Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NPR: A Nuclear-Powered U.S. Still Too Expensive

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:13 AM
Original message
NPR: A Nuclear-Powered U.S. Still Too Expensive
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 09:14 AM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134585487/Japans-Nuclear-Economics

A Nuclear-Powered U.S. Still Too Expensive

by Chris Arnold

March 16, 2011

The battle to avoid a nuclear disaster in Japan is scary to watch. It might also spark a shift in the nuclear debate in the U.S., where both the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to promote the growth of nuclear power.

At a hearing Wednesday in Congress, that support is likely to be questioned, but lately something more powerful than fear has been keeping nuclear power in check, at least in the U.S.: economics.

Competing With Cheaper Power Producers



The EIA projects the growth of different types of power plants like natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear or coal. It predicts some growth in nuclear, about 5 gigawatts from 4 or 5 new nuclear power plants. Not too much, compared to other methods.

"When we look at the gas technologies, we have about 100 gigawatts of combined cycle and combustion turbines," Eynon says. That's 20 times more from natural gas production, which is cheaper to produce. Building natural gas power plants is cheaper, too.

(Audio and full transcript available at link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. like the guy on the TV said yesterday, nuke industry doenst want new plants.
they are nothing but a garbage can to throw money away, and a complete loss for any investor.

its just a cover story and a means for what they really want..
to relicense the ancient peices of crap that are dangerous and need to go away. to squeeze more money at the expense of public saftey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. You don't hear anything about the cost of solar/wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Do you have another source for that info?

http://nuclearfissionary.com/about/ seems to have a particular agenda.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. nuke industry = public costs for private profits welfare scam nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Fair enough
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 09:55 AM by WatsonT
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Hyrdo seems to be the cheapest, but is obviously limited in location.

Then coal, but of course that excludes the environmental cost. If you start taxing carbon emissions I imagine that would change pretty quick.

And solar is way up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Hmmm… looks to me like (Advanced Combined Cycle) natural gas is cheapest…


(Or am I misreading the table?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah
I was going with broad strokes (so the entire industry rather than aspects of it).

But yes that specific kind is better.

However it is still a fossil fuel which many will object to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. “… still a fossil fuel which many will object to …” (among them, me)
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 10:40 AM by OKIsItJustMe
However, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=279611&mesg_id=279653">this table agrees with the OP, and contradicts your graph.

What I find particularly interesting is that even with “CCS”—“Carbon Capture and Sequestration,” natural gas is not much more expensive than hydro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Not at all
the premise was that nuclear is too expensive.

Here I have shown that it is in fact cheaper than many other forms of energy that are being pushed as the solution to our problmes: namely offshore wind and solar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. The original story compared Natural Gas to Nuclear
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 10:39 AM by OKIsItJustMe
Your graph implies that Nuclear is far cheaper than natural gas.

Meanwhile, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=279611&mesg_id=279649">the data I cited (below) suggests that the costs for wind in the graph are exaggerated.

In addition, on-shore wind (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=279611&mesg_id=279653">according to the table) is cheaper than nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. So you're proposing we rely more on fossil fuels?
I thought the whole point was to get away from those.

Also many proposed taxes would change that trend if we're to get serious about reigning in carbon emissions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Nope
I didn't propose anything. I posted a story that said a primary reason why nuclear plants aren't being built is because natural gas is cheaper.

You posted a graph which claimed the opposite was true.

Then you tried to support the graph that with a study which contradicted it, and in fact shows that on-shore wind is cheaper than nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. My first post had what header?
That nuclear was cheaper than gas?

No, not that, go back and check.

And on-shore wind is far more limited than offshore. NIMBY concerns aside there are only so many places where it is feasible and those tend to be remote.

It's the same problem with hyrdo: great where the environment cooperates, but not a universal solution.

Whereas nuclear plants are far more flexible in where they can be built.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Are you familiar with the graph in your post?
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 11:47 AM by OKIsItJustMe
(The one which shows that nuclear is cheaper than anything but hydro? Including natural gas?)





As for NIMBY concerns, ask the typical NIMBYite which they would prefer to have in their BY, a nuclear plant or a wind turbine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. See how they have "coal"
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 11:49 AM by WatsonT
Rather than 6 different kinds of coal? They lumped together the entire industry. So if you actually look at all the real coal plants, rather than proposed hypothetical ones, this is what you get. Likewise for natural gas (you saw the "conventional" category right?)

You see that yes?

"As for NIMBY concerns, ask the typical NIMBYite which they would prefer to have in their BY, a nuclear plant or a wind turbine."

They'd say neither.

Everyone wants power, no one wants it to be produced near their house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. The graph in your post shows nuclear to be less than half the cost of natural gas
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 12:12 PM by OKIsItJustMe
According to the table, even the most expensive form of natural gas generation “Conventional Turbine” is about 10% more expensive than “advanced nuclear”—due to fuel costs (all others are significantly less expensive than “advanced” nuclear.)


When we’re talking about new construction, obviously, we are talking about either “advanced nuclear” or one of the more efficient natural gas technologies, all of which are less expensive than “advanced nuclear.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy

Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are aimed at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.

Advantages

Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse gasses.

Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.

Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the earth's surface irregularities.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Challenges:
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed. Transmission lines must be built to bring the electricity from the wind farm to the city.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yup!
No doubt about it. There are challenges to just about any form of electrical generation.

However, wind power produces very little radiation.

I don’t mind a debate, I just like to see it based on the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Some problems with wind are pretty insurmountable
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 11:25 AM by WatsonT
Like there only being enough wind in certain areas to make it work. And the noise that people seem to dislike, meaning it must be placed far from residential areas (those areas that need the power requiring long transmission distances cutting down efficiency).

There's the chopped up bird thing but I think that can be fairly ignored as they are less harmful in other ways.

But a huge problem is that they can't be ramped up and down to suit our changes in demand.


As a supplement they are fine, and in some areas/tasks they are the best option (pumping water in rural areas for instance). But not as a widescale replacement for other sources of electricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Right
Wind is not a panacea. Neither is solar, nor hydro, nor coal, nor natural gas, nor nuclear.

However, natural gas (even with CCS) is still cheaper than nuclear (as the original article stated.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. And still more polluting


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Perhaps true, but not particularly relevant
The article compared the cost of nuclear plants to natural gas plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC