Report: Nuclear renaissance is hype

"In both time periods, the original low-ball estimates were promotional, not practical,"

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

Why would these people think that? Oh, that's right, self-interest.

And since when is the "Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School" an expert source concerning electrical generation?

The fact is the nuclear power inductry has the same problems doctors have. The cost of the product (electric power or health care) is driven to a large part by defending against litigation. I have been in the power inductry for 40 years and have seen many times the cost of projects being driven uo by the intervenors and anti-nuke avocate groups doing everything they can to drive the price of the project up by endless litigation and foundless allegations. It has gotten to the point that the legal costs for some projects are greater than the design and construction costs. At $500+/hr it does not take lawyers long to eat up the entire project budget.

Even the wind farms are seeing this happen to their projects with intervenors continuously suing for one reason or the other. The cost of the wind projects soar with intervenors questioning ever aspect of the project from the astethics of the project to the low frequency humming of the blades causeing miscarriages in protected species.

If any new base load power production is to be placed on line, a change in the permitting and licensing process has to limit the delays and legal costs of the projects due to unnecessary and never ending litigation. Otherwise we will all be sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to start blowing or the sun to come back out.

Elmer Fudd wrote:

"In both time periods, the original low-ball estimates were promotional, not practical,"
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Why would these people think that? Oh, that's right, self-interest.
And since when is the "Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School" an expert source concerning electrical generation?

And since when are these people concerned with the cost of anything? The alternative energy sources would cost much more (see the new "energy bill")and be much less efficient.

"If it falls on customers -- in the form of ratemaking guarantees -- it will create additional economic hardship and job loss."

I do not understand how tens of thousands of good paying jobs for years of construction and 30-50 years thereafter would create hardship and job loss. A windmill farm post construction employs how many people, five?

XXXXX wrote:

"If it falls on customers -- in the form of ratemaking guarantees -- it will create additional economic hardship and job loss."
I do not understand how tens of thousands of good paying jobs for years of construction and 30-50 years thereafter would create hardship and job loss. A windmill farm post construction employs how many people, five?

Yeah but those "green jobs", at an average cost of $700,000 to $1,400,000 each, at the taxpayer's expense are all that matters. So what if they are temporary jobs, they are "green jobs".

The consequences are not important, just the good intentions. Going "green" is just another way to shut down our economy. After all, we deserve it because we are greedy and evil here in the US of A.

The other major countries of the world have laughed and dismissed the "global climate change effort", just the US is in it with both feet(the leftist elitists that is). Who can guess what that'll get us?

Does the report consider the costs of continuing to burn coal, both in global warming and in toxin releases? Does the report claim that we can supplant coal within the next decade or two without a substantial nuclear component in the mix?

Hey, Right Wing E., how does it cost the taxpayer $700,000 and up for a carpenter to develop a successful business in energy efficiency retrofits? I ask because several carpenters in my small town have recently set up shop in that specialty, and are doing good business. But the only tax incentive I see for them is that over the next two years a taxpayer can get a $1,500 tax credit towards 30% of the cost of high-efficiency windows. So if each carpenter got ten new customers a week, and each customer bought and had installed $5,000 worth of windows (plus a few thousand dollars more for the installation labor)- okay that would get you to $700,000.

But first, no carpenter's business is that good (or works that fast). And if it were, substantial public benefit would come from the sharply reduced heating oil consumption from those 500 homes per year per carpenter with new, highly-efficient windows.

So not only is your $700,000 claim insane. It's insanely good, if only it were true.

Whit wrote:

Hey, Right Wing E., how does it cost the taxpayer $700,000 and up for a carpenter to develop a successful business in energy efficiency retrofits? I ask because several carpenters in my small town have recently set up shop in that specialty, and are doing good business. But the only tax incentive I see for them is that over the next two years a taxpayer can get a $1,500 tax credit towards 30% of the cost of high-efficiency windows. So if each carpenter got ten new customers a week, and each customer bought and had installed $5,000 worth of windows (plus a few thousand dollars more for the installation labor)- okay that would get you to $700,000.
But first, no carpenter's business is that good (or works that fast). And if it were, substantial public benefit would come from the sharply reduced heating oil consumption from those 500 homes per year per carpenter with new, highly-efficient windows.
So not only is your $700,000 claim insane. It's insanely good, if only it were true.

Factor in the carrying cost for government 'administering' the porkulus. No one suggested that the money would actually get to the worker (carpenter or otherwise). Quite the opposite.

Elmer Fudd wrote:

<quoted text>
Factor in the carrying cost for government 'administering' the porkulus. No one suggested that the money would actually get to the worker (carpenter or otherwise). Quite the opposite.

Ah, so your interjection about the $700,000 was just spin.

You can never go wrong bashing the government, right?

Why save energy, when the status quo is so perfect?

I'm sure that Mr. Cooper is well-intentioned, but his assumptions are built on significant undisclosed biases. As a physicist and environmental activist, I advocate Sound Scientific Solutions to our energy issues. Instead, in this area we are continuously subjected to agenda promoters who have a political goals.

What Mr. Cooper does not tell you is:
1 - A significant part of the cost of nuclear power is directly due to the same environmentalists that complain about its cost.
2 - The latest government statistics (EIA) show levelized costs for all types of power sources (http://tinyurl.com/ksmx4x ) and demonstrates that nuclear is significantly less expensive than renewables.
3 - Other independent studies (e.g. "http://tinyurl.com/lv3euu" ;) confirm this.
4 - Renewables (e.g. wind energy) and nuclear do NOT provide the same type of power.
5 - As such, NO AMOUNT of wind power will equal a nuclear facility.
6 - In answer to his question: "why is the industry having trouble finding financing for its nuclear renaissance?", the answers are simple: misinformation spread about like here, and foolish RPS programs in many states that MANDATE renewable energy — which effectively undermines demand for nuclear power.

See "http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-pre... ; for more independent information about energy.

Nuclear power is ridiculously expensive compared to other power sources. Frankly, even coal-fired power — at least as it’s traditionally done — is extremely expensive, though no one seems to know it. Cogeneration (mentioned in the article as a cheaper alternative) is indeed far less costly than other energy forms, even as it emits far less pollution.

A little disclosure is probably called for here: I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does CHP and waste heat recovery. But the reason I’m involved is precisely the massive opportunity that such work presents. If the U.S. did more on this front, EPA and DOE estimates suggest we’d cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. At the same time, costs would fall due to increased efficiency. The reason more isn't being done is mainly that regulations are protecting inefficient utilities instead of promoting efficiency.

Elmer Fudd wrote:

......And since when is the "Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School" an expert source concerning electrical generation?

Just what I was thinking, it must be a joke!

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, so your interjection about the $700,000 was just spin.
You can never go wrong bashing the government, right?
Why save energy, when the status quo is so perfect?

I know your acid hangover is pretty strong, but please try to follow along. I did not bring up the $700,000 per job.

And your last two comments are once again projecting your intolerant views on others. Never advocated either.

In fact I think the government is pretty good at keeping the military and I don't like the status quo with energy. I have commented several times that MORE nuclear power is needed, AND I am willing to put one next to my house if needed.

You just seem willing to provide 'sacrifice' on the part of others. That, and OPM.

The report is seriously flawed and reaches totally incorrect conclusions.

Many of the first nuclear power plants were built on schedule and for under $500 million. But since the 1967 dollar was worth over 6 times as much as today’s dollar, this would equate to at least $3 billion for a new power plant. Add in that commodities have increased even more, and salaries have gone up about a factor of 12, a new nuclear plant identical to one from the late 1960’s would cost over $6 billion in 2009 dollars. Gosh, guess what, they do.

Further, the report states that since many of the nuclear power plants had their costs triple or more, any future nuclear plant would as well. Rubish. With interest rates near or over 20% around 1980 to 1982 at the same time the power plants were being delayed due to reduced demand, of course the power plant cost would rise tremendously. However, with today’s sub 5% interest rates and a real need for the power, if the new plants are built to schedule their costs will be what the engineers estimate. There is no magic economics that drives all nuclear power plant construction upwards. This report ignores history and creates the illusion of such an effect.

The reason America has low cost electricity generally below 10 cents / kwhr is because the power plants were built 30 to 40 years ago. With the capital cost already paid for, the production is mainly just fuel and staffing. Any, I repeat ANY new baseload power source will cost significantly more. Not just nuclear but coal as well. The sooner these new plants are built, the lower the ultimate cost to the consumer. Considering that the dollar is worth 1/6th of the late 1960s, to have new nuclear electricity available for only 15 to 20 cents / kwhr is a testament to its economic viability.

Finally, the report purports to show that conservation costs only 6 cent / kwhr. The problem with conservation and other such efforts is that America’s population will rise to over 400 million people by 2050. These people will want cheap and available electricity to secure a good life and jobs that are world competitive. Conservation can not provide this.

The United States needs new and reliable electricity for the long term to replace older retiring fossil power plants as well as to prepare for future growth. The efforts need to start now or rotating blackouts can be expected no later than 2020 if not sooner in some areas of the country. What will the Greens do when they realize their magic elixer of conservation and renewable energies weren’t enough? What will Americans do to their leaders who allowed it to happen?

Nuclear power plants are the cheapest and most carbon friendly long term reliable power source that there is. This is why China, France and others are all investing in it. America should too.

There is some difficulty in forecasting the cost of just about any capital facility such as a new nuclear plant. There has not been new nuclear plants built in the US in many years (although there is work done at many of the existing plants,) Since the proposed plants are for different designs than the older plants, the cost experience may not be as useful as new reactors being built in Finland, Sweden and elsewhere. Which is also a bit unsettling as the Finland plant under construction has had schedule and budget problems.

What has to be considered is the total life cycle cost. When the nuclear plant is built and operating that is when the owners and investors really expect to be the competition as the cost of alternative fuels and other production costs are compared. It is a gamble, but decision makers can use their judgment. We hear it said that a lot of utility owners are interested in "going second," in other words they prefer to wait and see. That is why the loan guarantee is important to encourage those first reactors to be built to prove that we need not have the struggles that stymied the industry in the 1980's.

I have not read the report, but did wonder if the author approached it objectively or perhaps sought cast doubts on nuclear and suggest that renewables are the answer. It is good to see efficiency gains in wind and solar. I do not see wind and solar as comparable to nuclear in terms of baseload reliable generation. For baseload, your choices are:
1. Coal
2. Nuclear
3. Hydro (where applicable)
If greenhouse gas emissions are of concern, the preference should be nuclear.
I see that davelv has read the study and finds it skewed. I find his criticism well argued.

Whit wrote:

Hey, Right Wing E., how does it cost the taxpayer $700,000 and up for a carpenter to develop a successful business in energy efficiency retrofits? I ask because several carpenters in my small town have recently set up shop in that specialty, and are doing good business. But the only tax incentive I see for them is that over the next two years a taxpayer can get a $1,500 tax credit towards 30% of the cost of high-efficiency windows. So if each carpenter got ten new customers a week, and each customer bought and had installed $5,000 worth of windows (plus a few thousand dollars more for the installation labor)- okay that would get you to $700,000.
But first, no carpenter's business is that good (or works that fast). And if it were, substantial public benefit would come from the sharply reduced heating oil consumption from those 500 homes per year per carpenter with new, highly-efficient windows.
So not only is your $700,000 claim insane. It's insanely good, if only it were true.

A self employed carpenter does not cost the taxpayer anything. However, the history of the type of "green jobs" we are headed towards, via the energy bill, have been measured in other places. Not only is my "insane" $700,000 not insane, it is actually quite a bit low-end. People who struggle with actual facts find many things "insane", Whit.

Quote:"Each wind-industry job created in Spain required a subsidy of about $1.4 million. Overall, the average subsidy cost for each green job was about $800,000 (571,138 euros). And to create about 50,000 green jobs, Spain lost 110,000 jobs elsewhere, principally in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining, food processing and beverage and tobacco jobs. " Washington Times May 27, 2009

If new green employment makes sense for the economy, as advocates suggest, then why should there be a high public price tag on creating these jobs? And can anyone really trust these numbers? An Apollo Alliance official all but admitted to the Wall Street Journal that its figures were plucked out of the air. Asked to explain the vast discrepancy between Obama’s expensive jobs figure with the Apollo Alliance’s three-times-more expensive figure, the official replied,“Honestly, it’s just to inspire people.”

It turns out there is a downside as well. Spain, which instituted an ambitious green jobs program a decade ago, found out the hard way, and now we have evidence of the real cost of creating green jobs. A study by researchers at King Juan Carlos University found that 2.2 jobs were destroyed for every green job manufactured through government mechanisms. Moreover, only one in ten of those green jobs will be permanent. Ironically, Obama has touted the Spanish experience as a model for the United States. But the authors deem Spain’s policies “terribly economically counterproductive.” Simply put, they wrote,“the Spanish/EU-style ‘green jobs’ agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs.”

Cooper has never delivered energy to consumers. I suggest that he and other one track mind anti-nukes stop debating with words and bring solutions to the marketplace that speak for themselves.

Worst article this paper has ever written in my opinion.

XXXXX wrote:

Worst article this paper has ever written in my opinion.

Dateline: Gretna LA