Nuclear Power

[DanS]

I would say oil is getting governmental subsidies in the US. In one way or another

The same can be said for nuclear power. The US government spends substantial sums of money in the Department of Energy subsidizing the nuke industry, which doesn't show up in the OECD numbers. The places where nuke power makes sense are either directly heavily subsidized (France) or limited by geographical reasons (Japan, SK).

I think you can make the subsidies case for oil in the US, but not yet natural gas, because we don't yet import our natural gas from the mideast. Anyway, in the US, it doesn't change the overall dynamics. OECD puts total generation costs of natural gas at 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour, nuke at 5.7 cents (2001 figures, 10% discount rate), or more than twice as expensive. Caveats being that the price of natural gas has risen and the discount rate could perhaps be lowered in 2003.

[Jon Miller]

but is the 5.7 based upon the too high costs of building the plants based off of 60s designs and the like?

or is it for other things

also, the link I gave you put just the costs of O&M and fuel at over 3 per KW hour, which is more than 2.7 (for natural gas)

nukes O&M and fuel is only 2.13 per KW hour, so it would have to be that building costs made up over 3.5 per KW hour

these buliding costs must have been huge to still be having that effect when all our plants were built (fiunished) over 20 years ago

that still doesn't dispute my argument that plants can be built for much cheaper now (and there are other doubts about your argument because your numbers are different than the numbers I provided in the link)

Jon Miller

[DanS]

but is the 5.7 based upon the too high costs of building the plants based off of 60s designs and the like?

New production. But they haven't built any of the new designs, so we don't know how much they would cost. I wouldn't take the nuke industry's word for it.

also, the link I gave you put just the costs of O&M and fuel at over 3 per KW hour, which is more than 2.7 (for natural gas)

That doesn't surprise me, since the natural gas fuel prices are variable and the capital costs are relatively low. It doesn't change the overall dynamics.

nukes O&M and fuel is only 2.13 per KW hour, so it would have to be that building costs made up over 3.5 per KW hour

Yes. That surprises you?

that still doesn't dispute my argument that plants can be built for much cheaper now (and there are other doubts about your argument because your numbers are different than the numbers I provided in the link)

Prove that they can be built cheaper now, nuke boy. I triple dog dare ya.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's hard to get wind power when there is no wind ... Even if you imporve the effieicny by 10 times it will still take up more space then most of our over crowed cities have room for.

I live in the northern Great Plains, and energy interests are building wind farms up here left and right nowadays. Wide open places, combined with your usual stiff prairie wind (most of the time), makes for ideal locations for turbines.

Having turbines on one's acreage isn't bad, either. Farmers are getting $3,000 per year per turbine just to have it on their property ... and if you own hundreds (or thousands) of acres, it's not like all you see are turbines out of the farm home's windows.

And, truthfully, I find the towering turbines kind of majestic. I'd hate to have one of 'em come crashing down on my vehicle or home, however. There'd be nothing left. I guess that's why the turbines are in *rural* areas.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

TIME had a very good article some months ago on the energy situation in America. To be blunt, it's not pretty, and that's due in no small part to our leaders without backbones and private interests who, naturally, desire profit first and foremost.

The TIME article mentioned natural gas specifically, and how power plants were becoming *too* dependent on it, driving up costs to heat homes (which also use NG, among other things) and forcing the U.S. to import NG.

Gatekeeper

[DanS]

The TIME article mentioned natural gas specifically, and how power plants were becoming *too* dependent on it, driving up costs to heat homes (which also use NG, among other things) and forcing the U.S. to import NG.

So we import NG. What's the big deal? Canadians gotta sell things to us too.

[Jon Miller]

check out this link

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

also, I would like to have numbers for costs for natural gas plants

Jon Miller

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by DanS
So we import NG. What's the big deal? Canadians gotta sell things to us too.

Well, gee, I don't know, Dan. Could it possibly be because we're supposed to be trying to wean ourselves off foreign sources of energy as much as possible? So now we import most of our oil, now we're importing NG from Canada (a nation which, from what I understand, may not be able to export much longer due to its domestic demand).

And now farmers are taking some flak from others for daring to turn their corn into ethanol for domestic use because, by golly, they're being subsidized to a degree to do so! (Show me an energy company that hasn't been on the government dole at one time or another.) What else are they supposed to do with corn they can't sell as a foodstuff anymore because they can't compete in the world markets (or can't sell because of GMO fears from many markets). Oh, yeah, go out of business, that's what. Heh. Another thing America might be importing in the future — its food supply — while its own fertile fields lie fallow (or are paved over) because, gosh, its farmers just weren't "efficient" enough. Woo-hoo! One more step closer to being like ancient Rome; dependent on others for far too much, IMO.

I imagine much the same furor will erupt when and if biodiesel expands beyond its current toehold.

OK. End of populist rant.

Gatekeeper

[Jon Miller]

cost for korea

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15834/story.htm

18.69 billion for 8 reactors making 9600 MW (total)

that is 1946.875 per KW

these should last at least 60 years for (60*375*24 = ) 540000 total hours

1946.875/540000 ~ .3 cents per KW hour

which is not really meaningful

now there are decomisioning costs, but I still doubt that it totals at over 3 cents per KW hour

if you read one of the links you will see that the reason why we pay so much for making the plants is that there was no standardisation and the like

so of course it would be very expensive for the older plants

Jon Miller

[DanS]

Here is a treatment of the economic issues by an IEA economist that writes the OECD/IEA electricity reports. See "Economics"...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/fraser.htm

In pertinent part...

Well-run nuclear plants have operating costs similar to, or lower than, those of competing plants. The introduction of competitive electricity markets in most OECD countries is encouraging all operators to achieve improved plant performance and is leading to consolidation among nuclear generators and among suppliers of nuclear equipment, services and fuel. Proposals to extend the lifetime of older plants are becoming common.

By contrast, new nuclear power plants face challenging competitive conditions. Fossil-fuelled plants are expected to have a lower total cost of electricity than nuclear plants in most countries under the energy market conditions and fuel prices that have prevailed in recent years (Figure 3). In addition, market liberalisation is altering the conditions under which investments in new generating plants are made in the OECD. Table 1 shows the status of market reform in OECD countries with nuclear power plants:

Here are the projected total cost figures in cents per kwh. 10% discount rate, 2001 figures. Remember the caveats above about subsidies, because it makes a large difference in some countries (but not the US, I figure).

[chequita guevara]

WIND! Just put lots and lots of wind turbines around Congress.

[el freako]

Are you insane chegitz!

That would overload the US electricity grid in notime!

[Urban Ranger]

I myself am waiting for fusion power. Meanwhile, increasing efficiency at both ends is the thing to do.

[Dinner]

For energy there is no beating nuclear though we need to twick other areas when and where we can. Those places where solar, wind, or geothermal will work we should build plants to take advantage of them. Rather then the government paying for and then burning excess crops they should be used to produce ethinol and/or biomass energy. Coal is to dirty and should be phased out and to help combat gloabl warming we should new nuclear plants to fill all of our other energy needs. Hydro currently makes something like 20% (I think) of our energy but we don't have any more big rivers to dam.

To further decrease green house emissions we need to slightly increase gas taxes, continually bump up CAFE standards and force Trucks and SUVs to comply with the same standdard as cars do (they're opporated like cars so lets treat them like cars), finally the government need to massively fund mass transit.

The single biggest transite priority should be to build light rail cannections with in each city so that suburbs, school, shopping centers, and business districts are connected with light rail and then have clean and efficient bus services which move people on from the light rail terminals.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
WIND! Just put lots and lots of wind turbines around Congress.

Seriously, the thing to remember about wind power is that it can never supply more than about 10-15% of the grid, because you can't control it. When it's windy, you're making power and you've gotta have a load to take it; when it's not windy and you need power you can't just turn the wind up.