The Global Warming Crowd and No Nukes c. 1977

[jshore]

@Sam Stone

Here’s a Report showing the relative costs of nuclear and other power generation technologies. Nuclear looks pretty damned good.

Well…that is a report by the “Uranium information center” of the Australian Uranium Association, so it would be a little surprising if nuclear didn’t look good. For example, their figure on U.S. electricity production costs as the print below it notes excludes capital costs, which change the picture significantly I think since capital costs are the most expensive aspect of nuclear.

I think the Wikipedia discussion of the economics of nuclear power that I linked to in a previous post is probably a more objective discussion.

[jshore]

@Sam Stone

As for the cost of nuclear, one of the problems is that nuclear is being held to a much higher standard than other forms of energy. Coal plants aren’t charged for the CO2 and particulates they emit, but nuclear power plants are required to pay for all costs associated with their waste. Level the playing field by forcing other power sources to pay for every cost of generation, and nuclear suddenly looks a lot better.

On this I definitely agree (although nuclear has also enjoyed its share of subsidies).

[Richard_Parker]

A few inaccuracies here:

@Sam Stone

As for the cost of nuclear, one of the problems is that nuclear is being held to a much higher standard than other forms of energy. Coal plants aren’t charged for the CO2 and particulates they emit, but nuclear power plants are required to pay for all costs associated with their waste. Level the playing field by forcing other power sources to pay for every cost of generation, and nuclear suddenly looks a lot better.

Nuclear power plants don’t pay for all the costs associated with their waste. It is true that plants pay a per Kw tax that the DOE uses for waste disposal, but this tax doesn’t even come close to covering all the costs of high-level waste disposal. And high-level waste is not the only form of pollution from nuclear plants. Of course, coal plants also pay for pollution–they pay to reduce their pollution in order to be compliant with the Clean Air Act.

@Sam Stone

Also, it’s no secret that environmental groups went way out of their way to intentionally ensnarl nuclear plants in reams of leglislation for the specific purpose of driving up the cost and making nuclear non-competitive. Lawyers from major advocacy groups have filed complaints, forced hearings, lobbied for regulatory changes in the middle of plant construction, sought temporary injunctions, and in general just tried to make life as difficult as possible for nuclear power plants. Now they point to the high cost of nuclear and say, “See? We told you it wasn’t worth doing.”

It is not true that these groups’ goal was to make what they considered to be an otherwise viable technology arbitrarily more expensive. They didn’t “go out of their way” just to litigate. They litigated based on actual causes of action which courts frequently found to be valid.

I would also like to see any kind of cite for the fact that NRC regulation and litigation is a significant factor in the cost of nuclear power.

@Sam Stone

In Canada, where we didn’t have a lot of the regulatory snarls the U.S. has, we built 18 nuclear power plants, most in Ontario. Nuclear power in Canada costs about 4.5 cents per kW/h. This is lower than the cost of both coal and natural gas power production in Ontario, without even considering the environmental effects of those two options.

Canada has made even less progress than the US in planning for the long-term storage of high-level waste. All the cost of Yucca, and to the a lesser extent WIPP, has not been passed on to Canadian nuclear. Virtually every stage of the nuclear lifecycle is different in Canada because of the different geologic setting, from extracting, to siting plants, to transporting waste.

In summary, it is not at all clear the US “regulatory snarls” have been responsible for the hindering of nuclear power usage. This is a common claim, but I’ve so far seen absolutely no evidence of its veracity. Please cite for us a specific regulation which you think is unnecessary. Or, if you prefer, please cite nuclear power litigation in which the plaintiffs had no merit to their argument but the nuclear industry was nevertheless delayed and forced to spend millions in defense. I’m a very strong supporter of nuclear power. But it has real issues that should not be brushed aside. More importantly, the way forward for nuclear power in the US is not less regulation, or less accountability. The way forward is persuading the American public of the opposite–that these plants are well-regulated, safe, and accountable for their waste.

[Una_Persson]

@Themenin

As for wind power, although it brings its own set of problems, there is certainly room for progress. 34% of electricity from wind sounds like a big number, but if you consider that Germany is at about 20%, and Spain has gone from 0 to 10% in the space of about 10 years, maybe 34% is not completely outrageous. On the other hand, a lot of environmental groups object to turbines…

From: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentOtherElectricGenerationKilowatthours.xls

Germany is listed as having a production of 53.07 billion kWh from all renewable sources.

From: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalElectricGeneration.xls

Germany is listed as having a total production of 592.01 billion kWh for all electricity.

I can eyeball that and get quite a bit less than 10%.

In fact, according to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Germany/Electricity.html
“According to Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act, the country aims to increase the share of electric power sourced from renewables to 12.5 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.”

Note they’re talking about total renewables, not just wind. So to be the usual splash of cold water in these “Great Debates”, where do you arrive at your 20% number for wind at this current time?

I’m not going to bother to do the legwork right now for Spain, since the German numbers are in dispute.

@marshmallow

I never understood the anti-nuke people. Coal powered plants are foul and grotesque, causing untold human death, misery, disease, and environmental degradation. However bad you think nuclear plants are, there’s no way in my mind they could ever approach the danger of coal plants.

I know this is the SDMB and not a scientific board, but rhetoric without even the slightest attempt at including a Google/Wiki set of facts, or even any track record of experience, just isn’t constructive. (Of course, someone on here said they lost all respect for me because Gooooooooooooogle couldn’t back up a report I had of something happening at a power plant when I was at the fucking power plant myself at the time, but oh well :rolleyes: )