In the debate over climate change and energy security, nuclear power gets barely a mention. But it has its attractions, argues John Dendahl, a Rocky Mountain Foundation senior fellow, in the Denver Post: “Among those are a half-century safety record unequaled by any major industry in history, zero carbon emissions, low operating expenses, no dependence on bad guys for fuel — and continuous output 24/7.” He also called it a “myth” that nuclear plants’ radioactive waste defies safe disposal, pointing to the safety record over the past 10 years of New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
100 Comments
On the theory that if one is good, why not build a second nuclear power plant at Wolf Creek site. And cancel the bloated, polluting, water gulping coal fired power plant out near Holcomb/Garden City, Kansas.
Because the debate over “climate change”(global warming) isnt about the climate. It’s about regulating human activity. It’s about CONTROLLING other human beans.
Yes, Environmentalists all of a sudden LOVE Nuclear Power!
Nuclear wasn’t PC for the last 40 years and nuke plants were forced to close all over America, but now it is PC again.
And first there was Global Cooling, and now there is Global Warming.
He11, pretty soon it will be PC to smoke again.
But you can’t build no stinkin windmill in my backyard!
Ted Kennedy (in opposition to windmills in MA)
Nuclear is clean, cheap and effective. But the greenies don’t like the word. Ergo, they would rather bicth about coal but sit back and watch as new coal fired plants get erected.
The greenies are too stupid to get out of their own way.
Gosh, which is better, Clean Coal or Nuclear?
Obama now wants both?
(Wasn’t he against it before he was for it?)
I want some of that clean coal for my bbq.
I won’t have to get the grill so dirty. Can you find this at Walmart?
JWink – I’d agree with your comments, but take them a step further.
Why not build a 2nd nuke plant close to the demand center and skip building all the windmills/interstate power lines as well….
water gulping coal fired power plant
==========================================
Why do you think a nuclear plant wouldn’t use as much water?
At some point, we need to admit that nuclear power’s time has come. Thanks to rabid environmentalists and their allies, we can’t build reactors without first dealing with 20 years of lawsuits. There’s got to be another way.
We’ve fallen way behind the rest of the world when it comes to nuclear technology.
This environmental scientist has been advocating nuclear power for decades. I go a bit further – use decommissioned warheads as a fuel source and back-mix with depleted uranium to degrade from weapons grade to fuel grade fissile material.
ANTI – a nuclear plant in fact should use less water – there is no need for wet scrubbers. Cooling can be largely closed loop.
The Ultimate Green Statement: Get Creamated at a Nuclear Power Station. ??
Thanks Ben.
The greatest source of energy we have yet to tap is in conserving the energy that we currently waste. We must explore that fully before we indulge in nuclear power that settles our 10 times great grand children with the wastes of what we THINK we need today.
I’m generally pro-nuke.
But one issue troubles me: nuclear waste.
It didn’t take all that long for civilization to realize there had to be a better way to dispose of waste than burying it in a hole. With a 10,000 year half-life, nuclear waste will be a nightmare for future generations. Those holes will eventually fill up.
What I don’t understand is how, if the stuff is radioactive enough to be hazardous, why isn’t there work to recycle the hot stuff for other applications. I’m no physicist, but it seems at least theoretically possible even if it’s not as cheap as burying it in a hole.
If nuclear power is so safe then why can’t they get any private insurance companies to cover it?
If nuclear power is so cheap then why does it need billions in government subsidies?
BTH: Thanks for your comments. I was going to attempt to say the same thing but using a lot more round-about words. “Cooling (in a nuclear plant) can be largely closed loop.” Kind of like the radiator and cooling system in the modern automobile.
Hey junior,
Lead the way in conservation. Turn off your PC and monitor.
Money, mouth. You know the phrase.
Monkeyhawk- There is a new tye of reactor that can run on the expended waste from older design reactors. It uses up more of the waste and what remains is far less readioactive . These could run on the existing stored waste for a long time. A further feature is that this type of reactor cannot be used to produced enriched material suitable for weapons development.
Let’s ask the expert:
Ben, is there a useful purpose for nuclear waste? Can it be used by hospitals or anything?
MH,
Waste wouldn’t be so much of a problem but the U.S. refused to reprocess the waste as France does which reduces the amount of waste.
I suppose the switch could also be made to thorium.
If I correctly recall those Japanese documentaries on nuclear waste, it seems to work well in making giant lizards.
I do not trust the profit motive today with the future safety of the planet for a half life of tomorrows. Other countries have at least demonstrated more responsibility. The United States is not accountable enough to the future to explore nuclear power.
The United States is not accountable enough to the future to explore nuclear power.
=============================================
Well then, I suppose we should stick with coal.
Sol – some yes but mostly no. Certain isotopes have interesting applications.
My view is more toward re-using in reactors as much as possible. If we can avoid INCREASING our current inventory of radioactive ’stuff’ then at least the problem is not growing.
Build the nukes. Or build more coal plants. Other sources are just supplements.
Build the nukes.
As for me and my house, we will conserve the energy that we have.
BlueJay
Posted July 29, 2009 at 9:20 am | Permalink
As for me and my house, we will conserve the energy that we have.
===========================================
Unless you have some sort of battery storage system for electricity, your ‘conservation’ won’t amount to a damn thing except perhaps on your bill.
BlueJay,
The electricity sent out from a power plant that isn’t used, is not ‘conserved’ somewhere for later use, it’s lost.
Exactly. We clearly have a surplus of energy that is maintained in order to accommodate the demands of a society that gives little thought to conservation.
I say we turn Nebraska into a large pit of acid and make it the U.S.’s battery.
I say we turn
NebraskaNew York into a large pit of acid and make it the U.S.’s battery.Good morning. Do people realize the only difference in a Wind, Coal, Nuclear, Diesal, Water Pwer Plant is the Energy used to turn the Generator? Coal Burns and the pressure turns a turbine which turns the generaotr. When the Generator turns it makes usable energy. Basically, the engine turns the transmission which turns the generator which gives off electricity. The different engines, utilized to this day, are listed above. Nuclear Power turns the transmission and thus turns the generator. Waterflows over a paddle wheeel and thus turns the transmission turning the generator. Wind truns the wheel connected to the transmission, thus the generator gives off electricity. They each have their pluses and minusis. You can check out my concept at my campaign site. Click on my name above and it will direct you to my website. Herbert West 3rd, Uncontested Democratic Candidate for Kansas Governor, 2010.
From header:
John Dendahl: “. . . low operating expenses, . . . — and continuous output 24/7.”
——————
Note the clever way of ignoring the very high construction costs of nuclear plants.
Higher energy efficiency is a much cheaper “source” than new nuclear plants.
And nuclear plants require downtime for maintenance.
bth — Thanks for your timely comments on nuclear power…
Perhaps instead of a coal fired plant in Holcomb, they should build a nuclear plant??
Anybody notice the “weather” news?? Triple digit temps in Washington State… And really bad drought conditions in most all of Texas…
And I DID say “weather” news… not “climate change” news…
Very possible chas. I think I’d do a 2nd unit at WC first.
cosmos, bluejay – I also agree that we need to conserve and be efficient. That would go a LONG way to solving this too. However, i still think we will need capacity and nuke can be a part. NOT the magic bullet – just a part.
I have a good hunch that there are many in the R & D sectors of energy production, who are working vewry hard at “storage” systems for electrical energy… It might sound like science fiction now… But then, underwater exploration with submarines was science fiction when Jules Verne wrote “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” too….
Look forward folks… not backwards…
All that being said, Ben, I still highly favor wind turbine use… safe… clean… no pollutants… many “good” factors… few negatives… ALSO, less expensive to build wind farms, than coal-fired, OR nuclear…
ALSO, less expensive to build wind farms, than coal-fired
==========================================
Not per output.
Yep, just like clockwork… Leave it to ANTI to be, y’know, ANTI…
Simple questions that never seem to make into the nuke vs coal vs nat gas vs wind/solar debate.
1. The 24/7 output issue is key. Without the invention of electricity storage, the just in time delivery requirement of electricity means that wind/solar can AT BEST provide 20% of power needs. The 20% “goal” is suggested as something to aspire to/mandate, but the reality is, it’s wind/solars best case scenario. Making a bet on the best case scenario is dangerous at best.
2. Although they’ve made some advancements in long distance power transmission, you still lose a lot of the power through attrition in interstate power lines. Nuclear doesn’t share that disadvantage as you can build the plants close to consumption vs windturbines in the MW trying to feed the coasts.
3. The sheer footprint requirement of wind/solar should present an opportunity cost disadvantage relative to nuclear, as what land purposes are sacrificed to meet the footprint required…to at best meet 20% of power needs?
I’m not at all saying that wind/solar shouldn’t play a role in power generation, just that it’s a silly expectation that they’re a national solution, until technology catches up with promises (ie, storage first, transmission losses second, efficiency third). Until then, they’d play a far more logical role in regional solutions. Wind in the MW, solar in the SW, etc. Solar could also play a logical role in small handheld device recharging technology. A unit that costs less than $100 that can use sun or ambient light to recharge cell phones, ipods, laptops, gameboys, cordless phones, etc would be far more logical in eliminating the need for a new plant to be built than trying to build commercial scale solar plants, or even outfitting your home with costly solar panels, just as an example.
Chas,
It is not my fault you are ignorant of the facts.
ANTI — are you factoring in the cost of mining the coal… cleaning the coal…. the cost of rail transportation of that coal… and the removal of the coal waste after use??
chas said- “I have a good hunch that there are many in the R & D sectors of energy production, who are working vewry hard at “storage” systems for electrical energy… It might sound like science fiction now…”
Not science fiction. A company in Texas will late this year start delivering “ultra capacitors” to a small car company in Canada.
10 times the energy density as a lead-acid battery. 2-3 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries. No degradation in capacity.(for all practical purposes)
They will make electric cars viable and desirable and cost competitive, without making you suffer from a lack of power and range.
All driven by what????
THE EEEEEVIL PROFIT MOTIVE!!!
ANTI — are you factoring in the cost of mining the coal… cleaning the coal…. the cost of rail transportation of that coal… and the removal of the coal waste after use??
==============================
You said cheaper to build.
“I have a good hunch that there are many in the R & D sectors of energy production, who are working vewry hard at “storage” systems for electrical energy… It might sound like science fiction now… ” (Chas)
Not a new problem Chas. So betting on the come in terms of power storage is no better now than it was decades ago. If it were as easy as just “working hard”, why would it be difficult to store enough power to make a car go more than 40 miles on stored electricity alone? The incentive to invent it is MASSIVE. Anyone that does could make Bill Gates look like a pauper. They haven’t been waiting on politicians to say “Ok, now go invent, we’re giving you the greenlight”.
Heckler – “ultra capacitors” sounds awful close to “flux capacitors”…. :)
Just kidding of course, but curious how these capacitors work (ie, lithium mining is an issue for example in lithium batts, is there any kind of similar issue with this?).
DFB
They are made of purified Barium. Don’t ask me to explain the process. It involves some chemisty and physics that are beyond me. Supposedly they have a huge new reserve of the stuff tied up.
They claim 52 kilowatts can be stored in a 1.5 cubic foot package that weighs about 400 lbs.
Of course they intend to enter the market of portable power tools and batteries for laptops and such as well. They also have a contract with Lockheed to supply compact power supplies for various military applications.
So, ANTI — It takes about 18 months to put up a wind farm… How much time for a coal fired plant, or nuclear plant?? Hmmmm???
Time is money, y’know….
Use geothermal radiant heat from natural sources volcanic – like those underneath Yellowstone National Park
…or the sweltering hot air emitted from the halls of Congress and the White House to create passive energy systems.
Power from D.C. and other human emitted sources would be measured in WBm^2 units (Wind Bags per square meters).
Passive heat energy systems could adapt release energy from brow wiping, hand-wringing, arm-flailing, azz-chewing and lust lingering biological latent thermal releases from hormonally stimulated teenagers.
Collection devices could be portable in the fashion of tin-foil hats with latent heat capacitors of stored energy.
Everyone would be required to wear the portable energy devices and course, tin-foil hats could be stylized according to the local fashion sense.
Heckler – good stuff! Do you happen to know the name of the company, or have a link to them?
DFB — that storage system might be fine for smaller applications, like electric cars… Are they also working on storage for electrical power production facilities… like coal/nuclear/wind, etc.?? I mean, we already have hybrid cars running, and doing well…
Chas – storage for cars vs storage for a power plant are like the difference between the Rockies and the Flint Hills.
Just as an example, in Mt Belvieu TX, the salt layers are thick enough they can store 1M bbls of oil, propane, unleaded, whatever, in just one cavern..and there’s a lot of them there. Similar to what they do here in KS, but the caverns tend to be more in the 150K-250K bbl range because the salt isn’t as thick. Tens of millions of bbls of these products are stored in these facilities at all times. The gas tank of your car might hold 25 gallons…there’s 42 gallons in a “bbl” of petroleum products…so a bbl or less. The tanks at gas stations might hold 8,000-9,000 gallons or so…200 bbls or so.
The differences in scales of commercial storage required (ie, at power plants/some form of market storage location for trading exchanges) is no different in power. They’re trying to figure out ways to store KW’s, when the plant’s producing MW’s and GW’s….it’s like catching lightning in a bottle right now and just as realistic on a commercial scale right now…
The closest thing I’ve seen to “storage” is an indirect method at a solar plant in Spain, they use a huge field of mirrors to focus the sun on a molten salt. The molten salt retains enough heat overnight to allow them to continue generating for a while until the sun comes back up…but it’s still not very efficient.
Chas – keep in mind also, hybrids still require a gas engine to pick up the slack.
Isn’t this what Theodore Kaczynski, aka, the Unibomber advocated?
“CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States in books he published in the 1970s.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”
Solutions – feed spent nuclear waste to humans, humans would then glow in the dark reducing demand for electrical light sources, bulbs, etc and allowing humans to provide a heat sources, further reducing demand.
Easy.
DFB
The company is called EESTOR. It will be supplying capacitors to Zenn motor company.
I believe that the new capacitor development is not quite to the manufacturing stage, but shows great promise.
http://www.1-ltl.com/capacitive_tech.htm
Perhaps someone has better info.
How much time for a coal fired plant, or nuclear plant?? Hmmmm???- Chas
=============================================
Doesn’t matter, you said cheaper to build.
Interesting…………………
http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/allcarselectric.pdf
EEStor VP Says EESUs to be Delivered by End of 2009
Zenn cars are tiny, but this may well be a step in the right direction, courtesy of our Canadian friends.
Chas
Wind farms are absolutely effing STUPID. Utilities have to put on additional conventional generating capacity to balance the variations in load.
Westar put on 10 small quick-start gas turbines just to balance the output of the 3 windfarms that are on their grid.
WSClark
I believe that Zenn also has the rights to do retro-fits to existing large vehicles in the U.S. I guess that they could put in large conversion centers around the U.S. where you could take in your 99 Urban Assault Vehicle and have the V-8 and tranny yanked out and have a power source and electric motor and the electronic system installed.
Nuclear waste is useless for most practical uses. It is primarily a beta emitter and about all you can do is try and store it safely (wich is easy).
The reason nuclear is more expensive than coal is mainly legal and political.
Nuclear plants use as much water as coal fired plants, maybe more. The cooling water is a ‘heat sink’ for the steam plant that is used to turn the electrical generators.
The main difference between the steam plant for a coal or gas fired plant and a nuclear plant is that with coal or gas you can have super-heated steam witch is more efficient. Nulcear plants generally work on saturated steam – less efficient – more cooling water per mega-watt.
Hard to have a ‘closed system’ for your cooling water. We’re talking a lot of heat. The cooling towers that are needed for a land locked plant take a lot of water for make-up. It would be the same or more for a nuclear plant as it would for a coal fired plant.
re: 24/7
Use smart grid technology and then divert excess power to H2 production. Then, during peak demand, reverse the process. If we build an overall excess capacity then H2 can be used for other fuel uses – possible vehicle fuel.
Hank – I think it was up in Maine where they found that the warm effluent was great for very large lobsters. As long as it is ‘non-contact’ it may be hot but it is not ‘hot’
“I believe that Zenn also has the rights to do retro-fits to existing large vehicles in the U.S.”
There is a California company – name slips my mind – that converts conventional cars to full electric. To my knowledge, they do just a few small cars these days. Tom Hanks drives a converted Scion xB. The price tag, however, is over $100K for a car that is about $18K off the showroom floor with a 1.8 liter gas engine.
Nuclear power barely gets a mention???
What “debates” haven’t mentioned it?
Nuclear power is a bad long-term solution due the unsolved problem of radioactive waste, but in the short term I don’t think we have much of a choice. To properly address climate change, we’re going to have to use any tools we have at our disposal.
“Westar put on 10 small quick-start gas turbines just to balance the output of the 3 windfarms that are on their grid.” Heckler
And…all together now….passed the cost along to us in 3 rate increases just this year….
Heckler – thanks for the company info.
P.S. Avoiding future Three Mile Islands and Chernobyls would be nice too.
Hey Ben,
In Maine they have the luxury of using the ocean for their ‘heat sink’. At Holcomb they would be using cooling towers and the make up water would be from the aquifer. All the water would go into the atmosphere. No effluent. No giant lobsters. Eventually, no aquifer.
P.P.S. Question, though: how much coal-driven greenhouse gases do we get for our money?
The problem with nuclear waste isn’t a technical problem. It’s a political problem.
“Use smart grid technology and then divert excess power to H2 production” – bth
Problem with hydrogen is still the issue of distribution (don’t want to have to have a hydrogen “gas station” at the nuke plant..). It’s tough to handle due to the pressure or severly cold temps required to keep it liquid in order to transport it in any meaninful way. However, with nuke plants closer to population centers vs windturbines a thousand miles away, it could make hydrogen fuel much more economic and logical from a distribution standpoint.
DFB – storage is via hydrides.
hank – I think WC uses a lake and they ‘recycle’.
Another way to ‘faltten’ the demand curve comes with electric cars. Charge them overnight with switches activated by radio – at a discounted rate.
HLP posted July 29, 2009 at 11:25 am
The reason nuclear is more expensive than coal is mainly legal and political.
———————
Yeah, those containment systems, etc are real cheap to build. /sarcasm OFF
bth – ok, you’ve got me intrigued…”hydrides”? Is that a another way of saying storing it in water & releasing it via electrolysis at the fueling site? If it is…this would use less water than a coal plant/nuke plant how??
“ANTI — are you factoring in the cost of mining the coal… cleaning the coal…. the cost of rail transportation of that coal… and the removal of the coal waste after use??” – Chas
Chas – this is an old argument a lot of enviros like to use. The answer is simple, and Anti hinted at it. What’s the cost per Kwh at the tailgate of a coal plant vs windturbine? That cost already includes all the costs you’re suggesting in the price of coal itself for the coal plant, so yeah, it’s included. Consequently, it’s why windturbines require the 2 cent per kwh subsidy they get..because they can’t compete otherwise on a cost of output basis, especially when coupled with need for on-demand gas turbines to cover all the dips in windturbine production.
This didn’t cut & paste worth a dang, but it’s from Mother Jones (pg 34, May/June 2008 issue)..a pretty far left leaning mag…so it’s not like I’m cherry picking #’s here, but below is a comparison of a few of the various generation methods.
Electricty Generation Costs:
Cost/Kwh Efficiency Factors
1. Coal 3-5 cents 1:8 input/output ratio
2. Nat Gas 3-5 cents 1:8 input/output ratio
3. Solar 18-25 cents 1:7 input/output ratio
4. Wind 3-5 cents 30-40% efficient
5. Nuclear 2-4 cents $430M/yr to maintain existing plants
DFB – no, it is not water. Water is not a hydride. Things like borohydrides or transition metal hydrides. It is pretty basic chemistry.
As for your cost analysis – have you included externalized costs – effects of pollution etc?
http://www.answers.com/topic/hydride
Page 258 (PDF pg 282 of 332) of
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“Regardless, nuclear power has no prospects in market-driven energy systems, for a simple reason: new nuclear plants cost too much to build.
In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost TWICE as much as from new windfarms,
FIVE to TEN times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat),
and THREE to THIRTY times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.”
Hey Ben,
Wolf Creek is on Wolf Creek Reservoir. They take a suction uptream and dump their effulent downstream. They don’t really recycle. The use the lake as a ‘heat sink’ and it’s constantly being replenished with cooler creek water.
At Holcomb they would use a tremendous amount of water replenishing the evaporation losses through the cooling towers. As far as I’m concerned it’s just another way for Colorado to steal out water.
#
DFB
Posted July 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
bth – ok, you’ve got me intrigued…”hydrides”? Is that a another way of saying storing it in water & releasing it via electrolysis at the fueling site? If it is…this would use less water than a coal plant/nuke plant how??
——————————
Might be a way to produce hydrogen gas – a hydride/hydrogen hydroxide component.
Not sure I’d want to be around as stability is an issue.
bth – I didn’t actually do the cost estimates, they’re from the rag “Mother Jones”, a pretty flaming liberal publication. My guess is, wherever they took their info, it was pretty tilted towards alts. So I can’t really answer as to what variables were/weren’t included.
Thanks for the hydride link…still not sure I’m following how that converts to an economic commercial source of hydrogen for fuel use, unless you’re saying for industrial use only & not to replace the motor fuel demand. To clarify, how are hydrides transported? What kind of waste product is there from the “salts”/”metals” after knocking off the H?
Sorry to pepper you with questions, but it looks like either you or Regular are the only ones that might be able to answer them.
Think Enron.
Think those Westar executives imprisoned for corruption.
THOSE are the folks who we would be placing in charge of the environmental habitability of an entire region of the country.
NO thanks.
DFB – at the reactor/wind farm:
power from source + 2H2O = H2 + 2O2
Oxide + H2 = hydride + water
At point of use:
hydride + water = oxide + H2
H2 + fuel cell = power to turn wheels
It is all pretty basic chemistry.
DFB – my point is that if we actually worked at it we scientists can come up with all sorts of approaches. And to those who claim that it is just to difficult I point to the moon project. When JFK said man on the moon we had virtually ZERO technology available.
bth – not saying any of the technologies aren’t possible. My point’s just that the global energy market is a multi-trillion $ pot of gold for anyone that can crack it. It’s why I get a kick out of comments like BJ’s above…decrying energy folk’s greed…yet they aren’t willing to take advantage of “basic chemistry”…something’s missing in the link between those two statements, know what I mean?
Cold fusion & electricity storage have been the holy grails of energy for decades. Lots of people working on them…but we don’t have either yet. Instead, our answers are windmills (ancient Egyptians used them..), ethanol (been making moonshine forever…) and solar (great for calculators, not great for commercial scale). Energy is a perfect example of a market where greed should be a good thing, ie, pushing scientists globally to come up with the next “oil”. The moonshot didn’t have any real incentive behind it, so no need to do any pre-science. That’s a different beast altogether in my mind.
If it were simple chemistry, easy answer, etc, some “Enron” would’ve picked that low hanging fruit a long, long time ago and dominated the global energy market..owned governments…crushed all the evil oil/gas/coal/nuke/etc companies…
I suppose there are BJ types out there who will work for no pay, to find alternative energy solutions.
There should be no evil profit allowed.
People should work for nothing, so that others can get something for doing nothing.
ANTI
Posted July 29, 2009 at 11:03 am | Permalink
How much time for a coal fired plant, or nuclear plant?? Hmmmm???- Chas
=============================================
Doesn’t matter, you said cheaper to build.
================================================
So, are you going to stupidly argue that a Nuke plant that takes 5-6 YEARS to build, is going to cost LESS than a wind farm that takes 18 months?? And nearly half of that 18 months is spent on “site” location???
And how long does it take to build a coal fired plant??
Yes, ANTI, the time of costruction IS important…
What I cant figure out is why nearly ALL of the CONS are so OPPOSED to the over all most Conservative of power sources that can be built!!!
Now, ANTI… remember… this is about cost to BUILD… so stop snarking about “output”…. Stay on SUBJECT for a change…. huh???
Say, how many years does it take to build the hundreds or thousands of windmills needed to produce the same energy of 1 nuclear plant?
How much land is needed for hundreds or thousands of windmills?
What’s the net cost comparison and net difference in time to build hundreds or thousands of windmills vs one nuclear plant?
I suspect 1 nuclear plant can be built sooner then the hundreds or thousands of windmills required to produced the same amount of energy.
Here is another yardstick: The new nuclear unit at Watts Bar can produce 1240 megawatts, the Bull Run coal plant 870 megawatts, the Fort Loudoun Dam 150 megawatts. All three operate almost all the time. That is called baseload power, which is important since large amounts of power can’t be stored. Some forget that solar power is only available when the sun shines and the wind is available only when the wind blows.
So how much renewable electricity is available in our region? The new solar plant Gov. Bredesen has proposed for Haywood County will produce five megawatts. The 18 big wind turbines atop Buffalo Mountain just a few miles away have the capacity to produce 29 megawatts, but actually produce only 6 megawatts.… The Southern Company’s new biomass plant in Georgia — biomass is a sort of controlled bonfire of waste wood products — will produce 96 megawatts.
Each of these sources of renewable energy consumes a lot of space. For example, the big solar thermal plants in the Western desert where they line up mirrors to focus the sun’s rays take more than 30 square miles — that’s more than five miles on a side — to produce the same 1000 megawatts you can get from a single coal or nuclear plant that sits on one square mile.
Or take wind. To generate the same 1000 megawatts with wind you would need 270 square miles. An unbroken line of wind turbines 50 stories high from Chattanooga to Bristol would only give us one-fourth of the electricity we get from one unit at Watts Bar — which fits on less than one square mile — and we’d still need Watts Bar for when the wind doesn’t blow.…
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2273023/posts?page=9
You notice the article above, 1/3 of a MW per windmill.
That means to get the wind power equivalent to the 1240 MW Watts Bar nuclear plant, you would need 3,720 1/3 MW windmills.
Can you build one nuclear plant faster then you can build 3,720 windmills?
And when the win doesn’t blow, you got nuthin. You still need the nuke plant.
Space difference, power line distribution difference, continuous power difference, all add up to a costly and inefficient system when you compare wind to nuclear.
JimJohnson,
Do you believe that 100 new nuclear power plants should be built in the next 20 years?
That or you find a place to put 370,000 windmills.
Or use higher energy efficiency, which is the cheapest/fastest solution.
New nuclear power plants under construction around the world. Russia is even building a floating plant. We need to get back to reality.
————
The latest plant designs currently available for building are generally called generation III+ reactors. They include AREVA’s European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), General Electric’s ESBWR, Westinghouse’s AP1000, and AECL’s ACR-1000. Russia (see VVER), Japan, Korea, India and China all also have indigenous plant designs currently available for deployment.
In 2008 China ordered 100 reactors from Westinghouse Nuclear, all to be operational or under construction by 2020, in addition to other reactors planned or under construction (see Nuclear power in China).
According to the NRC, as of August, 2008 35 new U.S. nuclear power units are planning to apply for licenses.[53] Early Site Permit Applications have been filed in the U.S. for several AP1000 plants.
In July 2008, Russia announced plans to allocate $40 billion from the state budget over the next 7 years for development of the nuclear energy sector and the nuclear industry. This will allow for construction of 26 major generating units in Russia by 2020 — about as many as were built in the entire Soviet period.[54]
As of 2008, the UK has indicated that it will take steps to encourage private operators to build new nuclear power plants in the coming years to meet projected energy needs as fossil fuel prices climb, however there would be no subsidies from the UK government for nuclear power.[55] An online calculator outlining UK means and limitations in meeting future energy needs illustrates the problem facing lawmakers and the public.[56]
The 1600 MWe European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) reactor is being built in Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Finland. A joint effort of French AREVA and German Siemens AG, it will be the largest PWR in the world. In December 2006 (approximately 18 months after construction began), completion of construction was about 18 months behind the original schedule so completion was expected 2010–2011.[57][58] The Olkiluoto project has benefited from various forms of government support and subsidies, including liability limitations, preferential financing rates, and export credit agency subsidies.[59]
Four ABWRs are already in operation in Japan, and one more is being built in Japan and two in Taiwan. Two of the Japanese plants were brought in under budget and ahead of schedule.[60]
Several Indian plants are planned as of 2008.[61]
Russia has begun building the world’s first floating nuclear power plant. The £100 million vessel, the Akademik Lomonosov, is the first of seven plants (70 MWe per ship) that Moscow says will bring vital energy resources to remote Russian regions.[62]
SSTAR, a leased reactor intended for developing nations, is under development.
South Korea plans to build 12 new nuclear power plants from 2009 to 2022.[63]
outlander posted July 29, 2009 at 6:22 pm
New nuclear power plants under construction around the world. Russia is even building a floating plant. We need to get back to reality.
. . .
In December 2006 (approximately 18 months after construction began), completion of construction was about 18 months behind the original schedule so completion was expected 2010–2011.[57][58] The Olkiluoto project has benefited from various forms of government support and subsidies, including liability limitations, preferential financing rates, and export credit agency subsidies.[59]
—————
Yep, that’s reality.
“So, are you going to stupidly argue that a Nuke plant that takes 5-6 YEARS to build, is going to cost LESS than a wind farm that takes 18 months??”
Chas, the fallacy with this line of thinking is that it takes that long to “construct” a plant. The length of time is more a factor of the permitting process the feds have made virtually impossible, coupled with the enviro lawsuits that get filed as soon as it gets close to fruition.
“In December 2006 (approximately 18 months after construction began), completion of construction was about 18 months behind the original schedule so completion was expected 2010–2011.[57][58]“