This is a parody gone mad. Green advocates howl about the issues of nuclear waste storage, arguing that nuclear energy becomes impractical due to the need for long term safe storage, in some cases tens of thousands to millions of years, or as the EPA puts it “25,000 generations”. The Yucca Mountain project was shut down in April 2010 because nobody seems to have the will to actually store nuclear waste below ground. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry stockpiles used fuel rods near major cities in holding pools, and they are running out of room. Are we safer this way? I think not. Thanks Obama.
It seems that ‘Carbon storage’ faces the same dilemma. Can it be safely stored for thousands of years? Or will it turn into a tree killing zone like this one below?
Tree Kill Zone, near Mammoth Mountain CA
More here from USGS on the Mammoth Lakes CO2 leak.
CO2 sequestration illustrated below, relies upon putting CO2 directly into underground storage. Ironically, using salt domes, just like Yucca mountain, and even less secure coal mines.
‘Carbon storage’ faces leak dilemma: Study
CCS supporters say the sequestered carbon would slow the pace of man-made warming. It would buy time for politicians to forge an effective treaty on greenhouse gases and wean the global economy off cheap but dirty fossil fuels.
Critics say CCS could be dangerous if the stored gas returns to the atmosphere. They also argue that its financial cost, still unknown, could be far greater than tackling the source of the problem itself.
The new research, published by the journal Nature Geoscience, wades into the debate with an estimate of capturing enough carbon to help limit warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the figure set in last December’s Copenhagen Accord.
…
The gas will have to be stored for tens of thousands of years to avoid becoming a threat to future generations, a scenario similar to that for nuclear waste, it says.
This means less than one percent of the stored volume can be allowed to leak from the chamber per 1,000 years.
===============================
Gee, where have we heard this before?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roger Sowell says:
June 29, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Roger, why don’t you write a short, pithy essay here on why you hate nuclear. I need it to answer your challenges more precisely, because I thought I had answered them in general. As, it seems, did others.
Please be aware that I have been involved in the costing (and operation/management of several types) of large energy sources since the mid-1970s.
Do you agree with the rationality of equating waste radioactivity to the radioactivity of the input ore? Even this has been hijacked by a subtle change, whereby some people express the comparison against natural uranium radioactivity. It’s the ore grade comparison that matters, because we are now mining a lot of ore with no apparent ill effects on the miners.
I’d have no problem living near the Chinese Guangdong complex. Last time I met with them, they expressed no overt desire to suicide as a group. But there were some underground mines (not uranium) where my instincts told me there was no need to enter.
Geoff Sherrington: you may have missed the WUWT post recently where all this was hashed out pretty well. My views are in comments on that post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/renewable-energy-%E2%80%93-our-downfall/#comments
You are also welcome to see my blog, in particular Nuclear Nuts.
“Hate” is your word, not mine. I will be happy to support power from nuclear power plants when it costs no more than does natural gas power, will not poison the populace with an explosion, and will not produce long-lived nuclear waste (especially plutonium).
If you have the credentials you say you have, then you should know better than to support nuclear power. To support nuclear power is to impose an un-bearable burden on the poor and those who are barely getting by paycheck to paycheck. It also imposes an unconscionable burden on future generations who must live with and clean up the nuclear waste our generation left for them.
They will not thank us for that. It is a shame: we knew better, but did not do better.
re CSS this may have been noted, already: I have been away for several days.
The Energy Collective … http://theenergycollective.com/Home/68369
ends with a YouTube link to Shell´s interest in CSS.
“Challenge One: tell me why none of the approximately 15 islands (state or nation) with a population roughly sufficient to support the electrical output of one nuclear reactor, (1000 MWe), such as Oahu in Hawaii, elects to generate electricity via oil or diesel instead of the “ultra-cheap” power from a nuclear power plant – as nuclear advocates insist that it is so cheap.”
perhaps the reason is the same as why other countries embark in ridicolously expensive and inefficient programs like wind and solar?
“challenge 2 etc”
nuclear reactors are airplanes, they would be very simple and cheap to build and operate if ridicolously complex and expensive certification requirements were removed.
basically, they are made expensive by decree. reason is simple, bureaucrats hate anything they cant understand or that costitute a risk for their career, like big lumps of metal suspended in the air and bound to eventually fall, and try to eliminate any career risk connected to these things by making them impossible to build or operate. or at least find a way to dodge any possible legal risk through absurd certifications.
why we dont build more nukes? answer is simple: stupidity. even if it is ultimately our fault, because we let the stupid and the dishonest climb to the top of the power chain.
where people is smart nukes are successfully build and used in total safety, just look at the US Navy, for example.
It appears I’m not the only one who views nuclear power plants as economically unviable in the USA. Below is a link from NRDC, a very “green” advocacy and legal group. Their article shows that nuclear power cannot hope to compete with natural gas unless gas becomes expensive, or a carbon tax is imposed. Plus, it appears their conclusions were based on an unrealistically low cost to construct for a nuclear power plant. Their cost-to-construct is hopelessly low, at $2000 per kWe. The STNP expansion is now at $7000 per kWe, and that cost is known to be too low. How much too low, the vendor will not reveal. The more realistic cost is likely $10,000 per kWe.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp
It is also a fact that natural gas price is low and will stay low for decades, thanks to huge LNG plants and enormous reserves of shale gas around the world.
I don’t make this stuff up.
Excellent idea to compare CO2 storage with nuclear waste storage.
Mr Sowell,
From your link:
“Exelon preliminary analyses estimate that gas prices consistently above $5 to $6/mmBTU [approx. $5 to $6/MCF] are needed for new nuclear plants to be competitive.”
While I agree with that statement, nat gas has been in excess of $6.00 mmBTU many times in the last five years. Peaking at about $14.00 mmBTU a few years ago. This does not even consider the change in price that would occur due to massive build out of nat gas power plants. Nor does it consider the cost of delivering this gas to the locations it would be needed. Just as with electricity, nat gas prices vary regionally based on limited pipeline capacity (transmission capacity in the case of electricity). To replace retired coal plants with nat gas would require billions of dollars to build out pipeline capacity. Finally, the economic life of a power plant is at least 40-60 years are you suggesting that you, or Exelon, can know what nat gas will cost in the year 2070???? Once again, THAT is a big advantage of nuclear – you are not subject to the price fluctuations of nat gas or coal. You are also producing today’s power largely with yesterday’s dollars. Just as my house payment (the levelized capitol cost of my house) seems pretty cheap 19 years after I bought the house, I suspect the levelized capitol cost of a nuke plant built today will seem cheap 20 years from now. Just as the levelized capitol cost of today’s plants is a bargain now – thirty years after they were built.
Would I put all my eggs into the nuclear basket – absolutely not. I certainly would not put them into nat gas either.
If memory serves, Carter’s plan was to build a civilian reprocessing capability, using a UREX process. The congresscritters had no problem cutting off power plants from defense facilities, but balked on funding the proposed UREX facility. Reagan declined to use his superior political gifts to reverse the situation.
BTW, does anyone else think sequestered CO2, aquifers and limestone formations could be an unfortunate combination?
Re: Doug Badgero says: June 30, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“Finally, the economic life of a power plant is at least 40-60 years are you suggesting that you, or Exelon, can know what nat gas will cost in the year 2070???? Once again, THAT is a big advantage of nuclear – you are not subject to the price fluctuations of nat gas or coal.”
Can you expand on that one? I’ve seen nuclear fuel prices and availability as a objection to building new plants. Is price stability based on existing US stocks that can be reprocessed? There seems to be FUD around potential “peak uranium” but I’m not convinced these are true. As I understand it, they’re mostly based on existing, known deposits and it’s only in the last few years been in mining company’s interests to survey for more.
Atomic
The cost of fuel is a relatively small part of the cost of operation for a nuke. Look at my link to the EIA report. Cost of production for various technologies is contained in the table near the end of the report. The big costs are:
Levelized capitol cost – This is primarily the cost to build the plant. Realizing that this cost must be financed via a combination of debt and equity. The interest rate on the debt and the yield on the equity are key in determining the viability of any capitol intensive project (power plant, factory, anything that costs a lot to build). This is how the anti-nuke movement makes nukes look expensive…..just assume a high interest rate on the loan taken out to build the plant. From the EIA report, levelized capitol cost is high for a nuke, but not as high as wind and solar.
Fixed O&M costs are the costs of operation that don’t depend on whether the plant is operating or not. Such as labor cost.
Variable operating costs are the costs of operation that vary based on how much the plant operates. This is dominated by fuel costs. This is very low for nuke and dominates nat gas plant costs. For instance, per the EIA report variable O&M for nuke is about $10 per MWHr but nat gas is $50-60 per MWHr. To be fair, it is essentially zero for solar and wind.
As you can see nuke costs for fuel are relatively low both from an absolute perspective and as a percent of total cost. That is the primary reason that nukes provide some protection against the volatility of nat gas and coal.
To the point of your question – sorry it took so long I just wanted a more complete story for anyone interested. I am by no means an expert on U mining but I know there are significant deposits in the US, Canada, and Australia. We also get fuel from dismantled weapons. The real tragedy is that we stopped R&D. Breeders, thorium, and things we can’t even imagine could make U availability irrelevant.
@ur momisugly Doug Badgero re natural gas price fluctuations.
Yes, we can confidently say that natural gas will be cheap for many, many decades. The minor price increases over the past few years were from market speculators, a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps temporary supply shortages into California – that turned out to be due to illegal market manipulation as charged by the FERC (the US regulatory agency for natural gas pipelines). Internationally, the Russians cut off the gas in a cold winter, causing prices to jump. These things happen.
For those who want the facts, not the bluster, please see this link for the last 37 years of natural gas price history in the USA. After adjusting for inflation, natural gas is the same price today as it was 30 years ago. Yet the annual volume consumed in the USA has increased almost 40 percent. Basic economics states that this does not indicate a shortage of a commodity – rather the reverse, that there is more than adequate supply.
The huge additions to known reserves, as stated above, from shale gas, LNG plants at previously stranded gas fields, and recovery from coal-bed methane, plus recovery from tight sandstone make the future of natural gas secure. There is also an enormous reserve in the oceans along the continental slopes in the form of frozen methane hydrates. Technology will provide the means to tap those reserves, too, when the price is right.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm
As to nuclear power plant costs compared to other power plants, it is not a fair comparison to charge every technology with the same cost of capital. Lenders do not do this, as is well-known. Lenders assess the risk of the venture and the technology, the credit history of the borrower, and other factors before deciding the rate of interest for their loan. Nuclear power plants therefore are rightfully charged a higher cost of capital to construct. The very fact (and it is a fact) that nuclear power projects will never be started without having the US government guarantee at least a part of the loan indicates the bank should charge a higher interest rate. Such a government guarantee is as easily withdrawn as it was extended. Note that the loan guarantee does not cover all the cost to construct – not even one-half.
In practice, the electric utility raises funds for construction through debt and issuance of equity. The equity typically is in the form of preferred stock, with a dividend rate of 10 percent or more. The debt is usually through the sale of utility bonds, with a coupon rate at whatever the bond rating agencies decide. The net cost of capital is easily 15 percent. With the dismal success rate of new nuclear projects (e.g. the Finland plant is already double the base cost with years yet to go before startup), and when the first such new project in the USA falls flat on its assets, double or triple or even quadruple the original budget and many years behind schedule, any subsequent projects will find their cost of capital far higher than 15 percent.
Bet on it.
Thus my position: why would any utility in their right mind build a nuclear power plant? They must be nuts. Their power prices must increase, their customer base will disappear, their shareholders will revolt, and their competitors will prosper – those who sell distributed generation systems. These are indeed interesting times. Nuclear utilities are not having a good day. Or week. Or decade. Nor will they – ever.
The nuclear utilities know the facts of which I speak, and know that there is absolutely nothing they can do to change them. All they can do is hide these facts, and hope that nobody ever discovers and reveals the facts. Not going to happen. The new media is here to stay – internet, blogs, websites, and those of us who write things on them.
One can follow the ups and downs of the South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion through the local San Antonio newspaper and the rather interesting comments there. Their website is http://www.mysanantonio.com/ just type in the words “nuclear plant” in their search engine.
@roger Sowell
You assume the Obama regime won’t tighten the noose on gas once they finish with coal. There is no reason for that assumption. There is already a lot of chatter about how the new methods of extracting gas, that have so moderated the price, are dangerous to the water table. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, they will use it. This is a lot more plausible than EPA’s endangerment finding, after all. The reason the price moderated had more to do with electrical demand that has remained low due to the Obama recession continuing with no end in sight and no real attempts to end it.
It takes a lot of gas to run a power plant. Even if there is adequate supply to prevent large price increases, it would take a long time to build the infrastructure to move enough gas to replace the fraction of our electricity being produced by coal. And environmentalists and EPA brown shirts will be fighting that every step of the way.
And by the way, I’m still paying $32 per mw-hr in fuel adjustment charges for the last natural gas price bubble, down from over $40. By the time that rolls off my bill, there’ll have been another bubble. That’s more than enough incentive to build something besides natural gas, and to pay for it.
And that’s in a service territory fortunate enough to be using coal for over 50% of the power. I hate to think what the lemmings in CA are still paying for the last gas price bubble.
Roger,
The assumptions in your post indicate that you must have a crystal ball that I do not possess. Surely you must be a multimillionaire by now.
My previous posts contained facts and the predictions of others – primarily EIA. The following contains some of my predictions and I freely admit I have no crystal ball:
Commodity prices are not solely subject to the supply and demand of the commodity. They are also subject to fluctuation due to the monetary policy of the world’s central banks. This is IMHO one of the primary reasons commodity prices are high now, e.g. gold, oil, copper, etc. To understand this, research the work of the late Milton Friedman. Therefore, the price of nat gas is not so solely dependent on simple supply and demand as you would have us believe. You also seem to believe that this massive demand increase you envision will have little or no effect on the price of supply. Finally, shale gas fracking and LNG plant construction only makes economic sense if nat gas prices stay relatively high…especially LNG plants.
Your reference to past data to support your position that inflation adjusted nat gas prices have not changed has made my point about my house payment better than I ever could. The difference is that your method leaves to your predictive abilities that nat gas prices will not go up in the future, my method LOCKS IN much of tomorrow’s generation costs at today’s prices. By the way, cumulative inflation since 1975 is 315% using your link, nat gas was about 70 cents in 1976, it is now 4 dollars. Since 3.15 times .7 is $2.21 – you are also factually incorrect.
Your cost of capitol arguments are silly. If the cost of capitol for nuke plants really does turn out to be 15% then no one will build them. It is laughable to suggest that anyone will build a plant without knowing what their cost of capitol is. If plants do come in over budget and behind schedule then I agree no one will build anymore in the USA. It is also laughable to suggest that the federal loan guarantees are somehow unfair. Have you paid any attention to the amount of subsidies that renewables get??? Nuke loan guarantees cost the govt nothing unless the loan goes into default. Utilities actually pay the govt for the guarantee, just like I paid a VA funding fee for my VA mortgage many years ago. I think we will have to disagree on the likely hood of default.
Finally, MEAG has already issued bonds in support of it’s portion of the Vogtle project. They are rated A+ and A- by Fitch. I agree that this is because of govt backing as discussed. The difference is I am okay with that. As stupid govt subsidies go this one doesn’t even make my top 100 list.
Of course, it doesn’t take 2500 kw-hrs a month to cool a house in CA, either. Otherwise, coal would be 50% of the mix there, too.
Mike G, nobody is advocating replacing coal with natural gas – at least I’m not (I’m aware of that argument, and it is dead). What is at issue is meeting new electrical demand with natural gas, not nuclear.
Obama’s toast. He knows it, too. The oil spill has cleaned his clock. This timely little hurricane Alex has shoved the oil up onto the beaches, and it will all be blamed on the Obumbler for his do-nothing policies. We get another little hurricane in the Gulf, and yet more oil on those beaches, and Democrats will turn on Obumbler in order to save their own elected seats.
No energy bill, no carbon tax, no cap-and-trade, nada. Just good, clean-burning, natural gas at cheap prices, keeping the nuclear power plants forever on the drawing boards.
I hope you’re right Roger. My biggest fear is what this bunch of ideological nutcases is going to do after they become lame ducks the first Tuesday in November. They have enough votes to enact a lot of spiteful vengence during that two month period before the get sent packing.
Doug Badgero, Utility debt and equity issuances are a matter of record. So is the price of natural gas. It is not expensive, and is declining in price. The MIT study required $6 gas for a nuclear power plant to compete, using $2000 per kWe as their cost. Given that the true cost of a new nuclear plant is much closer to $10,000 per kWe, we could expect the break-even price for natural gas to be roughly 5 times their value, or $30 per million Btu. Not going to happen with the world swimming in natural gas supplies.
And if you were correct that LNG plants only make sense with high natural gas prices, then why were so many built more than a decade ago? (see Qatar) Why are so many being built today also? (see Australia) You might be surprised at how low the natural gas sales price can be for a stranded gas LNG plant to be profitable. (Hint: their feedstock costs them zero, and the entire plant is run on free natural gas.) You also seem to believe that US regulations govern the entire world, where the majority of the shale gas lies outside the US. Those people are not dumb, and given the choice of self-produced shale gas, or waiting for Russia to shut off the valve (yet again) in an epic cold winter, which do you think will happen? The UK has already commissioned LNG receiving and vaporization terminals even though they have some natural gas from the North Sea. Those Brits are thinking ahead, and clearly this time.
The likelihood of default is essentially 100 percent for a new nuclear power plant built in the USA. It will take more than a decade to see who is correct, but understand this: the lawsuits and legal attacks in the 70’s and 80’s were nothing, repeat nothing, compared to what is about to be unleashed in the modern era against any new nuclear power project. There are far, far more attorneys, and far, far more anti-nuclear groups, and many, many more laws upon which to base the lawsuits. Any new nuclear power plant will take much longer than a decade to complete – if it ever gets completed. We can also expect that lawsuits will be filed in the near future to shut down unsafe existing nuclear power plants – before they fall apart like Swiss cheese due to horrible maintenance.
Like I said above, I do hope some utility is dumb enough to actually start construction on a nuclear power plant somewhere in the USA. Then the fun begins. The loser will be that electric utility. The winners will be the distributed generation manufacturers, the power consumers who install the DG systems, and of course the attorneys. We attorneys never lose, we get paid either way.
As to renewable subsidies, these are merely the modern form of political pork, helping politicians keep their voters happy. In decades past, these took the form of military contracts, military bases, NASA locations (Johnson made sure NASA headquarters was in Texas, a small town we know as Houston, as in “Hello, Houston, we have a problem.”), and other government largesse such as the space shuttle component manufactories. A new nuclear power plant, on the other hand, will not get a politician re-elected, and will likely get him thrown out on his assets, too.
Ask the voters in Kansas, who recently almost took up arms when their legislature wanted to “equalize” the nuclear power plant costs that roughly half the state had paid for in higher electric bills, and give lower power prices to the other half now that the plant was paid for.
Re: Doug Badgero says: June 30, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“To the point of your question – sorry it took so long I just wanted a more complete story for anyone interested. I am by no means an expert on U mining but I know there are significant deposits in the US, Canada, and Australia. We also get fuel from dismantled weapons. The real tragedy is that we stopped R&D. Breeders, thorium, and things we can’t even imagine could make U availability irrelevant”
Thanks for that. The trick seems to be to include costing on a like for like basis, and getting the full fuel cycle right. In the UK, we seem to have a slight advantage given existing reprocessing facilities and knowledge but also seem to be throwing that away.
Re: Roger Sowell
“It will take more than a decade to see who is correct, but understand this: the lawsuits and legal attacks in the 70′s and 80′s were nothing, repeat nothing, compared to what is about to be unleashed in the modern era against any new nuclear power project. There are far, far more attorneys, and far, far more anti-nuclear groups, and many, many more laws upon which to base the lawsuits. Any new nuclear power plant will take much longer than a decade to complete – if it ever gets completed.”
So you’re saying costs of nuclear are artificially inflated by irrational fears of nuclear, promoted by NGO’s who benefit from green schemes? Not suprised lawyers are happy to go along with this considering the costs and fees generated. Here in the UK though, we also have anti-terrorism legislation that could be used against anyone harming the security and economy of the nation, especially if it’s to advance a political agenda. Shame we don’t use that, but as you say, it’s about votes, not rationality.
Here in the UK, it’s not just nuclear though. A while back we had the nice Mr Hansen come to visit to help NGO’s stop our Kingsnorth supercritical coal station. That dragged on for years and cost E.ON and the UK taxpayer millions. What I don’t really understand is the objection given the new plant would create 20% less CO2 than the capacity it replaced. They’d also be around 8% more fuel efficient than the old plants they replaced, and be ‘CCS ready’ for whenever anyone gets that working. Given we’re meant to be cutting CO2 for some reason, but still need to keep our lights on, I don’t really understand the NGO’s objections.
Nuclear has the same problem. Years of consultations, legal challenges, vexatious FOI requests from NGO’s like Greenpeace, who also seem to object to FOI requests on their pet scientists for some reason increasing costs before shovels even hit soil. Finland’s EPR gets used as an example of cost overruns, but those are FOAK costs and assuming they’re not based on fundamental design flaws. One delay was due to a design change to better withstand aircraft impact. Why not just put air defences around stations instead? France’s EPR was delayed with some protests on the anniversary of Chernobyl, but that accident was human error and safety systems are designed to avoid repeats. It seems irrational.
The UK recently published a study by MottMac available at the bottom of the page here-
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/projections/projections.aspx
It covers the costs of coal, gas, nuclear and renewables and says much the same as the EIA report-
“In the longer term as nuclear moves to NOAK status, and as carbon and fuel prices rise, nuclear is projected to become the least cost main generation option with costs around £67/MWh, some £35-45/MWh below the least cost fossil fuel options”
Costs naturally being inflated by absurd carbon policies rather than more rational policies like energy and fuel security. But those policies support the massively subsidised wind industry-
“Onshore wind is the least cost zero carbon option in the near to medium term, with central cost estimate of £94/MWh some £5/MWh less than nuclear on a FOAK basis. Offshore wind is much more expensive, with costs of £157-186/MWh (depending on wind farm location). While offshore is projected to see a large reduction in costs, compared with onshore wind, it will still face much higher costs at £110-125/MWh for projects commissioned from 2020.”
which can’t do baseload. So it seems rather irrational and inefficient to me, especially as the DECC statistics for last Winter showed a 7% drop in output compared to previous years, and despite more windmills coming online. Renewables policies may help people get rich, but don’t seem to do anything for energy security compared to nuclear.
In the absence of an energy storage breakthrough, nuclear power is the “Least worse” carbon free energy source, and attacks on it equate to support of coal,oil and gas.
Imposing a carbon tax to enable nuclear power to compete with fossil fuels is irrational since CO2 has nothing to do with climate changes, either warmer or colder. Long-term temperature records without urban heat island influences show zero warming even though CO2 has continually increased in the atmosphere. Case closed.
Levelized power plant cost studies such as those put forward by EIA and UK (or anyone else) are meaningless unless the true cost of a nuclear power plant is used: $8,000 to $10,000 per kW, and appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital is used, meaning much higher for nuclear than for fossil fuel plants. All else is agenda-driven nonsense.
Fortunately, the truth of these matters is clear and no longer hidden by those who want to poison the planet with toxic nuclear waste. They also want to experience badly constructed, aging and poorly maintained nuclear power plants in unstable countries without adequate safeguards that leak radioactive substances or catch fire or explode. They also have no problem with escalating price of electricity to critically harm the poor and those on fixed incomes.
Objective, rational minds will always choose natural gas or coal. Nuclear power has no place in the energy production matrix.
Good grief Roger, Qatar and Australia are EXPORTERS of liquefied natural gas. They build CONDENSATE refineries to export to other countries. The question is, “Who is going to build the gasification plants to put it into pipelines?” The answer is, “Not the USA unless gas gets and stays expensive.” The complete answer is, of course, countries like Japan that have no nat gas resources of their own.
“Levelized power plant cost studies such as those put forward by EIA and UK (or anyone else) are meaningless unless the true cost of a nuclear power plant is used: $8,000 to $10,000 per kW, and appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital is used, meaning much higher for nuclear than for fossil fuel plants. All else is agenda-driven nonsense.” Puhleeze, stating your predictions as fact and repeatedly stating all other opinions as wrong does not make your predictions any more correct. The fact is much of the financing for the Vogtle project is already secured via fixed rate debt and the cost of capitol IS NOT prohibitively high. “Agenda driven nonsense” indeed, pot to kettle your black.
Doug Badgero,
I’m sorry, sir, I really am. I have tried to have an intelligent, rational discussion with you, but I have failed spectacularly. Your logic escapes me (and everyone else who has read this exchange and made emails and direct comments to me).
Perhaps you are unaware of who designed, built, owns, and operates the LNG facilities I referred to. You are probably unaware, as well, of the several LNG receiving and regasification facilities along the US coastline and elsewhere. You could look it up.
Perhaps you are unaware of the projected costs of new nuclear power plants in the USA – such as the South Texas Nuclear Expansion ($17 billion was considered far too low by the project sponsors, hence the public lawsuits and falling out). Perhaps you are also unaware of the devastating analysis by Craig A. Severance, CPA, on the subject of nuclear plant costs. You may want to increase your knowledge by investigating these things.
Until then, good day, sir.