- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I spend part of my working life in France, where 59 nuclear power plants produce close to 80% of the country's electricity.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe (per Wiki.)
In contrast, as of 2007 the United States, a much larger country with substantially more economic activity, has 104 (69 pressurised water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 100,000 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20% of the nation's total electric energy consumption. (also per Wiki)
It has been 30 years since there has been a new nuclear power plant in the US. Are we to believe it when all of a sudden nuclear looks viable again with projections that 10 - 95 new plants will now be built IN THE U.S.? :shocked:
These projections come from both government and private sector cap-and-trade studies. After all, if you start shutting down fossil fuel power generation by the imposition of cost prohibitive overheads you either have to reduce consumption or you have to find alternative sources of electricity. And nuclear seems to be the proposed alternative.
The regulatory impediments have stopped all nuclear power plant builds for so long that it is mind boggling that new build proposals can actually be moved forward.
Has the contrary political and environmentalist opinion shifted enough to now have a consensus to start a wholesale shift in how the U.S. will generate required energy?
Or are these projections of a build out just smoke and mirrors to make cap-and-trade politically palatable - the true agenda to retard the availability of electricity in the US and thus reduce the economic activity of the U.S. and thus reduce the carbon footprint?
I am pro-nuclear as it is the least polluting of all available alternatives, considering the massive electricity demands of the country. If we can hold off on the flaming for a little bit, I would really like to know what everyone thinks about this - is this likely to actually happen???
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
By Jim Snyder
The Hill
08/12/09 04:30 PM [ET]
Add another climate bill cost estimate to the growing pile.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.
Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.
But the business groups? figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.
And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.
?Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,? the report notes.
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps.
Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.
The report?s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some details about what assumption the study makes, relating to the development of wind and other renewable sources of power and the availability of offsets to help businesses meet their emissions reductions. Modelers also assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.
The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.
Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection ?ridiculous? given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction.
She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts.
?We?ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place? that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said.
The ACCF and NAM study can be found here -
Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act
Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here:
EIA - Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454
EPA?s H.R. 2454 analysis
CBO Cap And Trade Costs
France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe (per Wiki.)
In contrast, as of 2007 the United States, a much larger country with substantially more economic activity, has 104 (69 pressurised water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 100,000 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20% of the nation's total electric energy consumption. (also per Wiki)
It has been 30 years since there has been a new nuclear power plant in the US. Are we to believe it when all of a sudden nuclear looks viable again with projections that 10 - 95 new plants will now be built IN THE U.S.? :shocked:
These projections come from both government and private sector cap-and-trade studies. After all, if you start shutting down fossil fuel power generation by the imposition of cost prohibitive overheads you either have to reduce consumption or you have to find alternative sources of electricity. And nuclear seems to be the proposed alternative.
The regulatory impediments have stopped all nuclear power plant builds for so long that it is mind boggling that new build proposals can actually be moved forward.
Has the contrary political and environmentalist opinion shifted enough to now have a consensus to start a wholesale shift in how the U.S. will generate required energy?
Or are these projections of a build out just smoke and mirrors to make cap-and-trade politically palatable - the true agenda to retard the availability of electricity in the US and thus reduce the economic activity of the U.S. and thus reduce the carbon footprint?
I am pro-nuclear as it is the least polluting of all available alternatives, considering the massive electricity demands of the country. If we can hold off on the flaming for a little bit, I would really like to know what everyone thinks about this - is this likely to actually happen???
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
By Jim Snyder
The Hill
08/12/09 04:30 PM [ET]
Add another climate bill cost estimate to the growing pile.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.
Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.
But the business groups? figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.
And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.
?Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,? the report notes.
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps.
Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.
The report?s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some details about what assumption the study makes, relating to the development of wind and other renewable sources of power and the availability of offsets to help businesses meet their emissions reductions. Modelers also assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.
The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.
Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection ?ridiculous? given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction.
She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts.
?We?ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place? that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said.
The ACCF and NAM study can be found here -
Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act
Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here:
EIA - Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454
EPA?s H.R. 2454 analysis
CBO Cap And Trade Costs
Facebook
Twitter