As a NH resident, I had an opportunity to meet John McCain and to ask a question regarding his position on Nuclear Power. He is pro nuclear power and will use a "cookie cutter" approach, similar to the Europeans. All future nuclear power plants will be built in a single style approved by the federal government. This will significantly reduce "red tape" and cost and will allow a utility to build a plant quickly and at less cost.

If you are going to post numbers like these, you need to give references.

I liked your article... I am trying to find the source of the figures. "Ike" posted the IAEA article but it has different figures. Where did you get the "Nuclear Breakdown" figures.

Thanks much,
Bruce
SolarEnurgy.net

Howdy Barry,
Thanks for the reply. So who is the author of this piece and where is the source for the "Nuclear Breakdown"?
It would be helpful to know. Thanks.

Now...if you are reading my forum posts you are scratching your head on the previous posting and thinking "This is a SOLAR vs. nuclear power discussion, not WIND!"

Now that I have your attention... apply the same thought process to Solar power.

Arizona Public Service is looking at a 280 megawatt solar project that they say will cost $1 Billion.
http://www.aps.com/main/green/Solana/FAQ.html

This project will cost $3571 per kw-hour...if it were making electricity 24/7.

Assume APS gets 12 hours per day of full power...which is very much an overestimation even with the molten salt bed backup they plan to employ.

Now the real cost is $7142 per kw-hr. And this is IF they build it. See the fine print in their FAQs...
"Like all renewable projects currently under development, successful completion is contingent upon a number of factors, including the extension of the federal renewable energy tax credit..."

The only way APS (and other companies)can make a solar or wind project even close to profitable is if they get a huge federal and state tax credit to offset the exhorbitant construction costs.

In fairness, this is the same credit given to other "green" generators, including nuclear.

It seems Barry has given us nothing but good reasons to go nuclear. Unfortunately people are human...capable of making mistakes when designing, building, operating, fuel enrichment and waste handling--not to mention capable of greed (cutting quality of materials that compromise structural integrity or the many measuring and safeguard devices used to keep the plant safe. There's also the high water consumption used in cooling, as well as increasing water temperatures in the surrounding area. This is a problem also for fossil fuel plants using steam driven turbines...compared with wind, solar, and hydrogen fed fuel cells (such as the tennis court size type by Fuel Cell Energy). Dropping the H out of hydrocarbon fuels via cryogenics is one way to produce hydrogen for fuel cells while minimizing CO2 emissions. Fuel cell plants are more efficient when turning the power output down at night (unlike nuclear and fossil fuel, which require days to start up and must keep on producing...reason for the abundance of cheap electricity burning spot lights at car lots in the evening.
Barry, I'd say look at the full picture and consider a mix of what you say is more costly (though ONLY if we can manage to avoid accidents at nuclear facilties...or major hits by terrorists.) Consider the thousands of years areas like those surrounding Chernobyl will continue to cause negative effects on living creatures.
Why not go with low heat Geothermal (heat pumps), solar PV, wind, hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels or other efficient extraction methods, tidal, wave, thermal gradient, and more. Decommissioning nuclear plants always costs far more than estimated. As long as no private firm insures the Nuclear establishment against accidents, leaving the US Govt. (us) to fill this void...this is what's telling.

Sam

Thanks for your measured response and thought-based questions.

I support a blend of electrical generation sources... but for baseload, 24/7 power, nuclear is the best option.

Current government data at www.eia.doe.gov, shows that in 2007 installed wind generators provided power to their customers by state anywhere from 3% to a max of 38% of the time...for a national average of 25%. So which six hour period of the day do you want your power? btw... solar is even less available.

You and many others talk about the taxpayer support of nuclear power. That is a misperception. The customers that enjoy nuclear power, which is produced at a cost per kilowatt-hour equal to or less than coal-fired plants, pay for decomissioning costs and high level waste disposal in their electric rates. Currently $7B sits in a government trust fund to pay for high level waste storage. The Price-Waterhouse Act provides an insurance cushion, not full coverage... and it only pays out IF there was an accident. So it really costs us nothing. Even the NRC, our regulator, is paid for by the nuclear owners through annual fees and hourly rates of over $240/hr, which again, is passed on to the rate payers, who are indeed tax payers, but not as a tax but more as a user fee.

Regarding construction costs... look again to the eia website for their objective analysis of contruction costs on a per kilowatt-hour basis. Then consider the sources availability and operating costs. Based upon wind's 25% availability, you have to build 4 times the number of windmills to equal one 24/7 available nuke. In addition, those wind mills and other alternative energy sources would not be built if not for a direct state and federal tax credit...that's right... a huge tax credit that if not there... construction would cease. I can provide you a host of sources on this... including many Mother Jones wind advocates who are crying about the expiration of the current tax credit legislation that expires at the end of this year.

Also...the long lasting effects around Chernobyl... ask the people living in two very large rebuilt Japanese cities about the long lasting effects of radiation. Sure...it's above normal levels but so is taking a high altitude cross-country airline trip at 40K feet.

Thanks Elliot for noticing this "small" detail. There's a couple of problems with this percentage comparison as well. If we're looking for one primary saviour, energy wise, to take over from oil/gas/coal then I think we're asking too much of wind/solar. Surely the solution is to combine the renewable technologies at hand and marry this to LESS DEMAND. There's huge areas we can improve how much we get out of each kilowatt.

www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
Does anyone has a more recent publication?
The facts for nuclear is completely non-sense. Moreover, taking into account only CO2 emissions for evaluating nuclear industry is also non-sense.
What is infinite is human capabilities to invent and adapt. Nuclear is definitively to banish, just as Austrian Constitution says it.

If we as a country could mandate all new homes and initiate a retrofit of existing homes with solar thermal on their roofs, we could probably eliminate 30-40% of our carbon emissions. This would reduce demand for oil, propane and natural gas. It would cost up front, but the roi is 5 years with tax credits. Instead of $700BLN for these jokers in the banking industry, why don't we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

Glenn: thanks for bringing this up... interesting ideas.

Dave: Dave

I believe your 20M number of "scared New Yorkers" might be overstated. However, remember that no on has ever died as the result of commercial nuclear power in this or any other Western country....ever. Perhaps New Yorkers should spend their "scared" efforts on real threats such as terrorists, chlorine gas tank ruptures, glass falling from high rises, cranes falling on high rises, muggers, and oh...and riding in cars with politicians. These have in fact caused great harm to New Yorkers.

As far as living near one... I live nine miles from one of the largest and I feel very safe. My biggest threat is driving home tonight and hitting one of the many white tail deer that seem to have a death wish.