You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...
Cyc's not comparing nuclear energy to some theoretical source of clean fairy energy, though.
Compared to other real-world sources, nuclear has a lot going for it. Leaving the global warming issue aside completely, setting fire to a petrochemical energy source for power produces plenty of "old-fashioned" pollution as well.
Compared to solar or wind, it requires relatively little actual land for emplacement; you don't have to dedicate vast amounts of space to the actual nuclear power plants, nor for waste disposal.
Cost-wise, it's competitive with everything except super-cheap oil, which we probably won't be seeing again for a while.
As far as scaling, there's no -technical- reason we couldn't build many new nuclear power plants. It wouldn't require massive changes in infrastructure.
Finally, unlike most of the "new" renewables, we know how nuclear works in a production environment. This is unlike wind or solar, where we have experience with small-scale deployments but not with the kind of huge installations we'd need to significantly affect the energy consumption of the nation.
Some studies say that the cost for a next-generation nuclear plant today could be as high as $7 billion.
In that light, it's also worth to discuss the fact that electricity from nuclear power plants is currently subsidized in the United States: companies receive 1.8 cents tax credit for each kW/h of electricity. Depending on the plant, that could amount to than $140 million per reactor per year.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...
I'd say that's a bit over the top. Nuclear energy might be necessary at this point, but it's certainly not "by far the best way to produce power".
Ignoring the "worst case scenario" images painted by the most vocal opponents, there are still a number of serious considerations to be taken into account.
Earlier on this thread, I've linked to a long term study by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency. The study found that children between 0 and 4 years of age who had been living within 5km (3.1 miles) of a nuclear power plant had a risk more than twice as high as a randomly selected control group to come down with leukemia. The risk increased proportionally with proximity to the facility. Earlier studies in England and Wales had similar results.
Noteworthy, because similar studies are often brought up to illustrate the safety of nuclear reactors. As far as I remember, studies on the personnel of US nuclear ships have rather found lower rates for cancer than what would be expected in the general population. Considering that the makeup of the population of nuclear ship personnel likely differs from that of the general population, that is maybe not as surprising as it sounds.
Another concern is certainly storage of nuclear waste. I have to admit that I'm not up to date on the status of American nuclear waste storage facilities. However, this very recent case in a German nuclear waste storage research facility has certainly drawn attention. Officials recently confirmed that radioactive brine has been leaking for two decades from storage site (contained insofar as the radioactive solution, once the leaks were discovered, had simply been pumped to lower levels of the former mine).
Worrying insofar as the site had been considered safe to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years merely two decades ago.
I will add that the above concerns are certainly more pertinent in a country with a high population density.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You are correct tho that Nuke is by far the best way to produce power at this time...
I'd say that's a bit over the top. Nuclear energy might be necessary at this point, but it's certainly not "by far the best way to produce power".
Ignoring the "worst case scenario" images painted by the most vocal opponents, there are still a number of serious considerations to be taken into account.
Earlier on this thread, I've linked to a long term study by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency. The study found that children between 0 and 4 years of age who had been living within 5km (3.1 miles) of a nuclear power plant had a risk more than twice as high as a randomly selected control group to come down with leukemia. The risk increased proportionally with proximity to the facility. Earlier studies in England and Wales had similar results.
Noteworthy, because similar studies are often brought up to illustrate the safety of nuclear reactors. As far as I remember, studies on the personnel of US nuclear ships have rather found lower rates for cancer than what would be expected in the general population. Considering that the makeup of the population of nuclear ship personnel likely differs from that of the general population, that is maybe not as surprising as it sounds.
Another concern is certainly storage of nuclear waste. I have to admit that I'm not up to date on the status of American nuclear waste storage facilities. However, this very recent case in a German nuclear waste storage research facility has certainly drawn attention. Officials recently confirmed that radioactive brine has been leaking for two decades from storage site (contained insofar as the radioactive solution, once the leaks were discovered, had simply been pumped to lower levels of the former mine).
Worrying insofar as the site had been considered safe to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years merely two decades ago.
I will add that the above concerns are certainly more pertinent in a country with a high population density.
In the first place nuclear power plants in this country are NOT curremtly subsidized as you claim. Energy legislation passed a couple of years ago provided for a temporary tax credit for qualifying NEW advanced reactor plants. None have yet been built, and no such tax credits are in effect.
Nuclear power generated by our currently operating 99 plants is today, except for hydroelectric power, our cheapest source of electric energy at 6.5 cents/KWHr. Coal-fired plants yield about 8.5cents/KWHr, while wind and solar sources are above 13cents/KWHr. All but about 5 of our existing nuclear plants are over 20 years old and their capital costs are now fully amortized - something that gives them a decisive advantage. However the same is true of most of our coal-fired plants, and the the amorization of capital cost is a factor usually left out of the comparative datas for renewable sources.
Even at the very high $7 billion cost you quoted and assuming a 20 year amortization period, at current nuclear plant operational rates, the amortized capital cost for the hypothetical new 1160MW plant would be about 4cents/KWHr, yielding a total cost of 10.5cents/KWHr - still far cheaper than renewable sources. Moreover, with the new tax credit the net would be about 8.6 cents/KWHr, or approximately the same cost as for coal, our next cheapest source (surprise!).
The six already approved licenses for new plant construction are all for new plants colocated with existing ones on sites with existing fuel storage infrastructure and known safety & geological factors. These factors should greatly improve the "some studies" worst-case cost estimate you quoted above.
A few points:
First, it would be a rather trivial matter to locate large nuclear plants 5, 10, or 15 miles away from significant populations. This may help a bit with the little radiation leaks.
Second, as for 'nuclear waste,' I think this is a rather poorly named term. It's extremely potent stuff; we just don't have a good use for it at this time.
Third, I think comparisons to the health problems put off by the vast amount of radioactive material and other pollutants put into the air by the burning of coal every year makes nukes seem much, much more attractive. The coal lobby has done a good job keeping this little fact silent, but it's not as if our current method of power generation is any less radioactive then nukes.
Nuke, wind, solar, bio, geothermal. A good system will have several points of energy creation and redundancies. Hopefully we can get some fusion plants together in the next 20-50 years and end this whole debate.
We have a fully completed long term storage facility for high level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain nevada. <snip>
There is no shortage of "studies" that purport to show a large relative increase in the incidence of (carefully) selected diseases.
I'm aware there is a fairly hot debate now ongoing in Germany about whether the country should abide by its earlier (pre-global warming) committment to abandon its existing nuclear plants. I believe the salient issue here is that this action would, by a wide margin, wipe out all the greenhous gas emission gains forecast for the next several decades of investment in wind and solar power.
That, in view of the new AGW concerns, a large segment of the public would still wish to do this is illustrative of the irrational psychological factors involved in the issue.
These matters tend to bring out the lunatic frings of which I believe Germany has at least its fair share. They appear to have influenced you as well.
Oil man unveils wind-based power plan
Texas magnate says foreign oil is 'killing' the economy; invested $2 billion in plan to build world's largest wind farm.
Last Updated: July 8, 2008: 1:37 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens Tuesday unveiled a new energy plan he says will decrease the United States' dependency on foreign oil by more than one-third and help shift American energy production toward renewable natural resources like wind power.
In a news conference outlining his proposal, Pickens said his impetus for the plan is the country's dangerous reliance on foreign oil. "Our dependence on imported oil is killing our economy. It is the single biggest problem facing America today," he said.
"The Pickens Plan" calls for investing in domestic renewable resources such as wind, and switching from oil to natural gas as a transportation fuel.
Pickens said that if the United States harnesses the so-called "wind corridor," stretching from the Canadian border to West Texas, energy from wind turbines built there could supply 20% or more of the nation's power. He suggested the project could be funded by private investors.
Power from the thousands of wind turbines that would line the corridor could be distributed throughout the country via electric power transmission lines and could fuel power plants in large population hubs, the oil baron said.
Fueling these plants with wind power would then free up the natural gas historically used to power them, and would mean that natural gas could be used to replace foreign oil as fuel for motor vehicles, he explained.
Using natural gas for transportation needs could replace one third of the United States' imported oil, and would save more than $230 billion a year, Pickens said.
His energy plan could be implemented within 10 years if both Congress and the White House treat the current energy situation as a "national emergency and take immediate action," he predicted.
Pickens, a lifelong Republican, says he is not advising either presidential candidate, but is prepared to work with whoever wins the White House.
Oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover said Pickens' plan could definitely reduce the country's dependency on foreign oil.
"The best thing about it is that it's a definite plan - it's not something that either party has pitted itself outrightly against. It therefore has a tremendous chance for success on Capitol Hill."
Analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., added that such a plan "has been on the drawing board for years."
Pickens' company, Mesa Power, recently announced a $2 billion investment as the first step in a multi-billion dollar plan to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.
The 'anti' almost anything generally do exaggerate risks.
It is unfortunate, however, that such incidents are exaggerated beyond belief and held up as prime examples to stop progress on development of nuclear energy or whatever.
georgeob1 wrote:These matters tend to bring out the lunatic frings of which I believe Germany has at least its fair share. They appear to have influenced you as well.
Sheesh! And we were just having a good, factual discussion...
I am concerned about large quantities of mercury that is being manditorily pushed on the general public with absolutely zero controls on its handling and disposal. I think the risks of soil and water contamination are far greater there than are risks inherent from operation of nuclear energy plants that do have strict safety standards and rigid controls. An entirely informal and unscientific straw poll conducted on line and among my neighbors who are using or who have used CFLs suggests they are just pitching them when they break or burn out. That 'tiny bit of mercury' just doesn't bother them enough to merit extra care or seeking out ways to properly dispose of it.
I love fish and seafood and am already bothered by alerts of high mercury levels there. How much worse is that likely to be with use of many hundreds of millions of CFLs all over the country or billions all over the world?