An article published July 27 in an Energy Special Report analyzed the costs of nuclear energy production. It quoted a study that found that electricity from solar photovoltaic systems could now be produced less expensively than electricity from new nuclear power plants.
In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.
Although the article did quote extensively from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, representatives of the institute were not given an opportunity to respond to the claims of the study. This further contributed to an imbalance in the presentation of this issue.
Perhaps it is time for a similar note on the Slashdot post.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Just curious - how many people live in Death Valley and how much do transmission lines that will only be carrying power for a small portion of the day cost on a per unit of energy carried? Remember, those lines have to be sized to carry the maximum load, but they will be completely empty at night. The costly panels or mirrors are also idle during much of the day, that is part of the reason that the power is so expensive - idle capital is often not very economic.
One of the reasons that the production cost from nuclear power plants is as low as it is (just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour in 2009) is that the plants pump out the power at maximum rated capacity for an average of 91% of the time. It is sort of like a restaurant that is serving customers 24 x 7 and no one lolly gags after eating.
The article published in the New York Times about the cost of solar being cheaper than nuclear was largely based on a single paper written by a retired economics professor and a student working on his Masters in Environmental Management. The paper was openly and clearly marked that it was commissioned by NC Warn. NC Warn makes no secret of its mission "NC WARN is a member-based nonprofit tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change – along with the various risks of nuclear power – by watch-dogging utility practices and working for a swift North Carolina transition to energy efficiency and clean power generation. "
In other words, the NY Times author based its assertion on a commissioned paper from an organization on a mission. The author neglected to read the paper's appendix where the authors explained that a residential solar system producing a peak power output of 3 kwe would cost $18,000 installed and provide electricity at 35 cents per kilowatt hour if financed at 6% over a 25 year period.
If the homeowner accepted the current 30% federal tax credit and the 35% state tax credit, the resulting system would only cost the homeowner $8,190 and would cost taxpayers $9,810. With the same financing scheme, the homeowner could produce electricity for 15.9 cents NET cost to him. Unfortunately, the average retail price of electricity in North Carolina is just 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour delivered all day and all night.
This is a completely deceptive use of numbers to capture eyeballs. It is way below what used to pass for journalistic standards at the Times.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights (Note - I published a more detailed deconstruction on my blog. I think Mugs linked to it earlier in this thread.)
Would you prefer me trying to hide my preferences? I will admit it in the largest public forum I can find - I am a nuke! I love fission and think it is a huge boon to mankind!
WRT my commute - my wife's commute is less than 5 miles. Rather than splitting the distance, we gave me a long one and her a short one. At least my car gets about 47 MPG year round. I keep pressing for telecommuting.
Why is it rational for profitable companies to ask for subsidies? Government funds imply government control - if you have the right answer, you do not need governments to approve or fund it.
The analysis about oil prices versus nuclear production uses the law of supply and demand and historical figures. Plenty of people disagree, but the numbers are there for the asking.
Please tell me how nuclear power stations are subsidized when compared to coal. As an Australian with no nuclear power stations operating in your country, you might not be aware of the economic computations that show that nuclear power is about 20% less expensive than coal using prices from two years ago, and several times cheaper than oil or natural gas.
The last time I checked on solar heat systems, I was quoted more than $300 for a water heater in South Carolina in about 1983. Is it really possible now to buy a system that can keep a whole house in the northeast warm for the same price? My, Moore's law must suddenly be applicable to pipes, valves and collectors!
I love riding my bike, but I cannot take my family to the movies on it. I also would have trouble with my 43 mile commute along a remote access freeway and into a major city, even though I am in pretty decent shape. My wife's lightly driven midsized (non subsidized) SUV serves a purpose, my diesel Jetta serves a different purpose and my bicycle serves a third purpose.
Here is the connection between oil and nuclear power. In 1970, soon after the US began building nuclear power plants, but before they had much market penetration, about 18% of the electricity in the country was produced by burning oil. Now, nuclear power plants produce the equivalent of about 4 million barrels of oil per day in the US and we use almost no oil for power generation. We do, however still use a lot of natural gas for both electricity and space heating (which is easy to do with electricity), we run a lot of trains on diesel power when they could use electricity and we burn a lot of fuel oil directly for heat. There is also a similar story if you look internationally to France, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Worldwide, despite focused opposition, nuclear power has grown from nearly zero in 1970 to producing the equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil per day. In other words, it has captured about 33% more of the energy market than Saudi Arabian oil (about 9 million barrels of oil per day.) That growth in nuclear energy production (vice "capacity" as people like to talk about with regard to wind and solar) has had a huge impact on oil markets. Remember how nice it was to have cheap oil for about 15 years staring in about 1985 and lasting through 2000? That same period can be related to a growth in nuclear energy production at the rate of about 800,000 barrels of oil equivalent each year. Since then, nuclear power growth has flattened out, and you all should know what has happened to the price of oil.
If wind can compete without subsidies, what do you call the 1.8 US dollar cents per kilowatt hour Production Tax Credit that wind suppliers like GE claim they cannot do without? I hate subsidies, too, and simply wish that the federal government would reevaluate its demand that I pay the NRC a $250,000 application fee, a license review fee of $208.00 per bureaucrat hour for the privilege of having them take a fine toothed comb through about 15 years worth of design effort, and an annual fee of XXX for the maintenance of the license. Not only are the fees pretty steep, but the NRC also estimates that it will take them about 5 years to review our application once it is filed. (We have not yet filed, the expense clock begins ticking quite rapidly so we need a bit more time to prepare before we take that step.)
Some of our potential competitors in the nuclear business love subsidies, but that is not because they are nuclear companies. It is because they are huge, well-connected companies that have always asked taxpayers to help them produce their products and innovations. GE's nuclear business is about 20% of their Power Systems division, which is only about 20% of their overall revenue. I think last year their subsidized wind business was larger.
It is certainly possible for nuclear power plants to be designed to supply a variable quantity of power. It would be pretty difficult to use them as submarine or aircraft carrier engines if that was not the case.
The reason that most nuclear plants are designed to operate at full power is because they can do that very economically. It is kind of like the old "why does a dog lick . .." joke. When you have a very low fuel cost and get paid based on the quantity of electricity that you produce, you produce as much as you can.
Those windmills in sparsely populated areas intrigue me. Are there roads already built to allow access to the sites? If not, how long with that take and how much will it cost? Is there already a network of wires and transformers to collect the power and make it ready for the transmission system? Is there a transmission system nearby? Does it have excess capacity for carrying the power? What do you call the 1.8 cent per kilowatt-hour Production Tax Credit if it is not a subsidy? Who is collecting the decommissioning funds for wind farms, or will we all be stuck with the bill for tearing down the towers once the mechanical sections wear out?
Darn - I hate sounding like a wind FUD spreading nuclear zealot, but the fact is that there are a lot of reasonable questions that need understanding before thinking that wind is going to solve all of our energy supply problems. There are plenty of good reasons why farmers were excited by electricity in the 1930s even though they already had windmills and why sailing is a hobby, not an industrial way of moving goods from place to place.
Why does it have to be a choice? If you think integral fast breeder reactors are a better choice, go ahead and pursue them. I like that design, but it does not suit the markets I intend to reach with Adams Engines, which use a pebble bed reactor as their heat source.
Sodium is not well suited for shipboard use, and steam plants have safety, cost and complexity concerns that Adams Engines are designed to avoid. Our systems are certainly not "perfect" but we think they will meet the needs and demands of a number of different customers.
The waste issue is one worth addressing, but it requires a rather complicated analysis. I attempted to simplify some of our responses to the concerns on a recent blog post at Atomic Insights Blog. Look for the post titled "Do pebble bed reactors produce "more" waste? Please feel free to come and discuss the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html)
Perhaps it is time for a similar note on the Slashdot post. Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights
One of the reasons that the production cost from nuclear power plants is as low as it is (just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour in 2009) is that the plants pump out the power at maximum rated capacity for an average of 91% of the time. It is sort of like a restaurant that is serving customers 24 x 7 and no one lolly gags after eating.
In other words, the NY Times author based its assertion on a commissioned paper from an organization on a mission. The author neglected to read the paper's appendix where the authors explained that a residential solar system producing a peak power output of 3 kwe would cost $18,000 installed and provide electricity at 35 cents per kilowatt hour if financed at 6% over a 25 year period.
If the homeowner accepted the current 30% federal tax credit and the 35% state tax credit, the resulting system would only cost the homeowner $8,190 and would cost taxpayers $9,810. With the same financing scheme, the homeowner could produce electricity for 15.9 cents NET cost to him. Unfortunately, the average retail price of electricity in North Carolina is just 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour delivered all day and all night.
This is a completely deceptive use of numbers to capture eyeballs. It is way below what used to pass for journalistic standards at the Times. Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights (Note - I published a more detailed deconstruction on my blog. I think Mugs linked to it earlier in this thread.)
WRT my commute - my wife's commute is less than 5 miles. Rather than splitting the distance, we gave me a long one and her a short one. At least my car gets about 47 MPG year round. I keep pressing for telecommuting.
Why is it rational for profitable companies to ask for subsidies? Government funds imply government control - if you have the right answer, you do not need governments to approve or fund it.
The analysis about oil prices versus nuclear production uses the law of supply and demand and historical figures. Plenty of people disagree, but the numbers are there for the asking.
Please tell me how nuclear power stations are subsidized when compared to coal. As an Australian with no nuclear power stations operating in your country, you might not be aware of the economic computations that show that nuclear power is about 20% less expensive than coal using prices from two years ago, and several times cheaper than oil or natural gas.
Rod Adams
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
I love riding my bike, but I cannot take my family to the movies on it. I also would have trouble with my 43 mile commute along a remote access freeway and into a major city, even though I am in pretty decent shape. My wife's lightly driven midsized (non subsidized) SUV serves a purpose, my diesel Jetta serves a different purpose and my bicycle serves a third purpose.
Here is the connection between oil and nuclear power. In 1970, soon after the US began building nuclear power plants, but before they had much market penetration, about 18% of the electricity in the country was produced by burning oil. Now, nuclear power plants produce the equivalent of about 4 million barrels of oil per day in the US and we use almost no oil for power generation. We do, however still use a lot of natural gas for both electricity and space heating (which is easy to do with electricity), we run a lot of trains on diesel power when they could use electricity and we burn a lot of fuel oil directly for heat. There is also a similar story if you look internationally to France, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Worldwide, despite focused opposition, nuclear power has grown from nearly zero in 1970 to producing the equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil per day. In other words, it has captured about 33% more of the energy market than Saudi Arabian oil (about 9 million barrels of oil per day.) That growth in nuclear energy production (vice "capacity" as people like to talk about with regard to wind and solar) has had a huge impact on oil markets. Remember how nice it was to have cheap oil for about 15 years staring in about 1985 and lasting through 2000? That same period can be related to a growth in nuclear energy production at the rate of about 800,000 barrels of oil equivalent each year. Since then, nuclear power growth has flattened out, and you all should know what has happened to the price of oil.
If wind can compete without subsidies, what do you call the 1.8 US dollar cents per kilowatt hour Production Tax Credit that wind suppliers like GE claim they cannot do without? I hate subsidies, too, and simply wish that the federal government would reevaluate its demand that I pay the NRC a $250,000 application fee, a license review fee of $208.00 per bureaucrat hour for the privilege of having them take a fine toothed comb through about 15 years worth of design effort, and an annual fee of XXX for the maintenance of the license. Not only are the fees pretty steep, but the NRC also estimates that it will take them about 5 years to review our application once it is filed. (We have not yet filed, the expense clock begins ticking quite rapidly so we need a bit more time to prepare before we take that step.)
Some of our potential competitors in the nuclear business love subsidies, but that is not because they are nuclear companies. It is because they are huge, well-connected companies that have always asked taxpayers to help them produce their products and innovations. GE's nuclear business is about 20% of their Power Systems division, which is only about 20% of their overall revenue. I think last year their subsidized wind business was larger.
Rod Adams
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
The reason that most nuclear plants are designed to operate at full power is because they can do that very economically. It is kind of like the old "why does a dog lick . . ." joke. When you have a very low fuel cost and get paid based on the quantity of electricity that you produce, you produce as much as you can.
Those windmills in sparsely populated areas intrigue me. Are there roads already built to allow access to the sites? If not, how long with that take and how much will it cost? Is there already a network of wires and transformers to collect the power and make it ready for the transmission system? Is there a transmission system nearby? Does it have excess capacity for carrying the power? What do you call the 1.8 cent per kilowatt-hour Production Tax Credit if it is not a subsidy? Who is collecting the decommissioning funds for wind farms, or will we all be stuck with the bill for tearing down the towers once the mechanical sections wear out?
Darn - I hate sounding like a wind FUD spreading nuclear zealot, but the fact is that there are a lot of reasonable questions that need understanding before thinking that wind is going to solve all of our energy supply problems. There are plenty of good reasons why farmers were excited by electricity in the 1930s even though they already had windmills and why sailing is a hobby, not an industrial way of moving goods from place to place.
Rod Adams
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
Sodium is not well suited for shipboard use, and steam plants have safety, cost and complexity concerns that Adams Engines are designed to avoid. Our systems are certainly not "perfect" but we think they will meet the needs and demands of a number of different customers.
The waste issue is one worth addressing, but it requires a rather complicated analysis. I attempted to simplify some of our responses to the concerns on a recent blog post at Atomic Insights Blog. Look for the post titled "Do pebble bed reactors produce "more" waste? Please feel free to come and discuss the issue.
Rod Adams
President, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.