Nuclear Power grossly inefficient compared to Renewable Energy

[G Huxley]

“But the analysts and salespeople championing nuclear power as a carbon fighter and natural-gas conserver generally forget to add a few critical caveats. For starters, nuclear power remains (the most expensive and captital-intensive fuel on the planet. Once bill as too cheap to meter, nuclear power remains too expensive to build. Since 2003, the cost of constructing a nuclear plant has increased by a rate of 15 percent a year. A 2009 study by the Vermont Law School found that recent cost projections are four times as high as those made a decade ago. Moreover, numerous studies have conluded that renewable energy and efficiency improvements cost but six cents per kilowatt hour, while electicity from nuclear power costs between twelve and twenty cents. The business community has never been fond of such highly centralized technology because it tends to behave like a Soviet commissar with little financial accountability. (Margaret Thatcher tried to privatize England’s nuclear power plants, but no entrepeneurs were dumb enough to volunteer for the money-losing opportunity.) Plagued by cost overruns and technological failures, public utilities served by nulear power carry some of the world’s highest debt loads. In fact, no nuclear power plant has been built in Canada on budget or without taxpayers’ money. Electricite de France, which receives 85 percent of its power from nuclear reactors, is among the most debt ridden companies in the world. So was Ontario Hydro, whose nuclear powered debts led to its dismantling into separate corporations in 1999.”

Text quoted from
Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent by Andrew Nikiforuk (2010) p. 150-1 ISBN:978-1-55365-555-8

[Topaz]

So what's the view on the world's pollution, did the industrial revolution cause it or maybe the world wars and the weapons used or something else?

[segnosaur]

Ah where to begin...

First of all, I do have to question your reliance on a book... one that clearly has a particular bias (and one which very few of us have access to.) While its possible to track down some of their references, it shouldn't be the job of others to do your homework for you. I'd suggest if you want to argue a point, you stick to more... mainstream sources.

Secondly, it is true that nuclear reactors have problems. However, some are political in nature rather than economic/technological. (Things like shutting down the Yucca mountain facility in the U.S.) And depending on the country, many sources show that nuclear power beats many forms of renewable energy. For example:

- According to the U.S. DoE, Nuclear power costs $108/Mwh; solar costs $114, and Wind can cost $87 or $221/MwH (depending on if its on land or off shore).

Wikipedia gives a couple of other sources showing nuclear power to be competitive with other 'green' sources of power; however, I can't track down a source that I feel is trustworthy enough.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Now, it is likely that technical improvements will decrease the cost of generation for wind/solar/etc. However, its also possible that technical improvements would also decrease the cost of nuclear power as well.

Some of the other claims in your quoted reference should be taken with a grain of salt, such as:

In fact, no nuclear power plant has been built in Canada on budget or without taxpayers’ money

Well... given the fact that our electrical utilities are often publicly owned, pretty much all large-scale generating stations (be it gas, hydro, or nuclear) are all going to involve taxpayer money. As for the "on budget", financial issues with government projects is sadly very common... it also happens with both Wind (Sable Island) and solar (a solar farm in Peterbourough). Granted, nuclear plants will probably have bigger budget issues than a solar or wind farm, but they will also be generating larger amounts of power.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/18/ns-sable-island-wind.html

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2011/03/17/lily-lake-solar-farm-gets-power-selling-approval

Electricite de France, which receives 85 percent of its power from nuclear reactors, is among the most debt ridden companies in the world.

Ummm... so? The fact that its debt ridden may have little or nothing to do with its use of nuclear power. If you sell electricity at less than the cost of generating and distributing it, you will run into debt even if you use the cheapest possible generating technology. (And according to the Wikipedia article mentioned earlier, wind, solar and tidal were more expensive in France than nuclear.)

[dre]

Now, it is likely that technical improvements will decrease the cost of generation for wind/solar/etc. However, its also possible that technical improvements would also decrease the cost of nuclear power as well.

Not likely. Plant costs are through the roof... For the most part the only countries building nuclear plants are countries that have little choice. No coal, no gas, etc

[segnosaur]

Not likely. Plant costs are through the roof... For the most part the only countries building nuclear plants are countries that have little choice. No coal, no gas, etc

Some folks might disagree...

Transatomic Power, an MIT spinoff, is developing a nuclear reactor that it estimates will cut the overall cost of a nuclear power plant in half. It’s an updated molten-salt reactor, a type that’s highly resistant to meltdowns.

(From: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/)

Now of course there's no guarantee that their technology or designs will be commercially successful, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for other improvements.

The problem is, the state of nuclear technology has largely stagnated (and this is especially true in North America, where there haven't been much done in the way of building nuclear infrastructure since 3 mile island). However, people have been working on new reactor designs (ones that are safer and/or cheaper). We just seem to lack the political will to use them.

[dre]

We just seem to lack the political will to use them.

Its because we have lots of cheap coal and gas. And the problem with nuclear energy isnt so much the cost of generation. Its the cost of constructing the plants, and then decommisioning them later on. The private sector wont invest in them.

[segnosaur]

Its because we have lots of cheap coal and gas. And the problem with nuclear energy isnt so much the cost of generation. Its the cost of constructing the plants, and then decommisioning them later on. The private sector wont invest in them.

You're right... the availability of cheap fossil fuels probably does play a part in it. (Although I'd have to say that the perception of nuclear power as dangerous/evil probably plays a bigger part in it too.)

And yes, nuclear plants have a big up-front costs for building the plants (and for decommissioning them later), and that makes private investors... hesitant. (Well, plus the relatively tight regulations.) But that doesn't necessarily make nuclear power a bad choice. (After all, the "free market" is the best economic system there is, but there is no guarantee individuals will always make the best investment for long term returns.)

[segnosaur]

In fact, no nuclear power plant has been built in Canada on budget or without taxpayers’ money.

Text quoted from

Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent by Andrew Nikiforuk (2010) p. 150-1 ISBN:978-1-55365-555-8

One other comment I wanted to make about this issue...

I already pointed out the fact that cost overruns are common here in Canada, on both nuclear AND non-nuclear projects.

But consider this: in 2003 China brought a CANDU reactor on line. It was completed more than 3 months early, and came in at 10% under budget.

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/283859/china-celebrates-5-year-anniversary-of-candu-r-nuclear-power-plant

So, believe it or not, it is possible to build reactors without going overboard on costs. You just have to recognize when financial problems are due to the nuclear technology itself, or due to government mess-ups (or factors that have nothing to do with nuclear technology.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Not likely. Plant costs are through the roof... For the most part the only countries building nuclear plants are countries that have little choice. No coal, no gas, etc

.....the USA currently has 4 new plants under construction and China has over 20. Most are Westinghouse AP1000's. Yet both nations have some domestic fossil fuel sources.

[G Huxley]

Segnosaur don't complain that I source from a book that anyone can get from a library and then source from Wikipedia instead!!!!!

If your local library system doesn't have the book. You can get it through inter library loan.

Edited June 27, 2013 by G Huxley

[segnosaur]

Segnosaur don't complain that I source from a book that anyone can get from a library and then source from Wikipedia instead!!!!!

If your local library system doesn't have the book. You can get it through inter library loan.

Wow... just totally wow. The mind boggles

.

First of all, while I did put a link to Wikipedia, I've also referenced the U.S. Department of Energy, the CBC, a news wire source, a newspaper web site, and several other sources.

Heck, I even admitted when I put the wikipedia link in that I wasn't guaranteeing the validity of the information in it, since I couldn't validate the sources. There was more than enough evidence to justify my arguments without referring to Wikipedia.

As for your little book.. why exactly should I waste hours/days of my life to track down and read some biased book in the library? I certainly don't expect anyone to watch hours of Fox News on TV, or read giant technical manuals. Hey, why don't you go to the library and read the Encyclopedia Brittianica! I'm completely sure it will be completely convincing! What, you actually have a real life and don't want to spend all that time reading stuff that may not be convinincing?

Seriously, you're like some little boy who's found his daddy's playboy magazines and is eager to show them off to all his friends, without understanding that what you see in them is heavily airbrushed/photoshoped and filled with silicon, and bears no similarity to the real world at all. (Only in your case, substitute your little "tar sands" book for "play boy magazines", and "biased" for "airbrushed")

[GostHacked]

One other comment I wanted to make about this issue...

I already pointed out the fact that cost overruns are common here in Canada, on both nuclear AND non-nuclear projects.

But consider this: in 2003 China brought a CANDU reactor on line. It was completed more than 3 months early, and came in at 10% under budget.

http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/283859/china-celebrates-5-year-anniversary-of-candu-r-nuclear-power-plant

So, believe it or not, it is possible to build reactors without going overboard on costs. You just have to recognize when financial problems are due to the nuclear technology itself, or due to government mess-ups (or factors that have nothing to do with nuclear technology.)

Um this is China. Easy to come under budget when you don't pay people a lot of money.

[segnosaur]

in 2003 China brought a CANDU reactor on line. It was completed more than 3 months early, and came in at 10% under budget.

Um this is China. Easy to come under budget when you don't pay people a lot of money.

Yes, China has a lower average wage than the U.S. or Canada. (I'm also assuming that applies to skilled workers in the nuclear industry.)

But those people making the budgets would have factored that in in the first place. (Or do you think the builders didn't realize "Oh I'm paying these guys less" until after the plant was constructed?. (And, as I stated before, the plant was also completed early, which has little to do with the wages of workers.)

[G Huxley]

Segnosaur the book described why the cost of energy is the way it is including the costs that are airbrushed out of the picture by official sources like the department of energy who don't take into account things like nuclear waste disposal and storage in their figures.

If you can't read that's not my problem. I quoted the text in full. So you don't have to track it down, unless you're disputing that I quoted it correctly in which case track it down, its not difficult to do.