Nuclear Power

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS
FYI: That's a bull**** article.



Case in point. I also love the favorable references to Lyndon LaRouche.

well, I am just finding links, why don't you find some also?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

hopefully you will ahve no problems with this one

which shows that Nuclear Power is not more expensive than our other sources currently

Jon Miller

[DanS]

percentage matters because that is what is comparable with nations

There's more way than one way to compare nations, silly. Why is the percentage more pertinent than other measures?

[Jon Miller]

oops

missed link

http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/business/perform.htm

JOn Miller

[DanS]

well, I am just finding links, why don't you find some also?

Why do I need links to tell me or you what I already know?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


unstable places (like Russia or Iran) shuold not have access to nuclear power because it can be very bad if it is not done properly (as Chernobyl and 3 Mile showed)

Jon Miller

Sweden does not have any reactor of the unsafe Russian design. But it is actually illegal to make research on improvements, after the nuclear power referendum in 1979. I was to young to vote, but thought: "Yes, for sure!". The majority voted: "Yes, but no" (The now infamous Hans Blix actually was the "Yes, but no" campaign general. The idea was to build 12 reactors, then research other sources of energy and close all reactors by 2010. Now we have 7 years to go, and not a single cost-effective alternative has been invented. One reactor has been closed but I doubt that we can afford closing more.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS


There's more way than one way to compare nations, silly. Why is the percentage more pertinent than other measures?

when we are looking at where a nation gets it's power from, for something that is unlimited like nuclear (hydro for example looking at totals would also make sense), looking at the percentage of power from that source gives the best idea of it's use of that source

for example, for a nation only using nuclear power, there would be no way for it to use more, while for a nation where nuclear power makes up 60% of the power supply, it could possible be getting more of it's power from nuclear sources

looking at total power produced from nuclear sources could not tell you anything about this

Jon Miller

[DanS]

That second article that you reference is not bull****, but leaves out half the costs.

As these changes became institutionalized in utility programs, however, O&M costs stabilized. Average O&M costs for nuclear plants—measured in 1998 dollars—were 1.83 cents/kWh in 1990, 1.44 cents in 1995 and 1.35 cents in 1998 (latest data available), based on figures from the Utility Data Institute, an independent research organization. Moreover, nuclear energy is competitive with other sources of electricity. With average production costs—O&M plus fuel—of 2.13 cents/kWh in 1998, nuclear is only marginally more costly than coal at 2.07 cents/kWh, and considerably less expensive than natural gas at 3.30 cents/kWh and oil at 3.24 cents/kWh.

Nuclear power has very high capital costs, which aren't taken into account in this article. The generation costs for oil and gas are mostly tied up in O&M and fuel. So it's an apples-oranges comparison they're making.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS


Why do I need links to tell me or you what I already know?

because you are wrong

take a look at my most recent link

nuclear power is not expensive, and is becoming less expensive all the time (As they update their reactors)

it would become even less expensive if we started licensing new plants and the like

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS
That second article that you reference is not bull****, but leaves out half the costs.

Nuclear power has very high capital costs, which aren't taken into account in this article.

I did admit that there were high capital costs in one of my earlier posts

those however are a lot less for other countries who make great use of nuclear power (like Japan and France)

we should be able to do it at a similiar cost as them

Jon Miller

[DanS]

because you are wrong

You're FOS, Jon Miller.

those however are a lot less for other countries who make great use of nuclear power (like Japan and France)

I don't think they vary that substantially, especially if you consider any gov't subsidies. Certainly nothing of the magnitude to change the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than oil or natural gas generation.

[Jon Miller]

give me the numbers if you are right

I think you are wrong, that is why I have been looking up links to give you numbers countering your conclusions

if I am wrong, do more than tell me so, give me evidence (perferibly from a good source)

Jon Miller

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by DanS

I don't think they vary that substantially, especially if you consider any gov't subsidies. Certainly nothing of the magnitude to change the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than oil or natural gas generation.

I would say oil is getting governmental subsidies in the US. In one way or another. Just look at the background of the guys in your cabinet and the politics they are suggesting.

[DanS]

for example, for a nation only using nuclear power, there would be no way for it to use more, while for a nation where nuclear power makes up 60% of the power supply, it could possible be getting more of it's power from nuclear sources

Energy needs are always growing. The most pertinent questions on an international scale are where you're going to add your next kilowatt hour of generation, based on dollar and environmental costs.

At the present time, natural gas electricity generation is the most attractive method for generating that next unit of generation capacity. For instance, it makes no sense for Russia to add nuke capacity, since natural gas is both plentiful and dirt cheap in Russia. Whenever Russia or Iran (for another instance) add nuke capacity, they are misallocating their funds.

On the other hand, places like Japan will likely have a tougher call to make, since it doesn't have natural gas reserves readily available (although this can change, with LNG).

[Jon Miller]

I agree that that is also pertinant

but as for the history of nuclear power I think the percentage is very pertinent, also if you are trying to change a nations reliance on one form for another

Jon Miller
(also I care more about the US than other nations, for example I think that Iran shouldn't because it would be better for the US if they did not)