Nuclear power's future

[jpak]

http://www.energybulletin.net/8282.html

In a world worried about global warming and escalating coal, oil and gas prices, the nuclear industry has seized an opportunity for rebirth.

Nuclear advocates are working to reshape the atom's image from that of an environmental nightmare and utility bankrupter to an affordable and Earth-friendly energy source - and a hedge against future energy shortages.

Nuclear expansion is the best hope, they argue, to cut carbon dioxide and other emissions that government and many in dustry leaders now believe are creating a perilous climate future.

U.S. power consumption is projected to increase by 50 percent by 2025, and additional reactors would be the cleanest choice.

<more>

[Oerdin]

1. What a partisan hack job.

"That proves that nuclear is not economically viable"

That quote alone proves that fellow doesn't know what he's talking about. Ask a Frenchman or the Japanese if nuclear power is economically viable. They both get 70% to 80% of their power through green house gas free nuclear power instead of coal, oil, or natural gas which pollute the environment and often come from dictatorships which support terrorism and oppress their population. Here in San Diego we get 1/3 of our electricity from nuclear power and the plant is so profitable that San Diego Gas & Electric has plans to expand it.

Also a note on Jpak's creditability; can you please say whither you continue to claim the Earth will run out of nuclear fuel in seven years, as you foolishly stated in the other nuclear thread, or have you accepted how laughable that statement was/is?

[jpak]

2. Please read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x29898

Also...

The World Nuclear Association forecasts global uranium demand will outstrip supply by 2013....

http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/142004/section4p1.html

<snip>

Cameco Corp. plans to boost annual output 18 percent at Canada's McArthur River mine, the world's richest uranium deposit. Areva SA of France is investing $90 million to develop a mine in southern Kazakhstan. And International Uranium Corp. is searching the Gobi Desert.

Producers are scouring the world for uranium. The price of the radioactive element has risen 51 percent since the Russian government decided in October to limit its uranium exports, which are used to generate half of all U.S. nuclear power. At the same time, world demand will outpace supply by 11 percent in the decade ending in 2013 as inventories decline, the World Nuclear Association trade group forecasts.

"You just have to look at the supply and demand of uranium to see there's going to be a huge shortage," said Len Racioppo, president of Montreal-based Jarislowsky Fraser Ltd., Cameco's second-biggest shareholder, with 3.44 million shares as of March.

Uranium reached a 20-year high of $17.75 a pound on the spot market in March after Russia decided to use more of the metal for 25 nuclear plants it plans to build by 2020. To keep prices from rising further, power companies began avoiding spot purchases, and prices leveled off in April. Buyers are instead focused on material needed in 2005 and 2006.

<end snip>

Any further comments regarding my "credibility"?????

[Massacure]

3. The demand for oil outstripped supply in 1973.

That doesn't mean it was gone.

[jpak]

4. and Peak Oil is a rumor

and the moon is made out of green cheese

Oh, and there was a little something called an Arab Oil Boycott thingy going on in 1973.

Guess one had to be there....

[Massacure]

5. What do rumors have to do with it?

[jpak]

6. Some people deny that petroleum is a finite resource

Some people deny uranium is a finite resource.

The facts, however, are undeniable.

[Massacure]

7. Of course uranium is finite. But it isn't going to run out in 7 years.

[jpak]

8. I never said it was going to run out in 7 years

That was a fucking lie.

I stated exactly what the World Nuclear Association stated - that global uranium demand would outstrip supply by 2013.

That poster's comment was a complete distortion of what I said.

****holding tongue*****

on edit:

:mad:

[jpak]

9. I never claimed that the Earth would run out of uranium in 7 years

Please amend your comment.

[jpak]

13. That's a fucking lie

I never said that the Earth will run out of uranium in seven years.

Show us on the "other nuclear thread" where I made that claim.

[struggle4progress]

10. " ... The first new reactors could cost up to $2.5 billion each ... " eom

[dcfirefighter]

11. ...or about 0.3 cents a kW-h

if they are 1500 MW / 90% capacity loaded / operate for 60 years.

[struggle4progress]

12. That's a dishonest calculation: you're ignoring all operating costs. eom

[dcfirefighter]

14. It's an honest assessment of construction costs

though it does ignore the time value of money. The post you maded was regarding construction costs, not operating costs.

[struggle4progress]

17. Not even an honest assessment of construction costs: no 60 year-old ..

.. N-plants exist to date, and many have closed long before the originally predicted lifespan elapsed. It is, moreover, entirely senseless to reckon original construction costs on a "per kW-hr" basis over a projected lifetime without including the anticipated repair/replacement costs over the same period ...

[dcfirefighter]

19. Ok

you mentioned construction costs, not operations / replacement costs.

Cut it in half. Calvert Cliffs has been operational since 1975.
0.6 cents a kW-h.

[struggle4progress]

20. It's still a meaningless calculation. What is the point of distributing ..

.. unfinanced construction costs over the projected lifetime of a plant, without taking into account operating and repair/replacement costs? Absolutely no useful information results.

Ya know, I could do the same calculation for an automobile: say it costs $25K, has a 250 hp motor, and I expect to drive it 200,000 miles at an average speed of 50 mph, so that's about 4000 hours of driving or 1000000 hp-hours of energy output at an purchasing cost of only $0.025 per horse-power hour. Well, whoop-de-doo! It's just a completely meaningless exercise in elementary school arithmetic, which produces an entirely uninformative result ...

<edit: spelling>

[dcfirefighter]

22. Well, your car would probably not be run at a 90% capacity loading

and certainly wouldn't make 200,000 miles out of it.

You saide $2.5B
I don't know what you were trying to point out.

I said "well, yes $2.5B is a lot of money, but it needs to be related to the kW-h produced"

Yes, there are other costs in operating a plant.

If it's meaningless to discuss what the capital costs per kw-h are for a plant, it's equally meaningless to discuss teh capital costs.

[struggle4progress]

23. The reasonable cost per KWH to report is an operating cost, which ..

can be measured and has the advantage of being a measure than arguably relates to relative economic efficiency of the plant, and is also related to ongoing business issues like cash flow.

If you really want to insist on measuring "capital costs" per KWH, then you certainly should include major repairs; this might be measurable historically, although given variations in plant lifetimes it could only make sense in aggregate and would not be very predictive.

The calculation you propose, on the other hand, not only fails to be empirical (being based on projections) but suffers from the further defect that it essentially obscures useful information rather than isolating some useful fact.

<edit: clarity>

[dcfirefighter]

24. So, what was your point with message #10?

[struggle4progress]

25. It's useful to read these articles. eom

[jpak]

15. I'll believe that when they actually build one here

The last few reactors built in the US cost $6-7 billion.

One cost-saving feature of AP-600 design was the elimination of a robust containment structure.

Not a good thing in a post-9/11 world.

...and yes, nuclear power plants were on Al Qaeda's original 9/11 target list....

[dcfirefighter]

16. Maryland, Calvert Co. offer $200M in deals

For NuStart to consider the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby as one of six possible sites for a new type of advanced reactor.

"He said the loan guarantee, which would be the largest in the state's history, was fitting for a project whose estimated cost of $1.5 billion to $2 billion would make it the state's largest capital project."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081700044.html

26% of Maryland's electricity comes from nuclear power from the two existing units at Calvert Cliffs (vs. 56% from coal)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesmd.html

[struggle4progress]

21. So the industry isn't viable without massive government intervention?

[Massacure]

27. Dunno. The entire energy industry is subsidized.

I say cut the subsidies, and see what happens.

[DODI]

18. Current bids are in the $3 billion range. The AP-600 is a pretty

old design -- AP-1000 is the current model.

[struggle4progress]

26. That's credible -- the industry is walking about, hat in hand, looking ..

.. for any handouts they can get ...