Actual cost figure to build nukes $10 Biln for 2: Perry 1 & Beaver Valley

[JohnWxy]

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

from the Pacific Gazette.com March 28, 1999:

Forum: Nuclear power - unsafe, dirty and expensive

It's time to disable an obsolete industry, says David Hughes, and support 21st-century methods of generating electricity

Sunday, March 28, 1999

~~
~~

Nuclear plants only seem safe because government safety standards and Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight have been too lax. There are problems at U.S. nuclear plants just about every day, ranging from incidental to serious.

Some of these problems are close to home. At a plant in Perry, Ohio (near Cleveland), partly owned by Duquesne Light, the zirconium tubes covering the uranium fuel pellets are perforating, causing potentially dangerous radiation leaks within the reactor. The leaks are exposing plant workers to extra radiation and increasing the likelihood that more radiation would be released into the atmosphere in case of a serious accident.

Nine such leaks have been detected at Perry since it began operation in 1987. The latest ones were discovered last September, but apparently Duquesne Light and FirstEnergy (the plant manager) decided to wait until their regularly scheduled maintenance, beginning yesterday before doing anything about them. (Duquesne Light, by the way, intends to sell its share in the plant this year to FirstEnergy.) Last month the Union of Concerned Scientists succeeded in getting the NRC to hold hearings on the leaks. So far, the NRC has taken no action.

There is a new concern about nuclear power. In states (including Pennsylvania) where electric deregulation has occurred, nuclear plants will have to run practically all the time to be competitive. Unlike other generators, nuclear plants are not designed to operate continuously. Safety is likely to be a casualty of the bottom line.

Nuclear power is not the clean energy its apologists claim. The smelting process used to make commercial grade fuel for nuclear plants contributes to greenhouse gases. Secondly, in addition to the waste problem, nuclear plants pollute our air, only you cannot see, smell or taste what they emit. Some of the most toxic gases known to man are by-products of the fission process and are routinely vented from the "off gas" building at nuclear plants.

You may remember when we were told that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter." Well, it is not. In fact, nuclear is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.

When nuclear proponents provide their figure of what nuclear cost to produce electricity they often leave out the cost of building the plant. Indeed, it was the high cost ($10 billion) to build the Perry 1 and Beaver Valley 2 nuclear plants that now cause Duquesne Light customers to have to pay some of the highest rates in the country. And, it is the high cost of nuclear plants that accounts for most of the "transition" charge on your new electric bill, no matter who supplies your generation.

A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW); wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000/kw. A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build. Nuclear fuel is relatively cheap compared to other fuels, but only if you ignore spent fuel permanent storage costs. When these and plant decommissioning costs are included, nuclear power is prohibitively more expensive, on a total cost basis, than other energy sources. Even nuclear power advocates are frightened by the prospect that these costs will be astronomical.

The fact is that nuclear power is obsolete.

There are cutting-edge energy technologies available now that are competitive and more environmentally healthy. Despite being on the short end of government research and development funding, renewable energy technologies' share of U.S. generating capacity (11 percent compared with 14 percent for nuclear) is growing at double-digit rates.

According to a recent study by the Worldwatch Institute, nuclear power "has reached its peak and will begin a sustained decline in the year 2002 to its eventual demise." Even France, the world leader in nuclear power usage with 70 percent of its electricity nuclear-generated, has established a moratorium on nuclear plant construction. France appears more committed to nuclear now. Germany and Belgium and Italy closing down there nukes

In the United States, no new power plants have been ordered since the mid-1970s. Many utility companies, including Duquesne Light, are planning to unload their nuclear plants. Existing nuclear plants are being purchased for next to nothing , demonstrating their low market value. Only its position near the top of the corporate welfare rolls enables the nuclear industry to hang on.

(Bush administration put funding in for construction of a number of nukes (6) in the "Energy Bill" 2005

"Section 1306
Production tax credit of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry.

Section 638
Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for six new reactors, including delays due to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or state agencies, litigation, sabotage or terrorist attacks, or other events. The payments would include interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, the price of power, and taxes.

Section 951 and Section 952
Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for nuclear energy research and development (R&D), including the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs.

Title XVII
Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of an “innovative” energy technology project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated)."

Nuclear power proponents argue that the United States cannot afford to phase out nuclear power. Studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute show that we could significantly reduce our electricity demand by using energy more efficiently. A concerted national effort, a "war against wasting energy," combined with increased use of new, safe and clean energy technologies would enable the phase out of nuclear power.

It is time for our political leaders to recognize that nuclear power is not worth further investment. As we head into the 21st century, Americans should demand increased utilization of 21st-century energy technologies.

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Difficult to take seriously...

A man who thinks burning fossil fuels is "21st century technology". I guess he doesn't watch the news much, or thinks the NG shortages and climate change are part of the nuclear conspiracy.

Mind you, if the US is managing to piss away ~$4k/kw on nuclear plant construction, that needs fixing - most countries manage <$2k.

[JohnWxy]

4. Did he say anything about fossil fuels.. ?

[Dead_Parrot]

5. "A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt"

You even highlighted it. :)

[4dsc]

2. What is "21st-century energy technologies"

Ethanol??

[JohnWxy]

3. MY guess is he's including all renewables - wind & biomass

as well as making all appliances more efficient. We can save a helluva lot just by making electrical appliances more efficient. Actually, this has a very good pay-off for the money invested. - maybe the best payoff, as far as it goes, of course.