Clean Energy, Guaranteed: Why Nuclear Energy Is Worth the Cost

[wtmusic]

"Last month, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia — the first to be built in the U.S. in more than 30 years. That announcement followed the president’s proposal to triple nuclear loan guarantees to $54.5 billion in his latest budget. If there had been any doubt about the administration’s support for nuclear power, the president’s actions in recent weeks should dispel them.

Obama’s pro-nuclear approach has displeased some of his allies in the environmental community. Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, which endorsed Obama in the 2008 election, told the New York Times recently, “We were hopeful last year; he was saying all the right things. But now he has become a full-blown nuclear power proponent, a startling change over the last few months.”

But the president’s advocacy for nuclear energy shouldn’t disappoint progressives. Over the past few years the need to significantly reduce the emissions of carbon into the atmosphere has become generally accepted. This can only be accomplished if we replace large amounts of carbon-emitting electricity generated by coal with low- and non-emitting sources. While renewable sources like wind and solar power will no doubt play a greater role as we move beyond fossil fuels, we are still decades away from scaling up those sources and upgrading the grid to meet our base load electricity requirements. In light of our electricity needs, nuclear power must be a part of our energy future."

http://www.progressivefix.com/clean-energy-guaranteed-why-nuclear-energy-is-worth-the-cost

[PSPS]

1. Sure, looks peachy when you 'forget' to figure in waste disposal costs.

[Statistical]

2. Levelized costs include spent fuel storage and reactor disposal costs.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Stop confusing people

You and your facts. :eyes:

[Kolesar]

12. levelized costs include the cost of constructing the plant, the time required to construct the plant

... the non-fuel costs of operating the plant, the fuel costs, the cost of financing, and the utilization of the plant.

No mention of disposal costs in the EIA article. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

How does one dispose of a radioactive vessel anyway? The Beaver Valley vessel was barged to Hanford, WA and dumped in a hole. Modern pressure vessels are too big to do that. I doubt that any steel plant can use radioactive steel, so how will the utilities dispose of that waste?

[Statistical]

13. Today the prefered method is "safe store".

Fuel assemblies removed, pressure vessel is drained & decontaminated (removing any lose high level radioactive matter). The pressure vessel itself will remain radioactive for some time however the isotopes are short lived. So the vessel is secured for 40 years to allow those short lived isotopes to "burn off". The vessel is then removed from the site entombed in concrete and buried. The containment building is collapsed and site returned to "greenfield" status.

This is the method used for Rancho Seco for example. To date of the 400 acre site only 11 acres remains restricted by NRC. The pressure vessel is scheduled to be removed in 2018 and then containment building and cooling towers will be collapsed.

[Zoeisright]

4. No kidding. And enormous subsidies.

This is a crock of shit.

[wtmusic]

7. Renewables get twice the federal subsidy nuclear gets.

"The 2006 Department of Energy research and development budget provides $1.2 billion for renewables and conservation, $800 million for clean coal, and $510 million for nuclear. These levels reflect the growing awareness that the United States will need a diverse generation portfolio to meet increasing demand, to reduce emissions, and to move closer to energy independence."

Not including the $18/MWH production tax credit for wind.

Disputing the "Nuclear Subsidies" Myth

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/03/disputing-nuclear-subsidies-myth.html

[Statistical]

9. On a per unit of energy basis it is 15x that of nuclear (or any other form of energy)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

page 6

Subsidies & Support per unit of Production
(dollars per MWh)
Nuclear $1.59
Solar $24.34
Wind $23.37
Coal $1.49 (includes susbsidies for "refined coal" & CCS)

Everything else Natural Gas, Biomass, biofuels, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas, municipal solid waste are all between $0.25 and $1.50

So if you want the UNSUBSIDIZED prices then add $1.59 to nuclear, and $24 to Solar & Wind in the OP.

[kristopher]

16. Nuclear gets that same subsidy

The only way you can arrive at those deceptive claims are by disregarding the fact that for the past 50 years nuclear power has received 96% of all non-fossil energy subsidies. You then use the output derived from those subsidies to make the ongoing amount appear artificially lower than it is.

You second act of dishonesty is to take the small slice of subsidies devoted strictly to R&D and pretend that is a comprehensive number, It isn't.

The third attempt at deception occurs when you pretend the production tax credit only applies to wind, when in fact it applies to all new "innovative technology" generation. Any nuclear that comes online while the program is ongoing is also eligible.

In fact, nuclear is STILL receiving the lions share of subsidies. If we count the amount of loan guarantees and direct loans the split is somewhere between 70-90% nuclear to 10-30% split between all renewables, conservation and energy efficiency.

The ambiguity lies in the fact that the stimulus funds are yet to be accounted for.

[Statistical]

18. It isn't by dishonesty. I copied and pasted directly from DOE report on energy subsidies.

You keep claiming nuclear is eligible for 2 cents per kWh subsidy got a link?

That would be wonderful news but I doubt it. Nuclear reactors (unlike wind & solar) produce more than a token amount of power so 2 cents per kWh would get really big really quick.

To put it into context current subsidies for nuclear energy are 1/8th of 1 penny per kWh.

[kristopher]

21. Repeating it doesn't make it less dishonest.

And if you want to see the part on nuclear being eligible then go to the originating legislation or the enacting regulations. What am I, your effing research service?


The only way you can arrive at those deceptive claims are by disregarding the fact that for the past 50 years nuclear power has received 96% of all non-fossil energy subsidies. You then use the output derived from those subsidies to make the ongoing amount appear artificially lower than it is.

You second act of dishonesty is to take the small slice of subsidies devoted strictly to R&D and pretend that is a comprehensive number, It isn't.

The third attempt at deception occurs when you pretend the production tax credit only applies to wind, when in fact it applies to all new "innovative technology" generation. Any nuclear that comes online while the program is ongoing is also eligible.

In fact, nuclear is STILL receiving the lions share of subsidies. If we count the amount of loan guarantees and direct loans the split is somewhere between 70-90% nuclear to 10-30% split between all renewables, conservation and energy efficiency.

The ambiguity lies in the fact that the stimulus funds are yet to be accounted for.

[Statistical]

23. "You second act of dishonesty is to take the small slice of subsidies devoted strictly to R&D"

Wrong, if you read you will learn.

That is TOTAL subsidies. On previous page (page 5) DOE breaks it down further for you.

72% of subsidies for wind/solar are tax credits paid directly to utility per unit of energy produced.

TOTAL SUBSIDIES FOR NUCLEAR ARE 1/15th THAT OF WIND & SOLAR ON A PER ENERGY BASIS

Another way to look at it is if we consider wind, solar, nuclear for preventing GHG then nuclear gets paid about ~$15 per ton of CO2 prevented. Wind & Solar get paid ~$240 per ton of CO2 prevented.

[kristopher]

26. ON a per energy basis?

And what fucking kind of basis is that to use?

It is a perversion of the facts.

It is dishonest.

It is not a realistic representation of reality since reality includes NOT ONLY the output derived from receiving 96% of subsidies for 50 years but also the INPUT OF THOSE SUBSIDIES. To insist on using the output while ignoring the input is simply lying.

The upshot is you are comparing a mature industry that has received and continues to receive the massive subsidies to an GROUP of emerging industries that have had to split the remaining 4% for the past 50 years.

[tinrobot]

6. Don't forget that the government picks up the tab for insurance as well.

[Statistical]

10. Picks up insurance after first $10.4 billion (paid for by utilities)

How many other industries have more than $10.4 billion in insurance?
Total cost to tax payers to date under this program. $0.00

[kristopher]

20. If there is no cost, then why is it needed? Just get it on the commercial ins. market.

[Statistical]

24. How much insurance?

$10.4 billion? It is already done.

What is to prevent people like you for pushing for $500 billion in insurance, $800 billion, $7 trillion, $7893824 quadrillion in insurance?

That was the whole point of the act. The nuclear utilities have a massive amount of private insurance already.
The law sets the amount of insurance required and then backstops anything beyond that.

[kristopher]

27. I don't know, how much would it cost to abandon NYC and the Hudson Valley?

It isn't "people like" me, it is the potential for loss that accompanies the industry. I didn't create that potential, it is part and parcel of the technology.

If the potential for failure you claim were legitimate, then the commercial insurance would reflect that in its pricing. Since the industry can't afford to pay for the insurance to cover those potential losses, and must instead foist the risk off onto the public sector, it is clear that the risk is higher than you assert.

Nothing is FREE. If the public assumes the risk of loss that doesn't eliminate the risk, it just externalizes the cost to the industry.
If the public assumes the 50-70% risk of default in financing the nuclear projects, it doesn't eliminate the risk, it just externalizes the costs of the risks to the investors.

Externalizing costs of risks isn't the same as eliminating those risks nor their costs.

[Heywood J]

28. Uh, technically the asbestos and debris from the WTC and the

steam pipe explosions have contaminated more of Manhattan than nuclear power has. Judging by their failure rates and proximity, the steam pipes under the streets are more of a threat than the nuclear plant.

[kristopher]

30. THe issue is risk, not damage to date. I don't expect my house to burn down but I have insurance.

Private insurance is prohibitively expensive because the degree of damage is so high that despite the low probability it is too great a risk to bet money on.

Here is a sample of why:
USC Davis Besse Reactor with a hole in its head
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf

Scapegoating Davis Besse by NRC
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html

Retrospective
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html

[Heywood J]

33. Is it that the degree of damage is so high or that

any utility can expect a number of lawsuits, some completely without merit yet needing to be settled/defended? To see what utilities deal with, check out the lady that sued Con Ed because the steam pipe reminded her of 9/11, so she couldn't read her books. Now look at the number of people who get absolutely scared shitless when a forklift malfunctions at a nuclear plant, outside in the yard.

Don't get me wrong, older reactors have risks associated with them and need to be watched carefully, but newer reactors are a hell of a lot safer in most cases. CANDU reactors, for instance, burn waste from other reactors and are designed to shut down automatically when anything happens. Several new European designs do the same thing. Not every nuclear plant is TMI or Chernobyl.

[flamin lib]

5. Oh now ya' done it. The solar missionaries will be on you

like a duck on a June bug.

Truth be told every energy source has a down side, even solar. Ya' just can't convince some of the true believers.

Not to say solar isn't in the future but there are definite down sides.

For instance, the most efficient method of wholesale electric production is solar heated steam generators--yeah yeah, water or freon or whatever it's still a turbine generator. Such generators take billions of gallons of water to cool and water is in short supply in the desert where most solar generators will be located.

Direct generating panels cover a huge area for the output needed. Large tracts of land that once received sunlight 40% of the time will suddenly be dark 100% of the time. That's kinda hard on indigenous species.

Not to mention the cost per KWH which is still way too high compared to other sources.

So, yeah, there are downsides even to solar which needs to be a part of the solution along with wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear.

Flame on!

Edit to add: End point solar panels are the lowest impact method of adding solar to the mix. Soon as your house is solar powered with roof panels I'll entertain arguments for that. Meanwhile, accept that we need more power than solar can supply and nuclear is one source that can be part of the mix.

[joshcryer]

8. It looks like energy efficiency would do a whole lot more than this, check this out:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-23-building-energy-codes-are-best-part-of-waxman-markey

[Statistical]

11. How about energy efficiency and nuclear (and solar & wind)

and even natural gas. It helps to balance supply & demand and it is far cleaner than coal. Since 0.00 emissions is unliekly in my lifetime even switching from coal to natural gas would be a massive reduction in CO2 and something I can live with.

Nice thing is the free market will take care of that (it just needs a nudge)

At $45 per ton of CO2 both natural gas and nuclear are cheaper than coal. Utilities self interest and planets self interest are aligned with a carbon tax.

[joshcryer]

31. Absolutely.

That was not at all precluded by my statements. ;)

[hunter]

14. Obama's support of nuclear energy is one of the reasons I like him.

If only he opposed coal.

My perfect politician would be working for a shut down of all coal fired power plants. I want a president who demands "no new coal" and has a plan to shut down every last coal plant by 2025 or earlier.

The coal industry worldwide needs to be killed and buried.

[kristopher]

15. Another one of your crappy, half assed blog "analysis" sets out to prove a predetermined conclusion.

Let me guess, "pragmatic progressives" are refugees from the RNC trying to push the Republican energy agenda within the Democratic party?

The author, Prof. Klein, is a professor of nuclear engineering, not an economist, not a CPA, not trained in any way to perform the economic analysis he purports to have accomplished. Typical of those with an agenda, he has hinged his entire argument on a single source that gives him a nugget of data that he can extrapolate into his predetermined conclusion.

The EIA is a good source of statistical data, but their analyses for anything other than business as usual are horrible and are disregarded by anyone with any knowledge of the energy industry. For example, if the good professor had delved a little more deeply into the numbers, he would have found that in this forecast there are virtually no changes predicted in the nation's energy mix over the next 25 years. For renewables, they have had to adjust their prior forecasts upwards by around 200%, but then going forward they none-the-less go back to the trend line with renewables in a no growth state.

For something to contrast with the trash analysis in the OP, see an online summarized version of Cooper's (CPA) analysis here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

The full analysis is available for download at the end of the article.

Conclusion

The highly touted renaissance of nuclear power is based on fiction, not fact. It got a significant part of its momentum in the early 2000s with a series of cost projections that vastly understated the direct costs of nuclear reactors. As those early cost estimates fell by the wayside and the extremely high direct costs of nuclear reactors became apparent, advocates for nuclear power turned to climate change as the rationale to offset the high cost. But introducing environmental externalities does not resuscitate the nuclear option for two reasons. First, consideration of externalities improves the prospects of non-fossil, non-nuclear options to respond to climate change. Second, introducing externalities so prominently into the analysis highlights nuclear power’s own environmental problems. Even with climate change policy looming, nuclear power cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace, so its advocates are forced to seek to prop it up by shifting costs and risks to ratepayers and taxpayers.

The aspiration of the nuclear enthusiasts, embodied in early reports from academic institutions, like MIT, has become desperation, in the updated MIT report, precisely because their reactor cost numbers do not comport with reality. Notwithstanding their hope and hype, nuclear reactors are not economically competitive and would require massive subsidies to force them into the supply mix. It was only by ignoring the full range of alternatives — above all efficiency and renewables — that the MIT studies could pretend to see an economic future for nuclear reactors, but the analytic environment has changed from the early days of the great bandwagon market, so that it is much more difficult to get away with passing off hope and hype as reality.

The massive shift of costs necessary to render nuclear barely competitive with the most expensive alternatives and the huge amount of leverage (figurative and literal) that is necessary to make nuclear power palatable to Wall Street and less onerous on ratepayers is simply not worth it because the burden falls on taxpayers. Policymakers, regulators, and the public should turn their attention to and put their resources behind the lower-cost, more environmentally benign alternatives that are available. If nuclear power’s time ever comes, it will be far in the future, after the potential of the superior alternatives available today has been exhausted.

It is worth downloading the full report just to examine the variety of sources that have gone into the analysis.

[Statistical]

17. The stats came from the Obma Administrations' Department of Energy

Crazy me I think I must trust them when it comes to figuring out the cost of ....... ENERGY!

[kristopher]

19. If you depend on the EIA for anything other than BAU you ARE crazy.

Don't believe me? Look at their forecasts for penetration of renewables AND nuclear through 2035 at the linked reference.

[amborin]

22. a WH press release?

[Statistical]

25. Press Release? No the 2010 Annual Energy Outlook

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

A report the DOE is required to complete every year as mandated by Congress.

[Heywood J]

29. Honestly, if new nuclear plants didn't have to include the cost

of stopping/starting construction several times, policing dedicated protest groups, political hold-ups and uncertainty, and being sent back to the drawing board over minuscule details, I wonder how much less they would cost to build, operate, and decommission. I wonder if we would have billion-dollar overruns, or whether that's an artificial creation passed on to ratepayers.

What we need are unambiguous, up-front, and consistent guidelines and requirements for construction, operation, and removal of nuclear plants - before any plans are drawn up. Perhaps then we might have stable costs with which to predict energy pricing. It would also enable the calculation of clear cost/benefit ratios and we could have real debates.

[Statistical]

32. The good news is we do (now) and that is what the anti-nukkers are afraid of.

Regulatory structure related to construction and licensing changed radically in 2000.

Utilities now obtain a single all encompassing license up front (before starting construction or interest clock begins). The COL replaces nearly a dozen haphazardly drawn up licenses and permits sometimes with overlapping and conflicting requirements and authorities.

The worst example of anti-nuker hysteria would be Shoreham.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The reactor was flawless and built to specification despite being delayed 27 times over course of a decade. Due to the stupid regulatory structure of 1990s the utility was denied a license to SELL POWER. They had license to build and operate a reactor but they were not issued a commercial utility license. The utility essentially spent $6 billion and a decade to own a massive paperweight.