Nuclear Power is too expensive

[Schadenfroh]

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134585487/Japans-Nuclear-Economics

The biggest obstacle to building new nuclear power plants lately is expense. It just costs too much to build a modern, supersafe nuclear reactor — especially when you can build much cheaper power plants that burn natural gas.
...
"The bulk of all the new capacity that we're projecting between now and 2035 is gas-fired technology," says Robert Eynon, with the federal Energy Information Administration.
...
"The nuclear plants are not a carbon emitter, so when you're worried about clean air, it's one of the cleanest sources that you find," Longenecker says.
...
In fact, the government is now offering tax credits and guaranteed loans as incentives to build nuclear power plants.

Looks like the future is, unfortunately, natural gas. I hate to see us growing even more dependent on any fossil fuel other than coal, which for environmental and sustainability reasons, I detest as well. But, if nuclear power, even with government subsidies, is unable to keep us powered economically, where does that leave solar and wind power?

 

[XZeroII]

Nuclear is not too expensive; everything else is too cheap.

 

[JSt0rm]

Nuclear is not too expensive; everything else is too cheap.

 

[PsiStar]

For the 1st time in my life, my thoughts are coalescing to solar and wind. If more power is necessary ... invent a new way of making use of what is available as in improve the process. At least until anti-matter generators are invented.

 

[manimal]

I have a solution, lets deregulate the power industry and make it cheaper!!

 

[wuliheron]

Natural gas is about to go up in price as the Japanese look to replace the nuclear power generators they've lost. Wind is good, but by itself it isn't enough to supply our needs. Solar could be the energy source of the future, but the US isn't spending a lot on research into any kind of clean energy. Which leaves us worse off then ever when it comes to relatively cheap and clean energy.

 

[Fern]

Natural gas is about to go up in price as the Japanese look to replace the nuclear power generators they've lost. Wind is good, but by itself it isn't enough to supply our needs. Solar could be the energy source of the future, but the US isn't spending a lot on research into any kind of clean energy. Which leaves us worse off then ever when it comes to relatively cheap and clean energy.

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

For one thing, green energy has been the #1 target for venture capital investment etc for probably about 10 yrs or so now. We're talking billions around the globe.

For another, many here have claimed there was a substantial amount for green energy in the Stim package; that would be direct US gov investment (if that's what you meant).

T Boone Pickens was prepared to throw a boat-load of money into it also. The problem is delivering it (the grid). The problem isn't really money.

Improvements/developments are being made, but things take time.

Fern

 

[marincounty]

A program that guarantees as much as $18.5 billion in loans for construction of nuclear reactors would expand by $36 billion in 2012, to backstop $54.5 billion in lending. An initiative to develop designs for “small modular reactors” would get $67 million. Such reactors would be about a third the size of those now used by U.S. power companies, according to the department.

Cancel these subsidies to the Nuclear industry. I just saved $36 billion.

 

[LegendKiller]

The article is short-sighted and wrong. We need to plan for the next 200 years, not the next 50.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Once everyone looks at the low price of gas and builds plants because its cheap it won't be anymore.

 

[Infohawk]

There are a lot of details missing from this article. Why is it so expensive to build safe nuclear power plants? If it's just bureaucratic reasons, that's something that can be addressed.

 

[wuliheron]

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

For one thing, green energy has been the #1 target for venture capital investment etc for probably about 10 yrs or so now. We're talking billions around the globe.

For another, many here have claimed there was a substantial amount for green energy in the Stim package; that would be direct US gov investment (if that's what you meant).

T Boone Pickens was prepared to throw a boat-load of money into it also. The problem is delivering it (the grid). The problem isn't really money.

Improvements/developments are being made, but things take time.

Fern

The government has consistently underfunded research for decades. The fact that our infrastructure now sucks is just another indication of how little we have been willing to invest in the area. That private research is on the rise is great, but it can't replace our infrastructure or government research which is still low.

It's basically politics as usual with politicians preferring tax cuts even the best of times to investing in our infrastructure and future. Now everything from bridges to transformers to water pipes are ready to break and we have no money to invest in them, no accumulated research, outrageous debt, and the cost of the available energy sources is increasing.

I'm sure T. Bone will be happy with the Japanese now increasing the price of natural gas with their recent nuclear disaster, but it doesn't solve our problems.

 

[wuliheron]

There are a lot of details missing from this article. Why is it so expensive to build safe nuclear power plants? If it's just bureaucratic reasons, that's something that can be addressed.

With the Japanese disaster one issue will be increased insurance costs for building one.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The alternative to nuclear power is expensive!!

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/16/whats-the-cost-of-shifting-away-from-nuclear-power/

...what if the U.S did decide to replace all nuclear generation? According to rough calculations from Josh Freed of Third Way—a centrist Democratic think tank—replacing all nuclear generation with coal would add 790 million metric tons to the atmosphere, enough to increase the U.S. carbon footprint by 14%. Even if cleaner burning natural gas replaced nuclear in the U.S., carbon emissions would rise by 330 million metric tons.
There's renewable power, of course, but it would need to be scaled up to an almost unimaginable degree to replace both fossil fuel generation and nuclear power.
Like ...We would need nearly four million five-megawatt wind turbines—i.e., turbines twice as big as those currently on the market. Plus 90,000 large-scale solar farms—for reference, there are only about three dozen in existence now. Plus 1.7 billion three-kilowatt rooftop solar systems—that is, one for every four people on the planet.​

​

 

[Infohawk]

With the Japanese disaster one issue will be increased insurance costs for building one.

The Japanese reactors in questions are very old designs. The new designs are safer.

 

[wuliheron]

The Japanese reactors in questions are very old designs. The new designs are safer.

That won't stop the insurance companies from charging out the yin yang.

 

[greenhawk]

We need to plan for the next 200 years, not the next 50.

True, but people funding the needed systems care about the life of the thing, not anything longer term.


As to options for power, solar sounds nice on some points, but the issue is it only generates peak power for about 6 hours per day (depending on location), then produces nothing for about 12 hours.

Solar pannels is far from the silver bullet.

Wind is generally to inconsistant for most large scale installations. And spreading the wind farm out over a large area needs even better backhaul for the power (a issue if the grid is running at capacity).

 

[Patranus]

Nuclear is the cheapest when it comes to being carbon free.
(Omitting hydro of course because we know we can't have those.)

 

[dawp]

The article is short-sighted and wrong. We need to plan for the next 200 years, not the next 50.

when has corporate america ever planned farther than the next quarter, let alone 200 years?

 

[novasatori]

lets all build natural gas plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

 

[Matthiasa]

All of its expensive, some more expensive then others...
The lawsuits certainly don't help with it though.

 

[manimal]

I will never forget an evening spent at a small art gallery in the lower east side of NYC in the late 80s..

The photographer that evening just returned from an orphanage outside of a nameless town in the area affected by Chernobyl..The caption beneath a photo of a extremely disfigured child read like a horror story. The child had never known happiness, joy, or even peace...he lived-if you could call it living- in a constant state of terror. To even think about what I saw in those pictures reduces my wife and I to tears....

some things are just not worth it....nuclear weapons and energy come at too high a cost...

Is my response emotional?


yes....

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I have a solution, lets deregulate the power industry and make it cheaper!!

LOL.

Well played sir.

 

[Infohawk]

That won't stop the insurance companies from charging out the yin yang.

Sure it will.

 

[wuliheron]

Sure it will.

This is big business and big money investment, not science. When you start talking money on that scale it takes on a life of its own.