Rattie is not a very reliable source. I tried some spot-checking. He said the 1977 National Energy Plan “failed miserably”. That was Jimmy Carter’s MEOW speech that introduced it. Nowhere in there did Carter talk about global cooling, even though Rattie implies that the consensus at that time was that the planet was cooling and fossil fuels were to blame. So wrong. Carter was pointing to a peak in oil and gas. He thought oil would peak by 1985. He was off on that. It now looks like it peaked in the 2005-2008 period. But only time will tell. Gas we have plenty of for now. But Carter was not wrong about there being an eventual peak. Carter also called for a DOE (check, done, good idea) and a Strategic Oil Reserve (ditto) in that speech. He also talked about the importance of letting prices reflect the true costs of energy. Sounds like a call for letting markets work to me, which is what Rattie is saying Carter did not do.

Of course he is right – but the last time I checked, the guys in the White House had democratic party books. And contrary to the other side (in deep denial about their loss and unwilling to change to attract a mayority of the vote – except for Arlen Specter following his 200,000 Pennsilvania Republican members that switched to the dems in the last year) chances are that will stay that way for the next 8 (yes, eight) years.

So ranting against the legislation that comes with it is futile – instead one should adjust and profit from it. Someone as Questar Corporation for example. Must be hard for these guys with natural gas prices in the cellar. As I see it, Questar should invest jointly with their sunnier piers like Southern CAL Edison here into giant dirt-cheap solar farms (not mentioned by the author) in the Mojave desert and build a power line up to Utah. Simple as that. Hey – they can even get the feds to pay for most of it under the green stimulus package.

So – as I see it, the current course of events will lead to another 1 million green jobs generated in Germany. Denial of the opportunities by corporations and people like Mr. Rattie will only accelerate that imbalance. Thank you.

So what does nucular energy (W speak – he did very well for us folks!) have to do with it? As an industry insider I can confirm statements here in the comments about how new nukes are outragously expensive, somewhere North of $5,000 per kWe (net). Not even 24/7 operation will ever return that money, UNLESS the feds grant carbon tax credits for it. The power producers are not dumb. Higher prices are there for all of us to pay for energy, just depends who will profit from it. Case in point: Southern Nuclear is already pouring concrete ahead of the NRC decision: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=25028&terms=shaw

But quietly and without much of a noise we are adding the equivalent of about one big nuke to the existing fleet through power uprates. And run the fleet at more than 90% efficiency and last time I looked at less that 2 cent per kWh. Go figure.

Here in British Columbia natural gas and electricity are approximately equal in cost when used to heat homes.

I wish I could believe that, but here in the UK, the only way our (state) Atomic Energy Authority can get any new installations funded privately is by promising to underwrite the clean-up costs, i.e. getting the taxpayer to foot the bill. Why would that be if decommissioning is as cheap as you say? AFAIK, they are still looking to somewhere the bury the waste from our old Magnox reactors and taking the Dounreay reactor to bits is proving a bit of a headache:
http://www.nce.co.uk/bringing-down-the-curtain/1571066.article

You are in the same category as chris y, a nuclear nut. None of your assertions are true.

Published nuclear power plant cost estimates, based on AP 1000 reactors, show what I wrote earlier.

It is indeed an irrefutable fact that plutonium is made by nuclear fission, and nuclear fisson is the process in nuclear power plants. Your knowledge of physics needs upgrading.

You are a nuclear nut. Good day to you sir.

May I also point out that you made no attempt to refute my point that, human nature beinmg what it is, the French would be unlikely to spend hundreds of billions secretly subsidising German, Italian, Spanish & British electricity. I would be interested in seeing you try to refute that.

Finally may I point out that the cost figures you give are hogwash.

“Westinghouse claims its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1500-$1800 per KW for the first reactor and may fall to USD $1200 per KW for subsequent reactors. They also claim these will be ready for electricity production 3 years after first pouring concrete.”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323
Or perhaps Westinghouse are also secretly nationalised & under communist control.

Nor is it an “irrefutable fact” that all plutonium for nuclear bombs came from commercial nuclear reactors.

Once again we see that the Luddites are willing to say absolutely anything, irrespective of the truth. I suspect it is an irrefutable fact that at least 99% of the anti-nuclearists are willing to tell any lie but would be interested in seeing Mr Sowell trying to refute it.

I provided you the link on Spain’s 8 year renewable fiasco. Its worth spending 5 minutes to read up on what they did and what went wrong. The full report contains actual data.

you say “I will say this, in closing, you have established quite clearly that you are a nuclear nut, and beyond anyone’s ability to persuade you with facts.”

I’m always open to actual data and facts. Anthony’s website is a fountain of information that brings surprises every day, not just through the posts but through the myriad of excellent comments. I’m a big fan of inexpensive, plentiful energy supplies to help society grow and improve. Nuclear already plays a role, and it should be playing a much bigger role.

I usually let disinformation about nuclear power slide by, especially when it is off-topic. But your claims about nuclear power are such specious drivel, I was compelled to provide actual data on nuclear costs.

Good day to you as well.

I have never agreed at any time that nuclear power is cheaper than renewables. Do not attribute words to me that I did not write.

You miss the key word in what you quoted, and that is “reliable.” That is the only criteria at this time where nuclear has an edge over solar and wind. As I have written before, the energy storage systems are quickly closing that gap.

As a matter of fact, in California, wind power plant owners were paid between 2.5 and 5 cents per kwh, according to Berkeley Labs in their wind power analysis. These are from new wind power plants, against which a new nuclear power plant can never hope to compete.

New nuclear power, at 30 cents per kwh, is clearly vastly more expensive than wind power at 5 cents. What part of this do you not understand?

You would have far more credibility, if you used actual data.

I am no shill for anything.

However, I do have clients, and personal interests, in many fields, including coal, natural gas, petroleum, wind, solar, wave, ocean current, climate change, advanced batteries, CNG vehicles, and certain renewable energy storage technologies. I also have a few confidential matters that one day will make significant changes through innovation.

I cannot comment on Spain’s troubles, if any. However the California experience is positive with renewable power, including wind, geothermal, bio-gas, and to a limited extent, solar. Texas’ experience with wind power is also positive. Perhaps the Spanish would be willing to visit for an information exchange.

I will say this, in closing, you have established quite clearly that you are a nuclear nut, and beyond anyone’s ability to persuade you with facts.

Therefore, good day to you sir.

So, now I understand your position on nuclear power. You are a shill for big renewables. And, you agree that nuclear power is still cheaper than renewable power.

Any comments on the economic disaster in Spain caused by its eight-year experiment with renewable energy, specifically wind and solar?

http://powermag.com/issues/departments/speaking_of_power/Spain-Is-Tilting-at-Windmills_1851.html

Quite an accusation.

The table for expected busbar costs includes capital costs (not including, of course, schedule delays due to the NRC feet-dragging on permits, spurious lawsuits from nuclear power hand-wringers and enviro-wackos chaining themselves to construction equipment), operating costs (O&M costs) and fuel costs. They are all included. Since these numbers were estimated in 2006 for projects planned world-wide over the next 5-10 years, the busbar prices in $/MWhr of capital-intensive plants (nuclear, solar, wind, micro hydro) need to be scaled up by about 20 – 40% to account for increased materials and labor costs that occurred in 2007-2008. That may increase nuclear to $31 – $45/MWhr (3.1 – 4.5 cents per kWhr).

Hawaiians paying 26 cents/kWh includes, of course, all of the transmission, distribution, taxes, fees, assessments for renewable initiatives, enviro-impact assessments. This is not busbar costs at the generation facility. You are comparing apples and oranges.

you say “If nuclear power plants are as cheap as you say, then why does any utility anywhere (except the U.S., where we have the NRC to protect the public) build anything else? Why is China building coal-fired power plants? Why is any utility anywhere building natural-gas fired plants? Why did not any islands build a nuclear plant instead of opting for expensive oil-burning or diesel-generator plants?”

All good questions. I sigh with sadness every time another nuclear power project is delayed or canceled. I conclude that the major reason is an unwarranted fear of nuclear power created in the public’s mind by the media, hollywood and environmental groups. That one factor has driven up costs for nuclear. China is building every energy source possible, including coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind.

I think Progress Energy’s cost estimate of $7B per reactor is padded for expected delays based on bitter past experience, and for other system upgrades. As I said, other countries are building brand new nuclear plants for half the money in half the time.

You say “And, your cost estimates of $200 to $500 per kWe are pure propaganda.”

I assume you are referring to this paragraph-
“An OECD survey published in 2003 reported US dollar (2001) costs by reactor type. For western PWRs, most were $200-500/kWe, for VVERs costs were around $330/kWe, for BWRs $300-550/kWe, for CANDU $270-430/kWe. For gas-cooled reactors the costs were much higher due to the greater amount of radioactive materials involved, reaching $2600/kWe for some UK Magnox reactors.”

Once again you are misreading what I quoted. The $200 – $500 per kWe is the cost to decommission the plant when it reaches end of life (which, by the way, may turn out to be much longer than 40 years). It is not the cost to build a new plant.

As for investment comparisons, the financial tradeoff between energy source investments is one of time horizon. You can build a gas fired generation plant in a couple of years, for low cost, but have to live with fuel cost fluctuations. You can build wind and solar farms in a few years, with buckets of government subsidies (also listed in the table), but must rely on spinning reserves to maintain grid stability. Why would an investor invest in a long-term project like nuclear, when the government dangles rebates and subsidies for short-term projects like wind and solar, for which specious lawsuits from greenies are less likely to occur?

If natural gas prices are going to stay low, as the speech indicated, then why would anyone not build new gas turbine facilities? It is by far the least expensive capital equipment outlay. Draw a map of the US power grid, overlay a map of the US natural gas pipeline grid, and build natural gas plants at all the intersections.

If subsidies went away, solar and wind construction would stop. We already have historical data to support this conclusion. If insurance and loan guarantees for nuclear went away, nuclear construction in the U.S. would stop, even though the government, as far as I know, has never paid an insurance claim related to the nuclear power industry. Gas and coal would continue to be built, unless cap and tax rolls in.

There are lots of other infrastructure projects that, without government guarantees, would stop or never be started. For the most part, we take them for granted every day.

Most of what you have reported above is the most blatant propagandizing for the now-desperate nuclear power industry. As I have written many, many times, those “bus-bar” costs do not include capital charges. On the same basis, a solar or wind powered plant would have zero bus-bar costs. That is the French nuclear cost-hiding maneuver.

The sole exception is the Progress Energy figures, at $14 billion. That works out to far more than the $200 to $500 per kWe, as discussed below.

And, your cost estimates of $200 to $500 per kWe are pure propaganda. GE has published their number of $1000 per kWe for an AP-1000, and had to eat crow when the real numbers were estimated by those who know what they are doing, with the result of $7,000 to $9,000 per kWe, i.e. $18 billion for a 2,000 MWe plant. Those do not include interest on construction (add another $2 billion for that), nor do they include the just-mandated NRC requirement that every new nuclear plant in the U.S. shall be designed to withstand an impact from a large commercial aircraft. One can add 10 to 20 percent for that aircraft impact alone.

These numbers (mine) also do not include additional interest on construction that will occur (note the word WILL) due to lawsuits to block, delay, or terminate construction. A 2-year delay with, as an example, $7 billon invested, will require an additional $1.6 billion on a construction loan charging 10 percent interest per annum.

Please, do not continue to spread such utter falsehoods.

If nuclear power plants are as cheap as you say, then why does any utility anywhere (except the U.S., where we have the NRC to protect the public) build anything else? Why is China building coal-fired power plants? Why is any utility anywhere building natural-gas fired plants? Why did not any islands build a nuclear plant instead of opting for expensive oil-burning or diesel-generator plants?

For a list of 15 islands that are ideally suited for a single-reactor nuclear power plant, see below. (this list is based upon the Oahu values for kwh per capita, from January 2009) Note that Hawaii residents paid an average of 26 cents per kwh in January, 2009. Surely, a utility should step up to reduce Hawaiians’ power costs to 1.7 cents per kwh, as you claim a nuclear power plant would do! Why, then, does nobody do this?

Island ……………….population, millions

Okinawa…………………1.25

Mauritius…………………1.245

Bohol…………………….1.23

Hong Kong……………….1.18

Mindoro…………………..1.16

Xiamen Island…………….1.08

Sao Luis Island……………1.08

Trinidad……………………1.03

South Island (NZ)…………1.008

Oahu……………………….0.876

Tenerife……………………0.865

Cyprus……………………..0.855

Grand Canary………………0.815

Majorca……………………0.814

Reunion (France)………….0.793

Finally, let me propose you perform the following: take a nuclear-power plant business plan to any investment group, tell them you want them to advance the $20 billion in funds to construct a two-reactor AP-1000 plant to generate 2200 MWe, and that you have a sales contract for all the power, at 2 cents per kwh sold. Make it 3 cents, if you like. Make sure they understand that no revenue will be had until at least 7 or 8 years from the groundbreaking ceremony. Then let me know how many investors take you up on that. Good luck.

In 2007, Exelon’s nuclear fleet delivered power to the bus at an average cost of 1.7 cents/kWhr here in the U.S. It was the cheapest source of electricity in their generation fleet. Availability has now routinely exceeded 90%.

Progress Energy is planning to build two more nuclear reactors in Florida where I live (1200 MW) for $14B, plus $3B for a new transmission line and substations. It will take at least 8 years. People are wringing their hands over the modifying of 0.007% of Florida’s remaining swamp, err natural watershed area for the plant and transmission line right of way. I expect pallets of lawsuits from the greenies.

Meanwhile, China is building nukes at a record pace-

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1696

“China’s nuclear power sector will triple in size over the next decade. According to the latest data from the National Energy Administration, China will activate 24 new reactors by 2020.”

“The three-phase scheme, with an investment of more than $5.9 billion earmarked for the first phase, will incorporate the application of the third-generation pressurized water reactor technology AP1000 introduced from US-based Westinghouse. The first phase project will include two units each with a generating capacity of 1.25 GW, which are slated for completion in 2013 and 2014.”

That is half the price estimated by Progress Energy, for the same reactor design proposed by Progress Energy.

Japan is completing new nuclear reactors in less than 4 years.

As for capital costs, O&M costs and fuel costs, here is a list of numbers, again generated by EIA, (2006 I think) that gives the costs and subsidies for each of the major newly added sources of energy in our electricity grid.

A 5% discount rate is assumed throughout. All of this is based on delivered energy, for that is what matters to the customer. As a reminder, electricity generated by existing nuclear plants in the US had a busbar cost in 2007 of $17/MWhr.

Source…$/MWh…..%capital…..%fuel….%O&M……subsidy($/MWh)

Coal….$25-50…….35%………..45%…….20%………$0.44
Gas…..$37-60…….15%……….80%………5%……….$0.25
Nuclear.$21-31…..50%……….20%……..30%………$1.59
Wind….$35-95……60-85%…..0%………15-40%…$23.30
u-hydro.$40-80…90%…………0%………10%………$0.67
Solar..$150-300…90%…………0%………10%………$24.30

Intermittent sources like wind and solar need spinning reserves to keep the lights on. Those costs are not included. Typical next-day scheduled wind in Texas is 8% of nameplate capacity. The numbers above assume unscheduled wind farms (opportune energy sources), with availability from 18% – 45%.

Decommissioning costs are not some infinite unknown cost, but have an average cost of $325M per reactor. The utilities have a self-funded reserve fund that is constantly growing, to pay for decommissioning.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html

From that report’s summary-

“To date, 100 mines, 90 commercial power reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully dismantled.
Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive, or are contaminated at very low levels. Most metal can be recycled.
Proven techniques and equipment are available to dismantle nuclear facilities safely and these have now been well demonstrated in several parts of the world.
Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants, including disposal of associated wastes, are reducing and contribute only a small fraction of the total cost of electricity generation.”

“Even allowing for uncertainties in cost estimates and applicable discount rates, decommissioning contributes a small fraction of total electricity generation costs. In USA many utilities have revised their cost projections downwards in the light of experience, and estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $).”

“In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. As of 2001, $23.7 billion of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving a liability of about $11.6 billion to be covered over the operating lives of 104 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit).”

“An OECD survey published in 2003 reported US dollar (2001) costs by reactor type. For western PWRs, most were $200-500/kWe, for VVERs costs were around $330/kWe, for BWRs $300-550/kWe, for CANDU $270-430/kWe. For gas-cooled reactors the costs were much higher due to the greater amount of radioactive materials involved, reaching $2600/kWe for some UK Magnox reactors.”

It is apparent that utilities have solid fiscal reasons for continuing to invest in new coal, gas, hydro and nuclear.

I think Bill had it right. We had a rather large country do the experiment so there is no need to consider a small island. The country in question is doing fine. It hasn’t gone bust (which of course it should have done by your calculations) and continues to supply the UK with electricity at less than half the price of our domestic product. Incidentally we pay almost 20 cents for our electricity, something to with the Renewables Obligation Certificate (fancy title for subsidy).

Vive la France.

I have heard all your arguments before so your this diatribe does not come as any great surprise. However I stick with my view that you are wrong on nuclear, for whatever reason.
I would certainly hate to have your imagination. It must frighten you to death. And by the way I live in the UK directly in the line of fire, sitting next to the Trident warheads on your US airforce bases. So please don’t give me any crap about how dangerous they are. For most of us they were there for our protection and since there has never been another bomb dropped you might say they were highly successful.

I will end on this:

“As the bumper stickers said in the 1960’s: One Nuclear Bomb Can Ruin Your Entire Day.”

That statement speaks volumes. You are just out and out anti nuclear and you sure as hell aint going to change your mind.