# New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880 "2009-06-05T22:35:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/81 "2009-06-06T06:48:38Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > That may be true, but it’s dishonest, illogical and misleading for the ones doing the obstruction to then claim that the thing they obstruct is expensive for technical reasons, and that this expense s the reason why they are obstructing it. > > Nuclear power is not expensive because of any technical or inherent economic reason. It’s expensive because people like you obstruct it at every step of the way. For you to then claim, as you have done, that you obstruct it because it is expensive is both disingenuous and self-referential. And you aren’t including capital costs. I’ve never obstructed it, as my post indicated, I have in fact invested it. You are being disingenuous for not investing in something you are so certain about. Talk to an investment advisor on the costs of owning and operating both. I’ve done that and done my own research and made money my way. People are making money my way every day. No individual in this country has had a newspaper article in the last 20 years about how they even plan to invest in nuclear and make money: they cannot. There are a lot of reasons not to invest in nuclear and lots to invest in wind power. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/82 "2009-06-06T06:50:12Z")
Oh, and I have a friend who has a business of selling solar panels for the roofs of homes and business. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for nuke? No, there is not. All roof generated solar is required to be sold to the local power company as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/83 "2009-06-06T06:54:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > That is just a stupid comparison to make. I might just as accurately say that it is stupid of you to compare the cost of servicing that capital cost for nuclear, without also factoring the cost of servicing the necessary conventional backup system for the renewables. After all if it weren’t for the conventional backup the renewables wouldn’t be able to generate any power at all large amounts of the time, thus giving them no market. Trying to work out capital costs for any type of power generation is highly dependant on the assumptions you plug in. That’s why the differ by an orderof magnitude depending on your source. We’re trying to compare apples and oranges here. Any comparison of cost will depend on precisely what costs we are measuring. At this juncture I am measuring the cost of production. That’s not a stupid comparison, it is perfectly valid comparison. It certainly isn’t the only comparison that can be made, nor is your comparisons of the capital costs. The only truly fair comparison IMO is one which compares them on the basis of how much it will cost in toto to operate either system completely independently of the other. ie if we switched to a pure renewables system tomorrow what we be the cost, and ditto for nuclear. But we can’t do that because wind and solar can’t operate independently of either coal or nuclear. The next best comparison would be to add the costs of the necessary nuclear/coal system to renewables system. And that would make the cost of renewables even higher compared to nuclear. But the ultimate problem is that we are trying to compare a system that can replace fossil fuels with one that can not. Just FYI, allowing for capital costs [Nuclear power costs 3.01 cents/kWh compare to 8 cents for wind.](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html). Doesn’t seem to matter how you slice it, wind can not produce energy cheaper than nuclear. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please present it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/84 "2009-06-06T06:56:41Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > They are not running into these costs from obstructionism… If it wasn’t for all those inspectors that **Oakminster** thinks are such a good idea, then they wouldn’t have found the problems and it wouldn’t be costing so much! So you start out by saying that it isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it i being caused by obstructionism. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/85 "2009-06-06T07:28:19Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I live within 30 miles of three oil refineries, several electrical generating plants (natural gas I believe) and a DuPont chemical plant. I would much rather have a turbine construction facility instead of any one of those. That’s nice. I’d rather have the Chernobyl exclusion zone. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Nope, there is enough wind energy in the US to run the whole country several times over. Enough desert in Nevada to run the whole country several times over for solar. Cite! Because that ain’t what the experts are concluding in actual peer reviewed literature. “solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible” Patzek T W. Pimentel D 2005 Thermodynamics of energy production from biomass Critical reviews in plant sciences 24:5 Note that we are not talking about energy here, but electricity generation. > [@](#): > > Yes, it needs a grid. There is a grid all over the country and we can and must build more grid because of our increasing electricity needs. No, it doesn’t just need a grid. A grid can move electricity around the country. It can’t ensure that the wind never stops blowing in Nevada. That’s; the problem. The construction of the grid is a significant capital and environmental cost rarely factored into the costs of wind power, but it is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that the wind stops blowing in Nevada at times. > [@](#): > > . One windmill is a lot more modular than one-hundredth of a coal plant. Probably not, but even if that were true we are talking about power generation here. Trying to argue that wind can be generated with isolated windmills on each hilltop at any thing less than ten times the cost of nuclear power is absurd. > [@](#): > > If not one nuclear plant was proposed or sought a license in the last 8 years, it is not reasonable to say nuclear can be a substitute right now. Duh. WTF? No, seriously, WTF? Are you attempting to argue that because something isn’t economically attractive it is physically impossible? Because if not I have no idea what your point is here. And in case you missed it: NO, it isn’t reasonable to say that. It isn’t even sensible. Sheesh. > [@](#): > > Poke around on the internet onto costs of building and generating and profitability. I have. And everything I find says that wind is much more expensive than nuclear. Can you provide even a single reference to support your claim that it is cheaper? I’m seeing a lot of bluster, and a lot of wild figures from commercial sites about about how cheap their winder power _might_ be. But do you have any actual figures to support your claim that wind power is cheaper than nuclear? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/86 "2009-06-06T07:28:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So you start out by saying that it isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it i being caused by obstructionism. Which is it? Did ya really miss the part about the inspectors finding many defects? And the heavily implied notion that finding those defects before firing up the nukes was quite possibly a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/87 "2009-06-06T07:39:19Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > And you aren’t including capital costs. Yes, I am. With capital costs and identical assumptions nuclear power costs 3.01 cents/kWh compare to 8 cents for wind. Now hows about you show us the basis for your claims to the contrary. Even your most wildly optimistic, pie-in-the-sky claims for wind don’t better 3.01 cents. > [@](#): > > Oh, and I have a friend who has a business of selling solar panels for the roofs of homes and business. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for nuke? No, there is not. :rolleyes: Do you really think this is a logical argument? I have a friend who has a business of selling crystals for the doorways of homes to cure syphillis. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for penniciln? No, there is not. Ego crystals work and pennicilin does not. > [@](#): > > All roof generated solar is required to be sold to the local power company as I understand it. Do you even know what a subsidy is? > [@](#): > > You are being disingenuous for not investing in something you are so certain about. Yeah. Cause I make all my investments based on practical certainty, rather than return. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > There are a lot of reasons not to invest in nuclear and lots to invest in wind power. Damn straight. Just as there are a lot of reasons to invest in Christian literature and movies like “Left behind” and few to invest in atheist literature. So that proves that Christianity works and atheism doesn’t. Right? :rolleyes: I you honestly don’t understand that what the public buys in no way reflects on its utility then I don’t think I cn help you much. But I do look forward to seeing evidence for your claim that wind electricity is cheaper per Kw/hr than nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/88 "2009-06-06T07:43:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’m seeing a lot of bluster, and a lot of wild figures from commercial sites about about how cheap their winder power _might_ be. But do you have any actual figures to support your claim that wind power is cheaper than nuclear? You didn’t read anything I wrote or cited, did you? Go back and read all of it and compare it to citations you bring. You don’t make any citations at all and just wish a few hundred nuclear power plants into existence. Yes, among the many things I cited I did not cite my proof that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US. Here are the cites: [http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS\_EIS\_WhitePaper\_Solar.pdf](http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Solar.pdf) [http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35873.pdf](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35873.pdf) Now, I notice you demand that people cite things. I can and do. I also notice that you don’t cite for all of your claims, not even most of them. You are talking off the top of your head about things you know little about. When you come back, go through this thread and offer citations for every fact you have stated. Please. And then let us know how much you have invested in each technology. As for your preference to living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone to where I live, I’d prefer that you have your personal preference met in location where you live, be it Chernobyl or anywhere else you choose, just don’t hypothetically force me to live anywhere near a nuke plant. I personally live within 20 miles of at least 2 gigawatts of generating capacity, and I like it fine as non nuke, thank you, and want to see more wind. (We’ve got a lot more to give.) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/89 "2009-06-06T07:46:03Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Did ya really miss the part about the inspectors finding many defects? And the heavily implied notion that finding those defects before firing up the nukes was quite possibly a good thing? Once again, ducking the question. You start out by saying that it isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it is being caused by obstructionism. Which is it? Were these repair costs added to the project because there are more inspestors than there are at a coal plant, or would they have been found and repaired even without the inspectors. You can’t have it both ways. If the increased tests at the nuclear plant found flaws that would not have been otherwise, then this justifies the increased cost of testing, but it also means the same flaws wouldn’t have been detected at a coal or hydro plant and the cost of the project would have been lower. And if the flaws would have been found at the coal plant even without the increased testing then the cost of the testing was an unnecessary burden, and the cost of the equivalent coal or hydro plant would have been lower. So I repeat: You start out by saying that the additional cost of repairs isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it is being caused by obstructionism. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/90 "2009-06-06T07:49:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Once again, ducking the question. > > You start out by saying that it isn’t caused by obstructionism. Then you say that it is being caused by obstructionism. Which is it? I didn’t say that. And don’t go back to your childish tactic of posting the same question umpteen times. That’s annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/91 "2009-06-06T08:04:01Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You didn’t read anything I wrote or cited, did you? Every single word, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > You don’t make any citations at all and just wish a few hundred nuclear power plants into existence Dude if there’s anything you want a reference (not citation) for then just ask. So far you haven’t asked. I’ve certainly provided references for my claims that nuclear electricity of much cheaper than wind. Now can you provide a reference for your claim to the contrary? > [@](#): > > Yes, among the many things I cited I did not cite my proof that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US. Here are the cites: Neither of those references makes any claim even remotely like “there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US”. The closest the first one comes is “It has been **estimated** that [an area] 161 km on a side …could **theoretically** meet the electricity needs of the entire country **if** the solar radiation in that area could be converted to electricity with 10% efficiency [/quote] **This reference never says that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US**. It is saying that with some might big assumption there is enough **energy** falling in that area to equal the electricity use of the country. The second reference is even more vague. It says “wind **energy potential** is **estimated** at …more than twice the total electricity generated from all sources in America today [/quote] It isn’t even talking about potential electricity generation electricity. It’s talking about total energy. Jeez, if this is what your arguments are based on I think I can just give up and let others make what they will of your knowledge. You refute internationally acclaimed scientists in peer reviewed journsl stating plainly that renewables can’t replace fossil fuels with statement sin pres releases about potential energy equivalence to electricity generation. > [@](#): > > I also notice that you don’t cite for all of your claims, not even most of them. Like I say, if you want a reference for any claim of mine then just ask. > [@](#): > > I can and do. No you don’t, I’ve asked at leats 5 times for a reference for your claim that wind power is cheaper /kw hr than nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/92 "2009-06-06T08:38:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yes, I am. > > With capital costs and identical assumptions nuclear power costs 3.01 cents/kWh compare to 8 cents for wind. > > Now hows about you show us the basis for your claims to the contrary. Even your most wildly optimistic, pie-in-the-sky claims for wind don’t better 3.01 cents. > > :rolleyes: Do you really think this is a logical argument? > > I have a friend who has a business of selling crystals for the doorways of homes to cure syphillis. He makes money. Is there anybody doing that for penniciln? No, there is not. > > Ego crystals work and pennicilin does not. > > Do you even know what a subsidy is? > > Yeah. Cause I make all my investments based on practical certainty, rather than return. :rolleyes: > > Damn straight. Just as there are a lot of reasons to invest in Christian literature and movies like “Left behind” and few to invest in atheist literature. > So that proves that Christianity works and atheism doesn’t. Right? :rolleyes: > I you honestly don’t understand that what the public buys in no way reflects on its utility then I don’t think I cn help you much. > > But I do look forward to seeing evidence for your claim that wind electricity is cheaper per Kw/hr than nuclear. Well then, here they are, google is my friend: > [@](#): > > In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs had increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus increased the power cost to 8.4¢/kW·h.[37][38] [Economics of nuclear power plants - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants) [Windenergie in Deutschland](http://www.windday.eu/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/windmyths/windmyths1-windpower_is_expensive.pdf) Puts wind power at just over 4 euro cents now and falling. Why is falling price a reasonable bet? Because as windmills get bigger, their cost goes up marginally compared to the squared area of wind that the larger windmill sweeps out. Additionally, putting the hub higher puts it in a higher wind. [http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/pitfalls.htm](http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/pitfalls.htm) > [@](#): > > As an example of why it is misleading to use the price per kW rated power for a wind turbine, compare the annual energy production from two machines from the same manufacturer, both mounted on a 50 m tower. (The first one is a high wind machine, the second one a universal machine). You can use the Wind Turbine Power Calculator to verify the results: > > 1. Vestas V39, a 600 kW turbine with a 39 m rotor diameter > 2. Vestas V47, a 660 kW turbine with a 47 m rotor diameter > > The result is that annual energy production from the second machine is 45.2% higher than the first machine, despite the fact that the generator is only 10% larger. If you compare the two rotor areas, however, you may observe that the rotor area of the second machine is exactly 45.2% larger than the first machine. > So, if we assume that the price for the second machine is 33% higher than for the first machine you would get very different results, if you compare > > 1. The price per kW rated power has increased 21% > 2. The price per sq m rotor area has decreased 8.4% > 3. The price per kWh energy has decreased 8.4% > > New wind turbines are increasingly being built with pitch control rather than stall control. This means that the generator size can be varied more freely in relation to the rotor size. In general, there is a tendency to use larger rotor areas for a given generator size. That means that you will get a completely wrong (overestimated) price development when you compare the price per kW installed power for old turbines with new turbines. The relevant price measure is the price per square metre swept rotor area, not the price per kW installed (rated) power. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/93 "2009-06-06T08:47:26Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > **This reference never says that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US**. It is saying that with some might big assumption there is enough **energy** falling in that area to equal the electricity use of the country. Do you even know what you’re talking about? What do you think solar panels _do_, if not convert solar energy into electricity? It doesn’t rely on any “mighty big assumptions” to work either. Solar panels that convert solar energy to electricity at a better than 10% efficiency are already available, and as long as you’re putting them somewhere that doesn’t get much cloud cover, it’s pretty simple to work out how much solar energy hits them per year. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/94 "2009-06-06T09:35:48Z")
[quote=“Blake, post:91, topic:498880”] > [@Blake](#): > > I’ve certainly provided references for my claims that nuclear electricity of much cheaper than wind. Now can you provide a reference for your claim to the contrary? Yep, I’ve done that. > [@Blake](#): > > Neither of those references makes any claim even remotely like “there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US”. Yes, they do. Here is yet another one, an abstract of a peer journal on worldwide capacity [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005462.shtml](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005462.shtml) > [@Blake](#): > > The closest the first one comes is “It has been **estimated** that [an area] 161 km on a side …could **theoretically** meet the electricity needs of the entire country **if** the solar radiation in that area could be converted to electricity with 10% efficiency See, it does. > [@Blake](#): > > **This reference never says that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US**. It is saying that with some might big assumption there is enough **energy** falling in that area to equal the electricity use of the country. Disagreeing with its points doesn’t make it not so. > [@Blake](#): > > The second reference is even more vague. It says “wind **energy potential** is **estimated** at …more than twice the total electricity generated from all sources in America today Yep, that’s what it says. You don’t believe it, and I don’t believe what you assert, but don’t cite. > [@Blake](#): > > It isn’t even talking about potential electricity generation electricity. It’s talking about total energy. Yes, that is correct. > [@Blake](#): > > Jeez, if this is what your arguments are based on I think I can just give up and let others make what they will of your knowledge. You refute internationally acclaimed scientists in peer reviewed journsl stating plainly that renewables can’t replace fossil fuels with statement sin pres releases about potential energy equivalence to electricity generation. You are welcome to depart. I have refuted no peer reviewed articles, but you are most welcome to refer to them most specifically. I note that you refer to none here by name, just vague peer reviewed journals. By the way, scientists do not calculate costs, accountants do. > [@Blake](#): > > Like I say, if you want a reference for any claim of mine then just ask. Yes, every time you assert that someone has stated data or an opinion, like the “peer reviewed journals” (like immediately above) you should include a link. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t bother reasserting your assertions. > [@Blake](#): > > No you don’t, I’ve asked at leats 5 times for a reference for your claim that wind power is cheaper /kw hr than nuclear. I’ve given you the MIT number and the Canadian report. For those others still reading, none of the smaller (1 megawatt) turbines are being installed in the modern installations. Pickens 1.5 megawatt turbines cost 3 million each. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/95 "2009-06-06T10:23:13Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > And that’s why I’m saying test that shit. Test it for what you think will happen. Test it for what you think could possibly happen. Test if for what you think probably won’t happen, but would really suck if it did. Test it for what might happen if the Kitten Sausage Jihad drives a plane into it. > > Mass production is groovy for things that won’t turn a tri-county area into a radioactive wasteland (on a bad thing happening) until the Saints win a Super Bowl or the next ice age, whichever comes first. Nuke plants are not in that category. Test what? I just told you that they have literal inherently safe reactors. Safe in that the very fabric of the universe will not let them blow up. Not kidding. They can’t go boom. So test planes flying in to reactors? Why? Oil tankers bust up and ruin coastlines. Do we need to test what happens when an oil tanker runs aground? Nope. We know what will happen and it will be a mess. What needs to be worried about is the operation of the reactor. What if someone goofs up or some improbable series of events happens? In this case the reactor can…not…fail. Period. End of story. You could not make it go boom even if you really, really tried. No meltdown…nothing. It’s like you are asking to test the reliability of 2+2=4. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/96 "2009-06-06T10:26:44Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Because each plant is unique. Not so with PBMRs. The M stands for modular. The plants can be self-contained units built and fuelled in one location, then installed on site, kind of like how nuclear-powered ships were proposed to be parked outside New Orleans to provide power for reconstruction, or were used for the Panama Canal. Yes, site security is then a location-specific issue, but that’s not a problem unique in the Pebble Bed design, nor is it a major factor when yu consider that the PB design can’t be made to melt down or anything like that, even with a terrorist strike. The design is inherently self-limiting. BTW, I’ve reported your “Bless You” to **DT** as deliberate antagonism. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/97 "2009-06-06T10:32:15Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Well then, here they are, google is my friend Once again, your references don’t support your claim. The cost of nuclear power plants is explicitly based on 2009 figures with 2008/09 costs. It makes point of stressing that the cost increase is due to recent increases in capital costs. The paper also notes that the ‘cost of building coal- and gas-fired plants has also increased although perhaps not quite to the same extent”. While it makes no mention of the change in the cost of wind or electric plants it’s reasonable to assume those costs also increase data similar rate. You then try to compare those figures to an unreferenced, unattributed 2007 publication from some anonymous pro-wind group. It’s not even a reputable reference, particularly when it’s contradicting government agencies and scientific journals. But even if I were to accept it, you can not do that. Either compare 2009 prices to 2009 prices, or assume equal capital cost increases over time. Because when we look at some more reputable references closer to the 2009 date for the nuclear figures we see: In good wind sites in the U.S., the cost of wind electricity is in the range of 4 to 7 cents/kW h Muradov and Veziroğlu ““Green” path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-neutral technologies” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 33, Issue 23, December 2008 The unsubsidized cost of wind-generated electricity ranges from about 5 to 8.5 cents/kWh Thresher, R. Robinson, M. Veers, P. 2007 “Capture the Wind”, Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE 5:6 I’ll give you one more chance, but it you demonstrate that you either don’t understand or are deliberately misrepresenting a reference again I will wash my hands of you. > [@Grumman](#): > > Do you even know what you’re talking about? What do you think solar panels _do_, if not convert solar energy into electricity? > It doesn’t rely on any “mighty big assumptions” to work either. Solar panels that convert solar energy to electricity at a better than 10% efficiency are already available, and as long as you’re putting them somewhere that doesn’t get much cloud cover, it’s pretty simple to work out how much solar energy hits them per year. Sigh. You are confusing potential energy with actual, usable energy. Costs of installation, reliability of supply etc. Do you really thin it’s plausible for me to say that nuclear power for NY is unnecessary because fart powered power plants can produce all the electricity needed? Because that;s what is being attempted here. This debate was always about the fact that fossil fuels _can_ replace coal powered plants at short notice, and that renewables _are_ unable to. Not what might be possible in theory with some far future technology. What is practically and actually possible right now or in the near future. Look, do you honestly think someone like Pimmental, possibly the authority of the subject, is going to get published in a peer reviewed journal saying that is isn’t possible when it’s possible using a tiny area in Nevada. Just think about that. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Here is yet another one, an abstract of a peer journal on worldwide capacity [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005462.shtml](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005462.shtml) Ok, that’s it. You’ve yet again misrepresented a reference. Not only doesn’t that article say that there is enough wind or solar power to run the entire US, it specifically says that is there are practical barriers to prevent it from being so. Now I’m guessing your going to say that you meant “one day there will be enough power to run the US, if we can get the technology sorted out”. But don’t even try it. You started this nonsense by disputing my claim that nuclear can replace fossil fuels right now, and renewables are unable to meet more than a tiny fraction of energy needs. You don’t get to change tactic now to pretend you meant we might be able to do it one day when we overcome numerous practical barriers. I don’t know whether you are doing this because you don’t understand how to do valid research or it is deliberately dishonest, and frankly I don’t care. I’ll leave it to others to decide how much to trust someone who misrepresents references. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/98 "2009-06-06T10:54:12Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > And yet you don’t move to any of that really cheap land near Chernobyl. I would. Well sorta. The fact that its closer to Siberia than Florida has much more with me not living there than the mild radioactivity. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/99 "2009-06-06T11:31:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Sigh. You are confusing potential energy with actual, usable energy. Costs of installation, reliability of supply etc. That’s rich, coming from someone who doesn’t even know the _definition_ of “potential energy”. > [@](#): > > This debate was always about the fact that fossil fuels _can_ replace coal powered plants at short notice, and that renewables _are_ unable to. Not what might be possible in theory with some far future technology. What is practically and actually possible right now or in the near future. What part of “already available” don’t you understand? Two years ago, I was already using commercially available solar panels that achieve a better efficiency than the 10% suggested. > [@](#): > > Look, do you honestly think someone like Pimmental, possibly the authority of the subject, is going to get published in a peer reviewed journal saying that is isn’t possible when it’s possible using a tiny area in Nevada. Just think about that. Pimentel is _not_ the authority on the subject. If you’d at least read the cover page of the paper you quoted, you might notice that he’s a professor of the _life sciences_, not of engineering or physics. His co-author, Patzek, would be a more likely candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880/100 "2009-06-06T13:21:25Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > If we had this attitude about everything we’d still be in the stone age. Stone Axes don’t kill people, People kill People. Ban The Rock! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-and-improved-nuclear-plants-may-cost-more-than-expected/498880.md?page=6)