Nuclear Power Less Popular Than Other Energy Strategies

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109342/Nuclear-Power-Less-Popular-Than-Other-Energy-Strategies.aspx

August 7, 2008
Nuclear Power Less Popular Than Other Energy Strategies
Conservation-oriented proposals draw widest support
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain has ramped up his longstanding call for building more nuclear power plants -- 45 new ones by 2030 -- drawing the sharpest distinction between himself and Barack Obama on energy policy, but also, to some degree, throwing the political dice.

According to a July USA Today/Gallup poll, the impact of a candidate's favoring greater use of nuclear power is mixed. Forty-seven percent of Americans say they are more likely to back a candidate who favors expanding nuclear power, while 41% say they are less likely to back such a candidate. But on a relative basis, the nuclear option is near the bottom of a list of possible solutions to the energy situation.

Despite the fact that a plurality of Americans favor a pro-nuclear-energy candidate, more say they would shun a candidate who wants to build nuclear power plants than say this about any of nine other energy reform positions.

Americans seem more prepared to reward candidates who focus on encouraging energy conservation by consumers, raising fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, raising government spending on alternative fuels, establishing price controls on gasoline, imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and easing restrictions on offshore drilling. At least 57% of Americans say they would be more likely to vote for candidates taking each of these positions.

<snip>

they understand that conservation and efficiency are #1.

and easily manipulated by fear tactics. Fossil fuels kill every day. Nuclear can provide clean and reliable energy and end the global climate crisis.

It can't even come close.
Every serious study has come to the same conclusion.
Efficiency and conservation are the cheapest, fastest, and most cost-effective.
Followed by renewables.
Nuclear comes in last.

For example, the IPCC panel concluded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=94912&mesg_id=94931

jpak (1000+ posts) Fri May-04-07 09:17 AM

1. The report stated that renewables could grow from 18% to 30-35% of electrical generation by 2030

from the report...

<snip>

Renewable energy generally has a positive effect on energy security, employment
and on air quality. Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable electricity,
which accounted for 18% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have a 30-35% share
of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq <4.3,
.

<snip>

Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for
16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity
supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq, but safety, weapons
proliferation and waste remain as constraints <4.2, 4.3, 4.4>27.

<snip>

bottom line: renewables will play a far greater role in GHG mitigation than nuclear.

edit: the Summary for Policymakers can be found here...

http://www.ipcc.ch /

Some important information from your IPCC link got snipped out. FYI, nuclear power is not last, but #3 on the list.

"Key mitigation technologies and
practices currently commercially available
Key mitigation technologies and
practices projected to be commercialized before 2030
Energy supply
<4.3, 4.4>
Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching
from coal to gas; nuclear power; renewable heat and power
(hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy);
combined heat and power; early applications of Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS, e.g. storage of removed CO2
from natural gas). CCS for gas, biomass and coal-fired electricity generating
facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewable
energy, including tidal and waves energy, concentrating solar,
and solar PV. "

until it's too late and we're well past the tipping point. We all like air conditioning, driving a car, and watching television; meanwhile people in the developing world also want all these things and are now beginning to get them.

So we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend that conservation will not only repair the damage we've already done but also compensate for the huge number of energy users the near future will bring us, or we can be realistic and opt for the cleanest, most reliable energy source currently available.

is the renewables - hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuel, etc.
Right now, hydro, wind, and bio are the cheapest, solar is expensive.
Ten years from now, solar will be cheap.

to supply a world with a rapidly growing level of wealth and technology use.

Any discussion about nuclear energy is extremely negligent if it does not cover nuclear waste.

The waste from the nuclear industry, including the spent nuclear fuel, is by far the most dangerous and longest lasting waste of any industry. Why would it make any sense to build more plants that generate such waste?

They don't have a reasonable plan to eliminate nuclear waste. All they plan to do is to bury it as it accumulates from all these plants. Most people don't understand this from the propaganda in favor of nuclear energy.

"PRINCETON, NJ -- A recent Gallup poll finds that the American public generally supports the use of nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity in the United States, and also endorses the expansion of nuclear energy in the future. The percentage favoring expanded use of nuclear energy is the highest Gallup has measured since 2001. Even so, Americans remain reluctant to support the construction of nuclear power plants in their local area. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support the use of nuclear power in the country."

Another question in the poll gauges public support on eight specific environmental proposals facing the country today, including expanding the use of nuclear energy. The results show that 55% of Americans support expanding the use of nuclear energy, while 40% oppose it. That represents an increase of 12 percentage points in support compared with 2003, when Gallup last asked the item, and is the highest level of support for expanding the use of nuclear energy that Gallup has recorded since it first asked the question in 2001."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/22171/Majority-Americans-Support-Use-Nuclear-Energy.aspx

Just to present the whole picture.

Full costs of building, running, and maintaining plants are many times what the nuclear industry claims. Once those costs are made clear, how many are going to be for nuclear?

Wall Street is staying away for a reason.

why are there currently 103 American plants showing a profit? Why would anyone want to build them, including the utilties themselves? :shrug:

And the utilities don't want to build new ones if they have to pay the full cost.

Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/535

NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor
"The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/493

Nuclear loan guarantees 'undersized': Goldman Sachs banker
"That would only be enough for about three new reactors, Gilbertson said"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/597

UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/596

Wall Street Journal: It's the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power's Bogeyman
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/548

Business Week: Nuclear's Tangled Economics
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/568

"enthusiasm for a nuclear future was muted at an industry conference Tuesday"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/546

Vermont Yankee wants to raid decommission fund
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/543

The Externalities of Nuclear Power: First, Assume We Have a Can Opener . . .
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/533

How many nuclear plants are still online long after they should have been de-commissioned?

ANSWER - there is more than one.

Whoops! WPPSS "customers will continue paying for those uncompleted plants through 2021"

It wasn't just rising costs but a combination of high interest rates and overestimated demand for electricity (and this happened 25 years ago)

NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor

Is nuclear power dead in Idaho? Nope. In June 2008, it's full steam ahead:

"Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc (PINKSHEETS: AEHI) has announced a new Idaho location for its 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor. The new 1,400-acre site is in Elmore County, on the Snake River, and only 15 miles from the previous site. Advantages of the new site include: lower initial cost; better geology; nearby rail and road access; lower elevation to improve water lift; and no need to transport materials over the Snake River. "This new site has numerous advantages of the former site that will lower construction and operating costs and simplify development," said Don Gillispie, president and CEO of AEHI."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200806/ai_n25479593

Nuclear loan guarantees 'undersized': Goldman Sachs banker

One might think from reading this that nuclear power is inherently more dangerous and expensive. But then, one might be wrong (from link):

"Oil companies have the size and financial worth necessary to handle projects with costs comparable to new nuclear units on their own, electric
companies do not, said Richard Myers, the Nuclear Energy Institute's vice president, policy development."

UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal

Did the deal collapse because nuclear power is not profitable? Not at all -- British energy was just asking for too much money:

"The British company nevertheless hopes EDF will return to the negotiating table because a deal offers a much more straightforward way for the French company to fulfil its promise to shareholders of international expansion in the nuclear sector.

The UK is the only realistic market for this expansion and British Energy not only owns the most likely sites for the second generation of plants but also has experience of running nuclear plants in this country.

The Government also hopes EDF's rivals, including RWE of Germany and Iberdrola of Spain, will offer some competition. While both companies decided against a bid for British Energy earlier this year, they still have limited plans to operate their own nuclear power plants here.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Centrica, the owner of British Gas, yesterday reiterated its desire to move into the nuclear sector. Centrica had been expecting to take a 25 per cent stake in British Energy once EDF completed its takeover, and is now considering its options."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-nuclear-plans-left-in-tatters-after-collapse-of-edf-deal-883357.html

Wall Street Journal: It's the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power's Bogeyman

It's not nuclear power's bogeyman, it's construction's boogeyman. What costs so much to build new nuke plants? Waste disposal? Safeguards? No -- it's cement, copper, and steel, the same things used in constructing new coal plants:

"Skyrocketing capital costs already are making coal a tougher sell. The cheap and abundant fuel source—which provides half the power in the U.S.—isn’t so cheap anymore. Duke Energy Carolinas estimates that new coal-fired power plant capital costs basically doubled since 2002, according to a recent report unveiled by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a long-time coal gadfly. Over the past three years, capital costs in the industry as a whole have risen more than 50%, as power companies grapple for designers, resources, and equipment, the report says. Of course, facilities powered by nuclear fuel, natural gas, and wind and solar power all have seen costs rise too."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/29/whats-eating-big-coal/?mod=WSJBlog

Business Week: Nuclear's Tangled Economics

More of the same (from link):

"The U.S. nuclear industry believes that delays and cost overruns, which helped kill new plant construction in the late 1970s, are less likely today, thanks to now-standardized reactor designs and a streamlined U.S. government licensing process. That process has yet to be tested, though, and costs for new plants are climbing. Two years ago, the price of a 1,500-megawatt reactor was pegged at $2 billion to $3 billion. Now it's up to $7 billion and rising, as the cost of concrete, steel, and other materials and labor soars."

I could go on, but bananas is careful to only link to her own journal, assuming that people won't bother to refer to the original source. Frankly that kind of nonsense gets tiresome, especially when the original source is consistently "edited" to her specs. :eyes:

They're talking about AEHI here:
"Auditor: Nuclear plant company could go out of business"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x167014

:rofl:

Pro-nuke Dan Yurman says they are "an embarrassment":
"The firm has been an embarrassment to pro-nuclear advocates in Idaho and has provided the anti-nuclear Snake River Alliance with a bonanza of material to ply its trade. SRA has scored media points in its mostly on target criticisms of AEHI. The splash effect has worried groups like the Partnership for Science & Technology (PST) in Idaho Falls which see AEHI's antics as undercutting the credibility of the nuclear industry in the eyes of the public in Idaho and elsewhere."
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/08/aehi-going-under.html

:rofl:

Do you have any evidence that it's due to the supposed expense of nuclear power, or merely the current spike in construction costs?

I didn't think so.

Keep digging.

:thumbsup:

The older rosy estimates are based on a number of overly optimistic assumptions.

The 2003 MIT "Future of Nuclear Energy" page 7 lists the main cost-cutting assumptions:


The 2007 Keystone report discusses these assumptions,
for example, on page 34 they discuss construction time:


Nuclear Engineering International Magazine discussed the various cost estimates,
including Keystone:

"The U.S. nuclear industry believes that delays and cost overruns, which helped kill new plant construction in the late 1970s, are less likely today, thanks to now-standardized reactor designs and a streamlined U.S. government licensing process.

How many of 'The delays and cost overruns' were due to shoddy construction of the plants? That's what killed Marble Hill in Indiana. Short cuts taken in the pouring of the concrete in the containment building. How about unqualified workers in technical positions (for those that remember the 60 Minutes piece on the fraudulent degrees the employees had for such positions as Piping Engineer)?

Your quote also talks about 'streamlined U.S. government licensing process', is this code for relaxed specs? That is how the current admin deals with problems - reduce the number of inspectors.

What killed the nuclear plant industry 30 years ago was the corrupt nature in the building of the plants. Lack of self regulation in the pursuit of the bottom line. It was a suicide.

and cost overruns? How many of the cost overruns are due to defending litigation from spooked, ill-informed antinuke propagandists?

no where near as dangerous or as long lasting as shoddy construction in nuclear plants.

Lawsuits are also a problem across this country. A lawsuit was just thrown out in South Texas to allow the completion of a wind farm.

"Babcock & Brown announced that a federal court in Texas has dismissed a final lawsuit, clearing the path for the company to bring wind energy to South Texas. The company's planned wind farm on the Texas Gulf Coast, which could provide enough clean and renewable energy to power 80,000 Texas homes, will now be completed and operational later this year.

The wind farm is located on the property of the Kenedy Memorial Foundation, a non-profit organization that will utilize the royalties to support charitable purposes in South Texas. Once operational, the wind farm will consist of 118 wind energy turbines with a total output capacity of more than 283 megawatts (MW)."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53296

You want to talk about propaganda? What about the oil industry financed GW deniers?

damn sure not in my back yard.

or use nuclear power, the results won't even be close.

People will come to realize when the Mystical Magical Powers of Wind and Solar simply can't cut it that nuclear is the solution, at least for this century.

Suppose you back up some of those assertions with some sort of evidence. Analysis shows that wind and solar combined with efficiency improvements can, in fact, meet our energy needs. WTF do you claim to know that the experts don't?

are a pittance compared to our future energy needs. As China and India ramp up their consumer base and begin move headlong into the automobile culture (and you can damn well bet it's gonna happen) we're going to need to supply an insane amount of energy. Fossil-powered cars are on their way out, which means we'll need enormous amounts of energy to replace the current number, enormous amounts to supply the future number, and additional enormous amounts to handle all the other stuff that a growing middle class in Asia needs.

Our current energy needs are a fraction of what the future will require. Renewables can help, but they won't cut when the rubber meets the road, as it were.

When, in fact, careful analysis says you are completely WRONG?

Our current energy usage is based on an endless supply of cheap energy. Now that cheap energy is history, companies are reviewing how they are using energy, where it's being wasted and making changes.

Look at all the stores that have signed up to have PV installed. As new buildings are being built, saving energy will move up on the list of features that companies consider important. It has become a major cost issue and better than that - it's one people have control over, unlike health care costs.

I know of companies that already have changed their employee car policies just as a result of the increase in gas. What do you think will happen when those utility bills start coming in this winter?

Tens of thousands of Megawatts of wind and solar power will fill the grid.

Let me see 18 months for a wind farm to produce or 10 years of paying by end users and investors before the first electron leaves a nuclear plant? Wall Street is already making that decision.

nor is the grid set up to handle the intermittent power where it is, so even in places like Oregon there's going to be a lot of lead time.

ALASKA!

The only area in the lower 48 that doesn't have good solar energy is the Pacific Northwest. Solar is in the beginning of a major innovation period, new materials, new processes are being developed with increasing frequency, which will bring prices down in a hurry.

You are correct of course, that's why upgrading the grid is important so that power can be economically moved to where it's needed.

Storage is consistently brought up with respects to solar and wind - but what about coal? When those turbines spin at night with all the consumers sleeping - why don't we develop storage solutions that apply to all energy generation?

or all renewables? What's their best case scenario projection for 2020?

The biggest mistake people make in all our energy discussions is leaving out considerations of scale.

Don't gt me wrong- I'm not some "nuclear zombie," or a naysayer on all forms of renewables. I've just done the math.

Countries like Australia (if they ever get over their inertia with respect to plentiful, of cheap coal) can likely manage quite a high percentage of wind, solar and wave power. But they have massive resources at their disposal and only 21 million people on an entire continent.

Likewise Oregon (taken in isolation) could also manage to gather a high percentage of their electricity from renewables- but the rest of the states cannot. So the choice boils down to either building more nuclear power plants- or burning filthy coal.

20% from wind alone in ten years.

I think with the right business climate - which means Obama in the WH, the incentives will be in place to seed the growth of the manufacturing sector and there is no telling where that will lead us.

Right now, our energy is in the hands of very few and they have constricted supply to keep prices high. Open up the market and that wealth will be spread around and a lot more people will benefit.

Currently in wind power - we are only seeing large scale utility windmills - but as materials develop I expect to see windmills that are efficient at lower wind speeds and if costs come down - that means they would be economical in more areas. How about a housing development with their own windfarm as part of the package? They do that now with roads and sewers, why not with electricity included as part of the lot price?

I think there will be a big market in PV for individuals. How about a programs that would make it profitable for utility companies to install systems and finance them similar to the programs they have used in the past to expand service for natural gas. Look at the people that are buying Prius - you can get the same size car for $10k less and 35 mpg, yet there is a 6 month waiting list. These are the same type of people that would sign up for PV right now if the programs were in place.

Here's Australia (note- despite their abundant uranium reserves, Aussies are ardently anti-nuke):

Aren't you ashamed of trotting out that bull?

What exactly does current status tell us about "the math" that you've done which is supposed to show renewables CAN'T provide our power needs?

not as we wish they were.

The facts are we are dealing with:
The end of cheap energy
The end of an oil based economy

Solar and wind development energizes the economy from the grass roots level and has freedom from control by the energy giants.

As in, what needs to be done to bring the price down?

You imply new technologies are needed. I disagree. All that is needed is a guaranteed market (a policy issue related to a commitment to phase out fossil fuels) that will attract manufacturing investment and competition. Manufacturing PV panels is no different than manufacturing television sets.

Not that new technologies are needed, but that they will happen with the commitment to implement renewables. Current law only goes 2 years and expires in Dec. The Dems tried to get 8 years on the ITC, the gang of 10 has 4 years in their proposal.

You and other nuclear supporters always say that, yet you've been asked any number of times to share this "math" and all that ever pops out is garbage like "it takes too much space".

Share the math, please.

It should be pointed out that the IPCC scenarios are based on markets driven solutions based on capturing the costs of carbon through carbon caps.

There is also the option for direct investment in renewable energy production manufacturing infrastructure. Using that, or more a range of other, much more aggressive policy options, the speed at which renewables could be deployed drops dramatically. Ramping up nuclear, on the other hand, would not only cost orders of magnitude more, it would take decades longer.

And that STILL leaves us with the waste and nonproliferation problems - not to mention the declining return on energy invested inherent to nuclear.