The Post on US Senate climate bill negotiations: Environmental activists warn that the 1,400-page House version of the bill already includes so many giveaways to corporate America that more horse-trading in the Senate could lead them to oppose the final version. … If Obama needs more Republicans, he may have to authorize Reid to give in for more funding for the construction of the nation’s first new nuclear power plants in a generation. The environmental lobby has rigorously opposed any new nuclear plants, but several GOP senators, including Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and John McCain (Ariz.), have made their case that nuclear power is the best for cleaning the skies of carbon emissions.
In the US, the nuclear industry is (partially) insulated from risk by the Price-Anderson Act. It has been alleged that without this, nuclear plants would not be economcally viable at all due to insurance costs. The Act can be considered a massive government subsidy to the nuclear power industry.
"1) We have a new generation of super-duper designs that should eliminate costs to an tiny fraction of these old designs."In my country the cost of nuclear power can never be an argument, as the government will never build a nuclear plant. The private sector does that, so it's 100% their money and their risk. I don't know about the situation in the U.S.
Two facts, which we have known since 1980, when I looked them up:A coal power plant produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant, because coal contains some radioactive elements. It just isn't a waste disposal problem, because it goes up the smokestack and into the air.Coal power plants cause an estimated 30,000 deaths/year in the US. That's the same number of deaths that were believed to have been caused by Chernobyl.
Also, AFAIK all US and Russian nuclear plants are based on designs from the 1950s-1960s for submarine nuclear power plants, which are inherently unsafe. This is because environmentalist opposition to nuclear power has prevented development of nuclear power by anyone other than the military. The fact that we have had only 1 nuclear reactor accident in 40 years using these dangerous designs, where "we" actually means the Russians, whose approach to safety can most charitably be described as "more stringent than China's", is a powerful argument that, with safer designs, and the discipline to not build nuclear plants on fault zones, we can attain zero accidents per (subjective-time) century.
Also, France exports electricity. This is evidence that it's cost-effective, but it's also a good reason for its neighbors not to worry about whether it really is for France or could be from them, but just to encourage France to expand its capacity.
Thanks for asking. No, I've never been paid to promote nuclear energy. I'd like to say I'm an environmentalist in the mold of James Lovelock, but I'm not that conceited. Anyway, I distinguish between scientific environmentalists, who are seeking real answers to real problems, and political environmentalists, who have joined a cause and are determined to win no matter what the facts show.
I have used the sentence to which you refer because it sums up the situation as plainly as anything I can say. Here's another remark I've made multiple times:
"Consider what nuclear gets us:
"(1) An electricity source that doesn’t depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.
"(2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of CO2 emissions; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.
"(3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from Middle-East involvements."
Out of curiosity, are you paid to publish arguments like this when someone blogs on nuclear? The last sentence sounds awfully PR-ish, and indeed, you've used it before.
Mike, thanks for replying. You're exactly right, that the numbers in the paper anticipate advanced fuel cycles. The numbers are labeled that way. The present practice of discarding fuel when a small fraction of its energy is consumed is not reasonable.
In a different reply you brought up the issue of proliferation. This is an important subject, not to be treated lightly. At the end of the debate, the one salient fact left is that neither nuclear plants nor recycling of fuel is necessary for making atomic bombs. If there were no nuclear plants anywhere the danger of proliferation would be the same.
"Looking at France" takes the outside view which I find attractive.
I fully expect government to fiddle the figures in favour of prefered policy options. The British government used to subsidise the National Coal Board because the National Union of Mineworkers was a powerful political constituency. Since electricity generation was also a nationalised industry the British government had the Central Electricity Generating Board over-pay for British coal. Thus part of the subsidy to the National Coal Board was off the books, hidden in higher electricity prices. I assume that the French government fiddles the figures on the cost of nuclear electricity as much as it can, but I cannot see that they have much wiggle room.
If French electricity was on 10% nuclear I would guess that costs were twice what was admitted to, with the losses diluted to the point that they could be hidden by spreading them over the whole of electricity generation. However French electricity is more like 80% nuclear. Hiding large costs with cross subsidies isn't going to work, there is not enough non-nuclear generation for dilution.
What about off-balance sheet borrowing? That works for hiding the cost of pension promises, but only because they are promises. France's nuclear power plants are incurring costs now. Borrowing to hide large costs doesn't work in long term because the borrowings mount up. France has been nuclear for decades. The long term has arrived. They haven't been hiding costs this way.
More ambitious dishonesty would raid the health budget or the education budget for money to hide the excessive cost of nuclear power, but electricity generation is a huge part of the economy. The fraud would show up with run-down schools or decrepit hospitals. If a government really saddled its country with double-cost electricity generation it would inevitably announce itself in the economic damage it caused no matter how cleverly the government lied in its official accounts.
Similarly I wouldn't trust the official figures on industrial accidents. Are French nuclear power plants run safely? Maybe, maybe not. Have they have a Chernobyl sized accident? No. Radiation is easy to detect. There are limits on what even governments can hide.
"Look at France" names a forceful argument that does not ask us to trust.
This situation doesn't look so clear to me. Looking at the page you cite, it looks like known technology and known reserves translate to a bit over 8 years of nuclear energy, if used to power the world at present energy consumption.
Multiply by ten to take advantage of projected reserves. In my opinion one should take an assessment of projected reserves with skepticism, unless one knows the projection was made without bias.
Only by developing technology to extract more energy ("advanced uranium fuel cycle" etc) do you get your number.
I think the opposition to nuclear energy is based on a fear that it gives a false sense of solving a problem that it really only delays. I here assume there is insufficient nuclear fuel for this to be a replacement for carbon-based fuels, which I recall being told is very much the case, except perhaps is one allows the construction of breeder reactions to create plutonium, which some people think increases proliferation risks.
I think this is one in many situations where progressive laws are resisted because they do not "go far enough." Whether or not this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
Fortunately we the USA do not need to allow or certainly subsidize nuclear power plant construction because Canada is more open to construction of Candu nuclear power plants and anti-foreign bias aside if nuclear becomes and economical way to go (my understanding is NG is still cheaper) we can buy electricity from Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... Interest continues to be expressed in new CANDU construction around the world, and CANDU technology is typically involved in open bidding processes alongside LWR technology.CANDU reactors have been proposed as the main vehicle for planned supply replacement and growth in Ontario, Canada, a province that currently generates over 50% of its electricity from CANDU reactors, with Canadian government help with financing.[17] Interest has also been expressed in Western Canada, where CANDU reactors are being considered as heat and electricity sources for the energy-intensive oil sands extraction process, which currently uses natural gas. Energy Alberta Corporation, headquartered in Calgary, announced August 272007 that they had filed application for a license to build a new nuclear plant at Lac Cardinal (30 km west of the town of Peace River, Alberta). The application would see an initial twin AECL ACR-1000 plant go online in 2017, producing 2.2 gigawatt (electric).[18][19][20]
In the US, the nuclear industry is (partially) insulated from risk by the Price-Anderson Act. It has been alleged that without this, nuclear plants would not be economcally viable at all due to insurance costs. The Act can be considered a massive government subsidy to the nuclear power industry.
Robin, what's your opinion on the content of Greenpeace's opposition?
"1) We have a new generation of super-duper designs that should eliminate costs to an tiny fraction of these old designs."In my country the cost of nuclear power can never be an argument, as the government will never build a nuclear plant. The private sector does that, so it's 100% their money and their risk. I don't know about the situation in the U.S.
The line item 1line item 2
tags don't work.
Two facts, which we have known since 1980, when I looked them up:A coal power plant produces more nuclear waste than a nuclear power plant, because coal contains some radioactive elements. It just isn't a waste disposal problem, because it goes up the smokestack and into the air.Coal power plants cause an estimated 30,000 deaths/year in the US. That's the same number of deaths that were believed to have been caused by Chernobyl.
Also, AFAIK all US and Russian nuclear plants are based on designs from the 1950s-1960s for submarine nuclear power plants, which are inherently unsafe. This is because environmentalist opposition to nuclear power has prevented development of nuclear power by anyone other than the military. The fact that we have had only 1 nuclear reactor accident in 40 years using these dangerous designs, where "we" actually means the Russians, whose approach to safety can most charitably be described as "more stringent than China's", is a powerful argument that, with safer designs, and the discipline to not build nuclear plants on fault zones, we can attain zero accidents per (subjective-time) century.
They enriched uranium for use in domestic and foreign commercial power reactors.
I've heard that there's an awful lot of thorium around...
Also, France exports electricity. This is evidence that it's cost-effective, but it's also a good reason for its neighbors not to worry about whether it really is for France or could be from them, but just to encourage France to expand its capacity.
I thought they produced chemicals rather than energy. As far as I know there have not been any deaths attributed to nuclear power plants in the U.S.
Thanks for asking. No, I've never been paid to promote nuclear energy. I'd like to say I'm an environmentalist in the mold of James Lovelock, but I'm not that conceited. Anyway, I distinguish between scientific environmentalists, who are seeking real answers to real problems, and political environmentalists, who have joined a cause and are determined to win no matter what the facts show.
I have used the sentence to which you refer because it sums up the situation as plainly as anything I can say. Here's another remark I've made multiple times:
"Consider what nuclear gets us:
"(1) An electricity source that doesn’t depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.
"(2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of CO2 emissions; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.
"(3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from Middle-East involvements."
Red,
Out of curiosity, are you paid to publish arguments like this when someone blogs on nuclear? The last sentence sounds awfully PR-ish, and indeed, you've used it before.
Mike, thanks for replying. You're exactly right, that the numbers in the paper anticipate advanced fuel cycles. The numbers are labeled that way. The present practice of discarding fuel when a small fraction of its energy is consumed is not reasonable.
In a different reply you brought up the issue of proliferation. This is an important subject, not to be treated lightly. At the end of the debate, the one salient fact left is that neither nuclear plants nor recycling of fuel is necessary for making atomic bombs. If there were no nuclear plants anywhere the danger of proliferation would be the same.
"Looking at France" takes the outside view which I find attractive.
I fully expect government to fiddle the figures in favour of prefered policy options. The British government used to subsidise the National Coal Board because the National Union of Mineworkers was a powerful political constituency. Since electricity generation was also a nationalised industry the British government had the Central Electricity Generating Board over-pay for British coal. Thus part of the subsidy to the National Coal Board was off the books, hidden in higher electricity prices. I assume that the French government fiddles the figures on the cost of nuclear electricity as much as it can, but I cannot see that they have much wiggle room.
If French electricity was on 10% nuclear I would guess that costs were twice what was admitted to, with the losses diluted to the point that they could be hidden by spreading them over the whole of electricity generation. However French electricity is more like 80% nuclear. Hiding large costs with cross subsidies isn't going to work, there is not enough non-nuclear generation for dilution.
What about off-balance sheet borrowing? That works for hiding the cost of pension promises, but only because they are promises. France's nuclear power plants are incurring costs now. Borrowing to hide large costs doesn't work in long term because the borrowings mount up. France has been nuclear for decades. The long term has arrived. They haven't been hiding costs this way.
More ambitious dishonesty would raid the health budget or the education budget for money to hide the excessive cost of nuclear power, but electricity generation is a huge part of the economy. The fraud would show up with run-down schools or decrepit hospitals. If a government really saddled its country with double-cost electricity generation it would inevitably announce itself in the economic damage it caused no matter how cleverly the government lied in its official accounts.
Similarly I wouldn't trust the official figures on industrial accidents. Are French nuclear power plants run safely? Maybe, maybe not. Have they have a Chernobyl sized accident? No. Radiation is easy to detect. There are limits on what even governments can hide.
"Look at France" names a forceful argument that does not ask us to trust.
This situation doesn't look so clear to me. Looking at the page you cite, it looks like known technology and known reserves translate to a bit over 8 years of nuclear energy, if used to power the world at present energy consumption.
Multiply by ten to take advantage of projected reserves. In my opinion one should take an assessment of projected reserves with skepticism, unless one knows the projection was made without bias.
Only by developing technology to extract more energy ("advanced uranium fuel cycle" etc) do you get your number.
I think the opposition to nuclear energy is based on a fear that it gives a false sense of solving a problem that it really only delays. I here assume there is insufficient nuclear fuel for this to be a replacement for carbon-based fuels, which I recall being told is very much the case, except perhaps is one allows the construction of breeder reactions to create plutonium, which some people think increases proliferation risks.
I think this is one in many situations where progressive laws are resisted because they do not "go far enough." Whether or not this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
Fortunately we the USA do not need to allow or certainly subsidize nuclear power plant construction because Canada is more open to construction of Candu nuclear power plants and anti-foreign bias aside if nuclear becomes and economical way to go (my understanding is NG is still cheaper) we can buy electricity from Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... Interest continues to be expressed in new CANDU construction around the world, and CANDU technology is typically involved in open bidding processes alongside LWR technology.CANDU reactors have been proposed as the main vehicle for planned supply replacement and growth in Ontario, Canada, a province that currently generates over 50% of its electricity from CANDU reactors, with Canadian government help with financing.[17] Interest has also been expressed in Western Canada, where CANDU reactors are being considered as heat and electricity sources for the energy-intensive oil sands extraction process, which currently uses natural gas. Energy Alberta Corporation, headquartered in Calgary, announced August 272007 that they had filed application for a license to build a new nuclear plant at Lac Cardinal (30 km west of the town of Peace River, Alberta). The application would see an initial twin AECL ACR-1000 plant go online in 2017, producing 2.2 gigawatt (electric).[18][19][20]