimated “All In” Capital Costs: $10,553/KW

Since the 2009 MIT study is significantly higher than that estimate, and since Schrader-Frechette makes a strong case that there is a conflict of interest causing the MIT number to be lower than objective analysis justifies, that means the $10K/kw all in cost estimated by Severance is certainly low.

More notes from Severance:

34
Application of a Capital Cost Recovery Factor is one method commonly used by state
utility regulators. This is essentially equivalent to a mortgage payment formula, using the cost
recovery period as the “term”, and the avg. weighted Cost of Capital as the “mortgage interest”.
An alternative method is to record annual depreciation expense, and apply the Cost of Capital to
the remaining un-depreciated balance. Both methods result in similar amounts.
35
The MIT Study’s 85% C.F. in their “low cost” case is used here also for the “Low
Cost”case; MIT used a 75% C.F. for their “High”cost. “Most Likely” case here uses an 80%
midpoint. While U.S. nuclear plants have recently reached higher capacity factors, this was only
after decades of “tinkering & training” on last generation units, which began with 50-60% C.F.’s.

[Statistical]

58. Semantics. If he considers $4K to be "overnight" and then adds another $3.3K for cost escalation

the true overnight cost was $7.7K.

If the plant was projected to be $4K per KW and then during construction that rose to $7K per KW you would hammer me on trying to say overnight cost of nuclear is only $4K. You would say "no despite them promising $4K it actually ended up costing $7K so we should use $7K as overnight".

Also his insane 15% cost of capital is simply not reflected in the MIT study (10% assumed with alternate "reduced risk premium scenario" of 7%).
Nor is it reflected in reality. The loan guarantees will be at T-bond rates plus small premium (<5%) and the muni-bond auction in GA yielded 6.6% taxable.

So 4 different datapoints and all of them massively below the 15% cost of capital.

I agree 100% that trying to build a reactor on credit card interest rates is not financially viable.

[kristopher]

61. Apparently you have no idea what overnight cost is...

Overnight cost is the cost if the plant were to magically appear overnight - in other words, by its nature it doesn't count cost escalation.

There is a difference between the "15% after tax ROE" used by Severance and the "10% assumed with alternate "reduced risk premium scenario" of 7%" that you are trying to use in its place. Unless you can show where the numbers Severance has used are wrong (I don't believe for a minute your repeated implication that he is falsifying the data) I can't accept your use of some arbitrary replacement as valid. Especially given your unabashed history of "data trimming" (see "overnight cost" above).

I'll send Severance an email and ask for his input and get back to you.

[Statistical]

62. Yeah the difference is he assumed utilities would issue equity (stock) to pay for reactors.

To date their is no evidence that has or will happen.

The only utilities interested in building reactors at this time have indicated interest in issuing bonds.

I don't think he is "falsifying" data. He clearly indicates assumptions
Overnight cost (or sorry overnight cost plus cost escalation): $7K
Cost of Capital: 15%
Construction Time: 10 years
Lifetime of plant: 40 years
Capacity Factor: 80%

It isn't rocket science. Those are the metrics that determine the capital cost of any system.

However they are called assumptions for a reason.
IF a reactor doesn't have a cost of $7K per KW ($1K more than price provided for GA reactors)

OR
it doesn't take 10 years to build (5 years is possible)

OR
it lasts longer than 40 years (current Gen II reactors are being extended to 60 years)

OR

it has higher capacity factor than 80% (12% below current national average and 16% below newest plants)

OR
cost of capital isn't 15% (private NON GUARANTEED muni-bond offering was 6.6%).

then the cost per kWh will be lower.

At $0.25 per kWh there is no financial reason for utilities to build reactors.
So either every utility in the United States, 12 governments around the world, the NRC, the IPCC, the DOE, and MIT research team are all fools or maybe just maybe his assumptions are too pessimistic.

[kristopher]

64. There you go trying to spin the numbers AGAIN...

You write: "Cost of Capital: 15%"

Severance writes: Net of Before-Tax
Corp Tax Gross % of Funding Weight
Equity 15.00% 24.59% 45.00% 11.07%
Interest 6.25% 6.25% 55.00% 3.44%
WEIGHTED AVG. COST OF CAPITAL = 14.50%


Your entire premise is that the cost of capital is somehow lower than it actually is because the course it will follow is through the pocket of the taxpayer. That simply isn't true. Given that the government has had to step in to arrange financing, the true cost of that financing is certainly much HIGHER than Severance has estimated.

You are trying to capitalize on the complex nature of the debt structures involved in order to conflate the interest payments on bonds with the equity costs. The fact is that the equity costs are still there, they are just being hidden as lost income for tax payers and rate payers who get saddled paying with "Construction Work In Progress" rate increases for years before the plants ever generate electricity. To you that might be free money, but it isn't to the people who have to pay it.

Severance has used the MIT and reputable ratings ssevices (Moody's etal) numbers across the board - in all the areas you criticize. For example, both the 80% CF and the ROE rate is from the MIT report. You have no interest in the facts, you just want to feed the hog that's the nuclear power industry.

[Statistical]

66. Not even close. People go back to school.

This is simple economics and financial modeling. Nothing complex.

You still haven't explained this equity cost at 24% annualized. So you jump to saying the govt cost of capital is 15%+. :rofl:

Moody's clearly indicates it won't.

Try 4.8%.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKWNA597920081007

Moody estimate on $6 billion reactor is that loss premium is $288 million = 4.8% of project value.

This means:
the risk of default * govt interest (80% of project value) = gross loss amount.
Recovery value (what asset can be sold to 3rd party. think foreclosure on reactor) * gross loss amount = recovered value.
gross loss rate - recovered value = net loss amount.


Given the lower cost of capital that the govt has access to they can arbitrage the difference.
Govt can borrow at 4.67% (taxpayer cost of 30yr T-bond) + govt can assume risk of default* (4.8% loss premium or $288 million on $6 billion project). Govt cost of capital is now 5.2%.
To break even the govt would simply need to loan to the utility at 5.2% or higher. Statistically speaking govt borrows at 4.8% and lends at 5.2% they collect the difference in a risk premium. The expected loss value per reactor ($288 million) would exactly equal the projected risk premiums collected over all the loans issued. At 5.2% the loans that perform would pay for the net loss value. Remember the govt doesn't lose 100% in a reactor default. They act much like a bank in foreclosure situation and in this situation the govt only has a note worth 80% of value of property which makes foreclosure math a lots better.

Say govt loans to utility at 6% that is still a capital cost (including loss potential) substantially lower than the bogus 15%.
Even better just user the higher rate obtained in private market for the UN-GUARANTEED 20% PORTION OF THE LOAN which is 6.6%.
If you want round up to 7%. Still gets you nowhere close to 15% cost of capital.

-------------------------------------------------------

* Alternate methods of distributing risk:
Instead of govt assuming risk they could instead obtain private insurance to cover their projected loss. The insurance premium would be $288 million per reactor (per Moody's estimate). By borrowing at 4.67% and loaning at 5.2% the govt would collect enough premium to pay for insurance and break-even.

Third option would be the govt could simply demand $288 million upfront from the utility in exchange for the loan. If they did that from each utility then statistically the net loss amounts (remember after recovery value) over all the reactors would be equal to the amount of upfront premiums collected. This will increase the utilities overnight cost by 4.8% however if you do the math you will find it works out to 5.2% capital cost. $6B @ 5.2% = $6.288B @ 4.67%

[kristopher]

69. Yes those folks at CBO are such anti-nukkers

...Based on information from DOE about preliminary construction plans at three sites, we expect that the department would provide credit assistance for six nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Based on information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and industry sources, CBO expects that construction of the first new nuclear power plant would begin after 2010. Estimates of the cost for such a plant range from $2.1 billion to almost $3 billion, including engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as costs associated with construction delays, and first-of-a-kind engineering costs.

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

In its 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that production from new nuclear power plants would not be cost-competitive with other power sources until after 2025. EIA also reports that current construction costs for a typical electricity plant range from $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural-gas-powered combined- cycle technology to $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology. Although construction costs could diminish significantly as a new generation of nuclear plants are built, a new nuclear power plant starting construction in 2011 would have a construction cost of about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity. By 2011, that cost would result in capital costs that are 40 percent to 250 percent above the cost of capital for electricity plants using gas and coal. Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs.

Assuming the nuclear plant is completed, we expect it would financially default soon after beginning operations, however, we expect that the plant would continue to operate and sell power at competitive market rates. Thus, over the plant’s expected operating lifetime, its creditors (which could be the federal government) could expect to recover a significant portion of the plant’s construction loan. The ability to recover a significant portion of the value of the initial construction loan would offset the high subsidy cost of a federal loan guarantee.

Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, funds must be appropriated in advance to cover the subsidy cost of such loan guarantees, measured on a present-value basis. CBO estimates that the net present value of amounts recovered by the government on its loan guarantee from continued plant operations following a default and the project’s technical and regulatory risk would result in a subsidy cost of 30 percent...

[Statistical]

71. Do you routinely misquote estimates for bill that never make it into law?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=478

That quote although nice and big with lots of bold is cost related to a bill in 2003 that never made it into law.

[kristopher]

81. The CBO analysis was of the nuclear industry and its economic viability.

The law it was designed to inform doesn't matter except that the current law and administration proposal escalates taxpayer exposure to loss dramatically over the proposed bill. The technology and the industry remain the same...

"Greater than a 50% chance of failure"

That sucks. No wonder the bankers won't touch these projects without Uncle Sugar there to bail them out.

Renewable energy can to the job better, faster and cheaper. Case closed.

[Statistical]

85. Banker (well more likely pension funds) have financed the first reactor in 30 years.

GA (well technically MEAG a publicly owned utility) auctioned $1.22 billion worth of UN-GUARANTEED 40 year municipal bonds (rest of $2.5B will be auctioned later this month).
Total yield = 6.6%. That is 6.6% (only 2% higher than Treasury bond) for the un-guaranteed portion of the project.

So not only will investors buy it (when they know the govt will be an ally not an enemy) they won't even demand top dollar.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-bonds-test-muni-markets-appetite-for-risk-2010-03-03

[kristopher]

87. Not guaranteed? Not so...

According to the WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

Public risk, private reward.

[Statistical]

89. The bonds aren't guaranteed.

MEAG like any municipality can default on the bonds and bondholders would lose principle. While risk of default is low it isn't 0 and there is no backstop on those bonds.

Your statement was investors will NOT invest in nuclear energy. $1.2 billion says you are wrong.

[kristopher]

92. .

Per WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

Duh...

[Statistical]

95. Guaranteed income DOES NOT EQUAL no risk of default.

I hope for your sake you don't invest your own (or anyone elses) money if you don't understand that concept.

Plenty of entities, organizations, companies, and individuals have filed for bankruptcy despite having a guaranteed source of income.

The BOND ARE NOT GUARANTEED. MEAG (like virtually all utilities in the United States has a guaranteed source of income). MEAG having guaranteed income does not mean the bonds are guaranteed.

MEAG most certainly can file for bankruptcy protection.
Bondholders can most certainly lose their entire investment in Bankruptcy court.

Will they? Probably not. It is a well run utility but low risk is not the same thing as guarantee.

[kristopher]

97. Riiiiiiight...

Per the WSJ: "MEAG also has so-called "take or pay" 50-year contracts with 49 municipalities in Georgia, which secures future cash flow since the customers must still pay even if power is unused or the new projects aren't operational."

[joshcryer]

123. Typical dishonesty and disinformation.

[kristopher]

26. Planning to construction is much more than 4-5 years, more like 12.

[Statistical]

29. Well you use to claim 20 then it was 15. Now you claim 12-15.

Good progress kristopher.

If the GA plant is built on-schedule = 2017 will you accept that planning to critical can be <10 years?

[kristopher]

31. Not accurate. 10-19 years is the global average for gettting a nuclear plant online.

And, no, not as an average I wouldn't. Once that design is finalized (not yet) it wll have to be tested in the field. That will result in lessons that inform (and delay) future construction. If we want to jam one or a dozen plants through in less than 10 years, that might be possible, however the long term prognosis is that it will take more time than you are claiming.

[kristopher]

25. It isn't "coal or nuclear"; renewables are far better than either one.

[Go2Peace]

132. Nuclear has a much larger carbon footprint than advertised. The lies abound

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45989/story.htm

[Statistical]

135. I'll trust IPCC. IPCC has no agenda other than saving the planet

Total life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are below 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (10 gC-eq/kWh), similar to those for renewable energy sources (Figure 4.18). (WEC, 2004a; Vattenfall, 2005). Nuclear power is therefore an effective GHG mitigation option, especially through license extensions of existing plants enabling investments in retro-fitting and upgrading. Nuclear power currently avoids approximately 2.2–2.6 GtCO2/yr if that power were instead produced from coal (WNA, 2003; Rogner, 2003) or 1.5 GtCO2/yr if using the world average CO2 emissions for electricity production in 2000 of 540 gCO2/kWh (WEC, 2001).

IPCC Report on Climate Change 2007 - Section 4.3.2

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-2.html

[NNadir]

10. The comparison between nuclear power and McDonald's is typical of the weak anti-science

paranoias of the anti-nuke industry, a wholly owned subsidiary of the dangerous fossil fuel industry.

The people who complain the most about nuclear industry are precisely and exactly the people who know the least about it. These are people who have never read a life cycle analysis paper in their useless lives.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else, including the stuff anti-nukes don't care about.

It only needs to be vastly better, which, happily, it is.

If they knew anything about the subject, they could compare the radioactive physiological impact on the citizens of Vermont with the radioactive physiological impact on the citizens of Vermont from eating banana pancakes.

But, because these paranoids are completely ignorant of nuclear science, and approach it from ignorance, they are willing to kill through the entrenchment of dangerous fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

17. Renewable energy is much cleaner, much faster to build and much less expensive than nuclear.

The idea that nuclear waste is "safe" is an idiotic proposition that only an agenda driven person would even attempt to pass off as true.
Cost:

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

What is the final analysis by Mr. Severance?

Putting it All Together – Total Generation Costs/kWh
“MOST LIKELY” SCENARIO
Projected Total Generation Cost/kWh of New Nuclear Power
(In Nominal Dollars in Projected 2018 First Year of Full Operation)
COST COMPONENT $/KWH
CAPITAL COST $0.22
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE W/O FUEL $0.01
PROPERTY TAXES $0.02
DECOMMISSIONING & WASTE COSTS RESERVE $0.02
FUEL CYCLE COSTS $0.03
TOTAL DOLLARS/KWH $0.30

The “Lower Cost” Case has Capital Costs of $0.17/kWh, thus a total $0.25/kWh.

Overall technology assessment excluding cost:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Merchant Marine]

36. It would be cute

If you could make an original argument for once, instead of copy-pasting the same article 20 times. Seriously, I'm sick of seeing that text block.

[kristopher]

37. Every time you see it, it is to disprove a false assertion.

If you are sick of seeing the peer reviewed independent analysis, you can be assured that others are equally sick of the falsehoods being promoted by the nuclear industry which the analysis refutes.

[bananas]

75. It would be cute

If you could make an original argument for once, period.

[Nihil]

77. I think you meant to post that as a reply to .17 ...

... given that it was the n-hundredth time that the poor old
worn out "Mark Z. Jacobson" cut & paste was applied ...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

78. I'm still waiting for the analysis you owe me saying renewables can't replace coal

And do it faster and cheaper than nuclear...


Still waiting....

[Liberation Angel]

80. nukes = death

i am computer compromised right now but glad you all r fighting the good fight against nukes and coal and FOR renewables.
i am a downwinder -we almost all are- and the nuke emissions and toxic effluents into our air and water kills- slowly and painfully- or it kills/deforms babies in utero - so nukes=death
data can be found at
www.radiation.org

nukes harmed my two kids and caused one miscarriage of my baby - after a major leak in my hometown

anyone who supports this industry is sick, deluded or delusional

obama is being naive - dangerously so

[bananas]

114. Kind of like the guy who went to jail for murder because his Toyota brakes failed

They didn't believe the Toyota brakes could fail, so they concluded he must have run down those people on purpose.
:hi:

[bahrbearian]

82. Good work debating the Nuke lobby here.

I don't understand the how they can spend so much time defending the industry, they must be getting paid overtime.

[Statistical]

84. Good work from the coal lobby here.

I don't understand the how they can spend so much time defending the industry, they must be getting paid overtime.

In the absence of nuclear utilities will build coal.
The idea that they will shutter all nuclear plants and then happily spent trillions to build out 100% renewable grid is laughable.
Nobody (in any country) projects wind and solar providing more than 20%-30% in next couple decades.
So the balance will be made by coal.

There is a reason why coal generates 50% of our power. It works, it is insanely cheap, and utilities don't care if it destroys the climate eventually.

[kristopher]

90. Renewable energy, stats, renewable energy.

The only thing you have is the false claim that it is coal or nuclear. There is no valid analysis that supports your assertion and there are literally dozens (if not hundreds) that contradict it.

Renewables can do the job of getting us off of fossil fuels far faster, far cheaper and much much safer than nuclear power can.

[Statistical]

93. For last 30 years we didn't build nuclear. Did we build renewables?

Nope. We built coal and coal and a shitload more coal.

Obama administrations estimate for wind capacity in 2040 is 12%. Solar an even smaller chunk. Locations for large scale hydro is all but tapped out.

Nobody anywhere is realistically predicting a switch to all renewable in next 30-40 years.

So in the absence of a 10,000% increase in renewable and in the absence of nuclear energy WE WILL CONTINUE TO BURN MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF COAL.

That is the reality we live in. Pretend time won't make that go away.

The environmentalists in the 1970s cheered when last nuclear project shut down. VICTORY! Then watched as we built 480 new coal plants over next 3 decades.

When you show me something for a policy maker (govt, EPA, utilities) that we will replace coal with renewables I will buy that line till then it is a bunch of hot air. Not a study from enviromental group on what they want, or what they hope for, or what we could do. A study, or plan from someone actually doing the spending and building showing we WILL!

[kristopher]

98. The same reason you seek a nuclear revivial is why we will build renewables.

That is the stupidest argument you've ever made; and there is a lot of competition in that area from you.

[Statistical]

101. Coal consumption rose last year and year before that and year before that.

Coal is incredibly cheap and can provide baseload power very inexpensively.

Without nuclear we will burn more coal. The good news is despite Luddites like yourself the ball is in motion and we will build 20 reactors in the next couple decades. That will provide far more emission free capacity than all the new solar and wind combined.

[kristopher]

103. No new coal plants have been approved for 2 years.

And if we focus on building renewables we can shut the existing ones down FASTER than we can trying to build nuclear.

Nuclear is the recipe for more carbon emissions compared to renewables.

[Statistical]

106. No new coals plants have been built because there is plenty of spare capacity.

More coal burned in same number of plants. Every year. Last year, and the year before and the year before.

[kristopher]

109. There were a lot that were planned and shot down.

You are just full of it dude. There is no debate - renewables can do the job far faster, far cheaper, and much, much safer than nuclear can.

[Statistical]

112. Well they aren't.

Today nuclear power makes up 80% of all emission free power in the United States and that is despite no new plants being built in 30 years. Wind/Solar had 30 year chance to even catch up but nuclear still provides 80% of all emission free power.


Total generation by type



The 28 planned reactors have combined annual generation that is more than all wind and solar power in the United States combined.

Even Obama adminstration projections are that wind will make up less than 20% of all generation in year 2030. Two decades from now wind will have less generation that nuclear does today.

[bananas]

117. Not true - the Sierra Club and other groups fought hard to stop them

They would have been built if it weren't for action by environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, and many others.

[bananas]

125. March 2007: "The Sierra Club and other groups are litigating every step of the way"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=86240&mesg_id=86240

"The Sierra Club and other groups are litigating every step of the way"

Hooray for The Sierra Club!

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/4067...

FEATURE - US Coal-Fired Power Plant Plans up in Smoke?

US: March 5, 2007

NEW YORK - The future of coal-fired power plants is seen so tied up by legal challenges from green groups, that it could slow, or even thwart, plans to use America's abundant coal supplies to generate its growing electricity needs.

<snip>

LITIGATION "EVERY STEP OF THE WAY"

Price said Peabody Energy Corp has been unable to build two coal-fired plants for several years, as opposition by environmental groups has tied up the plans in courts.

North Carolina just approved one of two planned 800-megawatt coal-fired power units Duke Energy wants to build, but only four U.S. plants have come on line since 2000, even though 155 were built between 1980 and 1999.

"The Sierra Club and other groups are litigating every step of the way," said Price. "It's an arduous process and no matter who wins, someone will appeal."

<snip>

[bananas]

126. July 2007: Green groups sue U.S. government to stop coal plant

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=105304&mesg_id=105304

jpak Tue Jul-24-07 02:16 PM
Original message

Green groups sue U.S. government to stop coal plant

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN233...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Green groups said they filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to stop a U.S. government office from funding the building of a coal-fired power station until it discloses the global warming impacts of the plant.

The Rural Utilities Service, a Great Depression-era program to bring power to rural areas, agreed in May to fund the majority of the $720 million, 250-megawatt Highwood Generating Station near Great Falls, Montana. The office is considering helping to fund billions more for an additional six coal-fired power plants from Wyoming to Kentucky.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by environmental law firm Earthjustice, green group the Sierra Club and others. It claims RUS broke federal environmental laws by not disclosing the impacts of the Montana plant and that it did not consider other power generation sources such as wind power before moving ahead with funding for it.

The suit seeks to stop the office, part of the Department of Agriculture, from approving federal loan funds for the plants until it confronts the global warming impacts of coal burning. The loan rates would be about 2 percentage points lower than commercial rates.

<more>

[bananas]

127. July 2007: They got the TXU coal plants stopped

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=105304&mesg_id=105365

bananas Wed Jul-25-07 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #7

9. They got the TXU coal plants stopped

Right now, these environmental groups are the only ones getting coal plants stopped.
They are on the front lines - and the pro-nukes shoot them in the back.
Heckuva job, nukies!

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sier...

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 66,700 for sierra club txu coal. (0.10 seconds)

Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club(Austin, TX) – The Sierra Club has achieved party status in contested case hearings on six TXU permit applications to build and operate coal-fired power ...
texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/20061211.asp - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club(Austin)--A Texas Sierra Club spokesperson today celebrated the cancellation of eight proposed TXU coal plants as a victory that resulted from the ...
texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/20070226.asp - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from texas.sierraclub.org >

Stop The Coal RushThe event was funded by contributions from Sierra Club members and other individuals ... “The cancellation of eight proposed TXU coal plants is certainly a ...
www.stopthecoalrush.com / - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

Stop The Coal Rush » Thousands Rally at the State Capitol to “Stop ...Kudos to our MCs – Ann Drumm, Chair of the Dallas Sierra Club and Sam Canup, .... “The cancellation of eight proposed TXU coal plants is certainly a victory ...
www.stopthecoalrush.com/2007/03/13/ thousands-rally-at-the-state-capitol-to-“stop-the-coal-rush”/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.stopthecoalrush.com >

Coal Rush Plants :: Sierra ClubThis case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will ...
www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp - 235k - Cached - Similar pages

Electric Utility, Sierra Club End Dispute - washingtonpost.comThe Sierra Club and Kansas City Power & Light Co. have signed an unusual accord ... would shelve eight of the 11 coal-fired plants on TXU's drawing boards. ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901606.html - Similar pages

Lone Star Chapter, Sierra ClubRead the coal report at www.sierraclub.org/coal/dirtytruth/report. ... decision by the TCEQ commissioners on a 2-1 vote to permit TXU's huge Oak Grove coal ...
www.lonestar.sierraclub.org / press/newsreleases/20070621.asp - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Sierra Club joins coal plant lawsuit - Dallas Business Journal:Sierra Club joins coal plant lawsuit, ... six separate pending TXU permits into one administrative docket," the Sierra Club says in its petition. ...
dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/ stories/2006/12/25/daily16.html - 98k - Cached - Similar pages

Cool Cities NowFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Sierra Club and the American. Lung Association, the rally. called on lawmakers to support. a time out on permits for the. new plants. The TXU coal ...
newjersey.sierraclub.org/ ConCom/CoolCities/CoolCitiesNow2.pdf - Similar pages

Activists Successful In Stopping What Some Call The TXU "Coal Rush"Cancellation of Eight TXU Coal Plants ... The victory has been celebrated by many, but the Sierra Club raised concerns that state officials may now think ...
ktvt.iewatershed.com/index. php?pagename=news_070328_coal - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

[bananas]

128. Sourcewatch: Nonviolent direct actions against coal, 2004-2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3509639&mesg_id=3509792

bananas Wed Sep-24-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #3

12. Sourcewatch: Nonviolent direct actions against coal

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nonviolent_d...

Around the world, nonviolent direct action—a term which, in contemporary social movements, is usually used to refer to acts of civil disobedience, in which activists blockade or occupy public or private space—has become an increasingly common tactic of anti-coal climate activists since 2004. Direct action protests have occurred in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States (California, Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and elsewhere). Targets have included American Electric Power, AMP-Ohio, Bank of America, BHP Billiton, Citibank, E.ON, Dominion Power, Duke Energy, Edelman Public Relations, Fortune Minerals, Massey Energy, Merrill Lynch, Miller Argent, Mirant, National Coal Corporation, Sithe Global Power, and Solid Energy.

<snip>

For details, images, and videos of specific direct actions, see the following:
Nonviolent direct actions against coal: 2004-2007
Nonviolent direct actions against coal: 2008
Coal Activist Videos
Coal Activist Videos: Direct Action
Coal Activist Videos: Mountaintop removal

<snip>

[bananas]

130. The sourcewatch page has been kept current and lists all protests to date (2004-2010)

I don't want people to think the protests stopped in 2008,
I just searched for some posts which make my point.
Here is the link to the sourcewatch page: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nonviolent_direct_actions_against_coal

[bananas]

129. June 2008: Ga. judge halts construction of coal-fired plant

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3376067

bananas Mon Jun-30-08 09:38 PM

Original message
Ga. judge halts construction of coal-fired plant

Source: AP

ATLANTA --The construction of a coal-fired power plant in Georgia was halted Monday when a judge ruled that the plant's builders must first obtain a permit from state regulators that limits the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.

Fulton County Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore's decision overturned a ruling that allowed the construction of the $2 billion Longleaf Energy Plant, which would become Georgia's first new coal-fired plant in more than two decades.

Environmentalists said the decision marks the first time that a judge has applied a U.S. Supreme Court finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant to emissions from an industrial source.

<snip>

"We will be taking this decision and making the same arguments to push for an end to conventional coal," said Bruce Nilles, who oversees the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.charlotte.com/204/story/693402.html


Congratulations to the Sierra Club for this victory!
Joe Romm has more on his blog: http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/30/breaking-news-geo... /

[bananas]

111. Stupid argument

We started going to renewables under Carter, Reagan came in and set us back 30 years.
John Warner even said "Jimmy Carter was right". http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x374252
You wrote "Nobody anywhere is realistically predicting a switch to all renewable in next 30-40 years."
Well nobody anywhere is realistically predicting a switch to all nuclear in next 30-40 years either, so that's a stupid argument.

[Statistical]

115. No but 20 years from now wind will only have the generation capacity that nuclear does today

Today nuclear makes up 20% of generation (largest source of emission free power).
Obama administrations estimate is that wind will make up 20% in year 2030.
Ending nuclear would be a step backwards.

It means as wind capacity increases nuclear capacity will decrease meaning no increase in emission free sources.

It is like putting reduction of fossil fuels on pause for 2 decades. Two decades the planet doesn't have. One the other hand if enough nuclear is built to keep capacity at 20% and wind grows to 20% and solar grows to 5% then we could have a substantial reduction in fossil fuel usage.

Given wind will NOT replace fossil fuels in next 20, 30 or even 40 years we need to build out every source of emission free power. Not doing so will simply trade one emission free source for another one as nuclear plants reach end of life and energy demand grows.

[kristopher]

116. That isn't a plan...

That is a "we could" report by DOE. There is no reason to bring nuclear offline faster than it becomes obsolete, so that is another straw man. Nuclear would be the last to go.

However since renewables are able to be deployed faster and cheaper (more power per $$ per unit of time) is asinine to claim that nuclear displaces fossil fuels faster.

It is an idiotic claim.

It is a stupic assertion.

It doesn't hold water.

It doesn't make ANY sense.

It is a statement without valid meaning.

Renewables are able to be deployed faster and cheaper (more power per $$ per unit of time) so is is asinine to claim that taking money from the optimal strategy (renewables) and applying it to a suboptimal strategy (nuclear) is going to accelerate the pace of change.

[joshcryer]

118. It's all about money for you.

You couldn't care less about the planet.

[bananas]

124. What a stupid thing to say.

Seems like you're the one who couldn't care less about the planet.

[Nihil]

134. Ouch.

> The environmentalists in the 1970s cheered when
> last nuclear project shut down. VICTORY! Then watched
> as we built 480 new coal plants over next 3 decades.

:wow:

[Nihil]

133. And, as I've explained before, ...

... we can all see that you pay no attention whatsoever to
any study that goes counter to your own personal opinion.

There are plenty of examples of that on this thread alone.

As I stated last time, I have no intention of giving you
an opportunity to ignore whatever I post and simply close
down the thread with the inevitable blanket of cut & paste
Jacobson extracts.

:hi:

(Edit for typo)

[kristopher]

136. Tap dancing.

You can't produce analysis concluding that renewables cannot replace fossil fuels because there are none. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the fact that it is a specious and dishonest claim made by those promoting either nuclear energy or continued use of fossil fuels.

[Nihil]

137. I defer to an expert

(at tap dancing around the subject)

[bananas]

72. Obama’s nuclear greenwash just doesn’t wash

http://nuclear-news.net/2010/03/10/obamas-nuclear-greenwash-just-doesnt-wash/

Obama’s nuclear greenwash just doesn’t wash



Don’t buy Obama’s greenwashing of nuclear power | Erich Pica | guardian.co.uk, 10 March 2010, Last month, inspectors found dangerous chemicals in the groundwater near the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. The situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama’s recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you’ve bought in to the administration’s greenwashing of nuclear.