The staggering cost of new nuclear power

[Jim Torson]

Posted on Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog...

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/

Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today — and ten times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?“).

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power, is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

<snip - see website for complete article>

[William Connolley]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmu.de%2Ffiles%2Fpdfs%2Fallgemein%2Fapplication%2Fpdf%2Fhintergrund_atomco2.pdf&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

(table 5) says he is wrong. Why should we believe your man? What is a
CPA, and why does it make him qualified?

-W.

2009/1/5 Jim Torson <jto...@commspeed.net>:

--
William M. Connolley | www.wmconnolley.org.uk | 07985 935400

[Don Libby]

CPA = certified public accountant (like a chartered accountant in UK, not
qualified to be a lion tamer :-)

AKW in table 5 = atomische kernkraft werk ("atomic power plant")

-dl

[Michael Tobis]

Someone just posted this on Joe Romm's blog a few weeks back. I think
it's plausible and relevant.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/

===

It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow
the same rules that nuclear power plants have to obey.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal
includes every element in the periodic table. The major impurities
are, depending on where you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY,
Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver,
Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and
Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above
elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic
than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen
by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of
arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only
mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of
the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is
a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts
per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million
uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million
tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per
million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is
U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235.
An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112
pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98%
U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power
plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by
4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2%
of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per
year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The
nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that
you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load
and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one
truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review

The Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power

[William Connolley]

2009/1/7 Michael Tobis <mto...@gmail.com>:

>
> Someone just posted this on Joe Romm's blog a few weeks back. I think
> it's plausible and relevant.
>
> http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-climate-and-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/

Joe was a bit premature. The stocks have since recovered.

-W.

[Michael Tobis]

Interesting.

Hoever, it wasn't Joe's schadenfreude that I was pointing to. Rather I am intersted in the cargument that coal is so much more dangerous than nuclear fuel based on sheer quantity of fuel.

I'd like to hear from the no nukes crowd about this particular comparison.

mt

[William Connolley]

JMC was saying 15 years ago on sci.env that coal put out more
radiation than nukes did.

-W.

2009/1/7 Michael Tobis <mto...@gmail.com>:

[Eric Swanson]

As a one time antinuke, I would like to point out that the amount of
uranium in coal does not indicate the amount of radiation released
into the environment compared with a nuclear power plant. The problem
with present day nukes is the waste on the back end of the cycle, not
the uranium going into the front end. Besides, coal plants capture
most of the particulate emissions from the exhaust stack, which would
also tend to capture the uranium as well.

JMC was likely correct that little radiation is released from a nuke
UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. We are in Iraq because the supposed threats
of WMD, such as "dirty bombs". The "dirt" in the dirty bomb was the
highly radioactive component of nuclear waste, i.s., plutonium.
Given the threats presented by all those bad actors out there, does
anyone really think that it would be possible to contain all those
waste products with 100% perfection for 10,000 years? Even the
Government's best efforts at Yucca Mountain have not been worked out.
We've already seen guys in Somalia who are willing to capture a VLCC
tanker, not to mention other guys willing to crash airplanes into
buildings. One of the worst case scenarios contemplated for nuclear
power plants 30 years ago was what would happen if an airplane crashed
into the containment building. Let's hope we never find out whether
the containment buildings are indeed strong enough to withstand such
an assault..

E.S.
--------

[Don Libby]

From: "Eric Swanson" <e_sw...@skybest.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:30 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 3072] Re: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

> Besides, coal plants capture
>most of the particulate emissions from the exhaust stack, which would
>also tend to capture the uranium as well.

And what then?

>We are in Iraq because the supposed threats
>of WMD, such as "dirty bombs". The "dirt" in the dirty bomb was the
>highly radioactive component of nuclear waste, i.s., plutonium.

The term "dirty bomb" does not refer to fallout from a nuclear device, it
refers to a small explosive device to which some radioactive material (like
cesium) has been added to increase its value as a terror weapon, not a WMD.

>Given the threats presented by all those bad actors out there, does
>anyone really think that it would be possible to contain all those
>waste products with 100% perfection for 10,000 years?

The earth contains radioactive elements quite well, and for longer than
10,000 years.

>Even the
>Government's best efforts at Yucca Mountain have not been worked out.

The Government's best efforts are not at YM Nevada, they are at Carlsbad,
New Mexico, where a waste repository has interred thousands of shipments of
transuranic waste since it began operations almost ten years ago.

> Let's hope we never find out whether
>the containment buildings are indeed strong enough to withstand such
>an assault..

We already have - it's been done. Nothing happend to the containment, but
the airplane was destroyed.

Learn these interesting and important facts, and many more, by reading this
book by a one time antinuke: http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/

-dl

[Nick Santos]

"The earth contains radioactive elements quite well, and for longer than 10,000 years."

While true, this makes no sense as a justification for nuclear power. The earth contains radioactive elements well when they have been put there by natural processes rather than in locations convenient for humans (desolate) in concentrations convenient for humans. Even without this consideration, the earth contains radioactive elements well *without* regard for resources our societies intend to use in the future. Containment by the planet often does not necessarily include prevention of groundwater seepage.

"The Government's best efforts are not at YM Nevada, they are at Carlsbad, New Mexico, where a waste repository has interred thousands of shipments of transuranic waste since it began operations almost ten years ago."

I understand that the point you were originally making was that waste storage hasn't been a complete failure as it is often viewed, but I think that proving it with 10 year storage (though the best information we may have) is not effective. Even as someone who has mixed feelings about nuclear, I would be very difficult to convince with ANY study that we have managed to store nuclear waste sufficiently because there will never be a time period in my life long enough to prove it - recorded history isn't even long enough for that. Further, with the range of alternatives now available for power, the storage debate ought to raise the question of why we should consider using a power source with detrimental byproducts at all.

-Nick

[Don Libby]

The evidence for safe long-term storage with water flow considerations comes from Oklo Gabon, where plutonium produced by natural reactors appears to have remained in place, despite the presence of free-flowing water.  Google Oklo or read the book I cited.

 

All power sources have detrimental by-products.  All of them.  The reasons we must consider using a power source with detrimental by-products are rooted in the economics of power production, transmission, and distribution in a resource-constrained world with environmental problems. 

 

People like the IPCC and IEA who belive we must build over a thousand new nuclear plants to help deal with atmospheric carbon dioxide are not stupid or evil or selfish profit-motivated minions of the nuclear industry.  You should read what IPCC and IEA have to say about it before you blithely conclude that there are other "non-polluting" alternatives.

 

Back to the question that Michael raised - the main alternative to nuclear is coal - how do antinukes reconcile the environmental impacts (radiological and otherwise) of coal?  Eric attempted an answer, but not a very good one IMO.

 

Thanks,

-dl

----- Original Message -----

From: Nick Santos

Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change

To: global...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:44 AM

Subject: [Global Change: 3075] Re: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

"The earth contains radioactive elements quite well, and for longer than 10,000 years."

While true, this makes no sense as a justification for nuclear power. The earth contains radioactive elements well when they have been put there by natural processes rather than in locations convenient for humans (desolate) in concentrations convenient for humans. Even without this consideration, the earth contains radioactive elements well *without* regard for resources our societies intend to use in the future. Containment by the planet often does not necessarily include prevention of groundwater seepage.

"The Government's best efforts are not at YM Nevada, they are at Carlsbad, New Mexico, where a waste repository has interred thousands of shipments of transuranic waste since it began operations almost ten years ago."

I understand that the point you were originally making was that waste storage hasn't been a complete failure as it is often viewed, but I think that proving it with 10 year storage (though the best information we may have) is not effective. Even as someone who has mixed feelings about nuclear, I would be very difficult to convince with ANY study that we have managed to store nuclear waste sufficiently because there will never be a time period in my life long enough to prove it - recorded history isn't even long enough for that. Further, with the range of alternatives now available for power, the storage debate ought to raise the question of why we should consider using a power source with detrimental byproducts at all.

-Nick

[Don Libby]

Worried about ground water contamination?  Have a look at this: http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/432905

"Is toxic coal ash a danger in Wisconsin? Tennessee disaster raises concerns"

 

"Bill proposed to regulate coal ash"

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE50D6SD20090114

 

As Michael hinted, if the gasseous and solid waste products of coal-fired power plants were regulated as carefully as nuclear plants, the cost of new coal plants would be just as staggering as the cost of new nuclear plants, because coal plants have had a free ride capitalizing on environmental and human health externalities.

 

-dl  

 

From: Don Libby

Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change

To: global...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:26 AM

Subject: [Global Change: 3076] Re: The staggering cost of new nuclear power

The evidence for safe long-term storage with water flow considerations comes from Oklo Gabon, where plutonium produced by natural reactors appears to have remained in place, despite the presence of free-flowing water.  Google Oklo or read the book I cited.