New look at nuclear power

[Eclipse Now]

Has any of this "new technology" been rolled out and tested economically by independent energy economists?

After many decades of gerating many times that is energy I see this as less than a deal breaker.

It IS a deal breaker when one considers the size of solar-thermal baseload plants that can now be built for $1.8 billion dollars and how economies of scale REALLY kick in for solar plants, and with maintenance these should be able to work far longer than nuclear plants!

Solar thermal plants DON'T cost $1.8 billion to "decommission". Unless we discover fusion, will probably just keep having component parts replaced indefinitely... (unless it's a solar thermal tower and the tower itself needs replacing. But this would probably only take a few million! Just a rough guess to illustrate the point).

Basically I'm seeing a fanboi with emotive terms like "antinuclear lies", "antinuclear nuts", etc and lots of assertions for nuclear, but not one link to peer reviewed energy economists disproving Lovins or Brown? Try again.

I love nuclear as an essential part of the space race, but I DON'T want to be charged double or triple for my electricity if it is not necessary, potentially contributing to dirty bombs, untested, unpopular, and generally going to slow down preparing to scale up the UNBELIEVABLE potential of renewable energy to provide us with energy security without the risks.

[Moontanman]

Enow, where would you propose a geothermal power plant be built that could provide me with the same cheap power I currently receive because I live with in a reasonable distance to at least two nuclear power plants? Our grid sells to others and they pay through the nose because they do not want a nuclear plant in their area. Transmitting that power from us to them makes it even more expensive for them, wind power, where hurricanes routinely strike? Solar, where hurricanes will almost certainly blow it all away every few years? Nuclear is cheap, safe, and reliable. Now tell me why you hate nuclear so much? why do you insist it is uneconomical when it obviously is very economical where I live. Why do you hate it so? Seen a few too many 1950s horror movies with mutant people with two heads? bashing nuclear is easy because it's not cool to disagree with anyone who knocks it and yet I do not have brown outs, I do not pay out the nose for power, i do not worry from one day to the next if i can afford to run my ac. Nuclear works, the more modern it is the better it works. Most of the data used by these antinuclear people is out dated and is only applicable to old out dated power plants that probably should never have been built. often the places the plants are built; impose so much regulatory rules and laws they cannot even open and this is due to antinuclear crazies suing them into oblivion at ever turn. I like nuclear power, it's good for all of us, it's reliable economical, and safe!

[Eclipse Now]

Nuclear is most probably NOT "economical where you live" because the nuclear industry is very good at "externalising" all those other costs. I'd rather the money go into Australia's health system or use it to educate my kids than provide a subsidy to a form of energy I don't like very much (except for space use).

Again you've resorted to emotive language and assertions, without peer-reviewed research that accounts for ALL the "externalities" (such as tax payers picking up the tab for decommissioning costs).

Please don't put me into the category of an unthinking greenie that just hates nuclear because it "might go off or something!" Yes I'm concerned about the potential for disasters, but that's not the main reason. Yes I'm concerned about what rogue states might get up to, but that's not the main reason. The main reason is that I'd rather see the money go into wind and solar power (where appropriate) RIGHT NOW because they're faster to deploy and scale economically. Build em small, and they're expensive! Build them big and they could be very competitive, and there's NO risk if a 747 flies into them. Zilch. A few thousand mirrors have to be replaced, big deal.

So, if we can see a paper that analyses ALL the costs please? I keep on asking, and am sharing links to authorities that have shaped my view on this. Why can't you? Just saying "But I've got some down the road!" doesn't prove a damn thing at all.

You also haven't answered my questions about any recent papers analysing the cost benefits of breeder reactors.

Here's an example where the "externalities" caught up with the government. When one gets too excited about "breeder reactors" it seems one ends up with a Nuclear Wonderland!

SNR-300 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fast breeder nuclear reactor SNR-300 was built near the town of Kalkar, Germany (located in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. It was completed but never taken online. It is known as one of the biggest government spending boondoggles in Germany. SNR-300 was to output 327 megawatt. The project ended up costing about 7 billion Deutsche Mark (about. 3,5 Billion Euro or over 4 billion USD). Klaus Traube, then director of the executing company Interatom, is today one of the most prominent German opponents of the usage of nuclear power.

1995: The site is bought by a Dutch developer and transformed into an amusement park named Kernwasser Wunderland ("Nuclearwater wonderland"). It includes a hotel with 400 beds. In 2005 it was renamed into Wunderland Kalkar ("Wonderland Kalkar")."

[Moontanman]

I suggest you read this entire thread, we have dealt with most if not all the problems you keep shouting about. Your idea of a pear reviewed article is my idea of antinuclear crazies who will say and do anything to kill nuclear anything. I'm betting you didn't even bother to read my link to nuclear light bulb rockets. Where i live nuclear pays for it's self, it is not unduly subsidized. It is economical, it's safe and it works. You keep harping on a few billion dollars when we just bailed out dishonest bankers to the tune of 100 times that amount. I think we can afford cheap reliable power .

[Eclipse Now]

I read through this entire thread and you DIDN'T "deal with" Lovins or Brown substantively, but just replied with assertions and emotionalism. What links? I'll publicly apologise if there are the kind of substantive peer reviewed links I'm after on this thread.

And if you want to put public money into energy, fine, we have peak oil, gas, and coal bearing down on us, that might not be a bad idea at all. But if you REALLY want more bang for your buck, it is important to count ALL the costs and build the right thing hey?

A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[37]

# ^ Severance, C. (2009) "Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power"; for critiques and replies from the study's author, see Climate Progress Blog Archive Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

(Edit to add That's about 3 times the price of current US energy prices, so I'll have to spend a bit more time reading the fine print on the assumptions of this study and the external costs and where they come up (and which other studies DON'T include them, because there are other studies at the nuclear wiki that give much cheaper results).

My thing is I have a hard time believing the stuff coming out of the world nuclear association etc because they are so darn good at externalising, and having us taxpayers pick up the bill! But here again is the issue: IF these studies are correctand the nuclear industry has been subsidised heavily, then you're simply going to get more power per $ if the government subsidises less expensive forms of clean energy. Or another way of looking at it: your state might have better schools and rail if it stopped using nuclear power.

[Moontanman]

Then we are dead locked, you believe people I see as antinuclear activists who would do and say anything to stop nuclear power and you view any sources that disagree as pro nuclear people who would do and say anything to press forward with nuclear power. Very sad for both of us......

BTW, my state has excellent schools..... and my taxes are much lower than the states who abhor nuclear power and promote tax subsidized "green" power....

[Larv]

How about the Toshiba 4S*, currently being planned for powering a village on the Yukon River in Alaska? Barring cost, this design has legs, I think.

*"super-safe, small, and simple"

[Moontanman]

Thank you larv, this is a idea whose time may have come. I can see why many remotes and even some less remote locations might take a good look at this technology!

[Eclipse Now]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Then we are dead locked, you believe people I see as antinuclear activists who would do and say anything to stop nuclear power and you view any sources that disagree as pro nuclear people who would do and say anything to press forward with nuclear power. Very sad for both of us......

BTW, my state has excellent schools..... and my taxes are much lower than the states who abhor nuclear power and promote tax subsidized "green" power....

So many assertions, such little evidence.

I said I'll look into it, one day... some things have come up right now. I mean, look at the variety of studies in this wiki. I have to go and check all the "optimistic" studies and see if they actually counted the externalities which the nuclear industry has fobbed off onto the tax payer. That's going to be a lot of work. Too busy just now. But I will say this, a few years ago I was PM'd by a bloke claiming to work in the nuclear industry that said we was an industry analyst for the nuclear industry, and said this was all spot-on. I have no way of verifying who he was or what he said, as I've lost his contact details now. (Another science forum, and I cleaned out my in-tray. )

But he quoted similar arguments and stated that the whole industry seemed uneconomical except for help from the government. Do we really want to subsidise such an energy industry IF there are cheaper alternatives that also don't have the security, waste, and political issues?

Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cost per kW·h

Factoring in all these issues, various groups have attempted to calculate a true economic cost for electricity generated by the most modern designs proposed. Because if an actual cost per kW·h can be calculated, then it is possible to compare it to other power sources to determine if such an investment is economically sound.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a report entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power". They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kW·h.[1] However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes a tax credit that should reduce that cost slightly.

The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government (the 2007 report did not estimate costs). Nuclear power was estimated at 5.93 cents per kW·h. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[36] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate.

A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[37]

A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage was required then nuclear power would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital cost.[14]

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.[38][39]

I was just pushing you to see if your very strong support of nuclear power was backed by very strong studies into its cost-effectiveness. From my perspective I have linked to studies that cover the "externalities" that so many other studies just plain ignore.

A few years ago I tried to get my head around this very complex matter of energy economics, and Lovins just seemed more thorough. I searched the pro-nuclear studies in vain for references to fuel storage costs for thousands of years, or decommissioning costs, or if they DID reference these things ridiculous assumptions were made about their price that even I, a non-scientist, could spank.

So in one way I hope you're right, I hope that there is this vast, safe, clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels that you're promoting. I hope there IS a way to deal with the waste. I hope we CAN guarantee that no currently democratic civilisations we deal with now will suddenly turn into rogue states and misuse their plutonium, even though the waste lasts longer than the history of human civilisation! We've certainly had one stable democratic peaceful government for the past 200 thousand years or so haven't we?

Because ultimately I want to be an optimist and think we'll quickly adapt to peak oil, gas, and coal over the next few decades. I mean, WORLD peak coal could hit by 2025, and America seems to have peaked out in their best grade coal over the last few years. Coal consumption in tons is going up but the energy delivered through coal seems to remain flat. That means they're working harder to produce roughly the same amount of energy... they've burnt all the best stuff.

Watch this 15 minutes or so.... a very challenging "crash course" this one. You can download it and burn the share-ware DVD and watch in your loungeroom if you wish, the complete course is over 2 hours!

But this one is about 15 minutes or so.

Crash Course Chapter 18: Environmental Data - coal | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - coal, ecosystem, nuclear power, ore extraction, peak energy, petroleum, planet earth, population growth, resource management