I've been doing a lot of studying lately trying to make sense of the rapidly changing energy markets and technologies. We know what coal costs and have a good idea where it is going. We know what wind costs and know where it's going. We know what oil and natural gas costs and we have a sense of where it's going - although the market volatility caused by demand pressure makes it tricky.

What I don't know - can't get any good numbers on - is the price of nuclear power. It's been a while since we built a nuke plant and it seems even the power companies (and not just in America) are very reticent to take a real guess at a what nuclear power really costs.

There still are claims that nuclear power is competitive with coal, but more often than not I see estimates that range from double to four times the cost of coal. Everyone seems to agree that pivotal cost savings will only come from standardization; building tens of similar nuke plants should be more efficient than onsies and twosies, but there still is no commitment to real numbers.

This means that either we jump in with both feet - and worry about the cost after the fact (how many times has that worked for you?) or we knowingly pay more to find out.

On the other hand, building a bunch of unnecessary power plants will create a huge surplus in the grid and power companies won't be able to sell the product - so I don't see that actually happening unless his nation suddenly develops a huge appetite for electricity. It could happen.

Does anyone have a better idea of what this would cost? John McCain proposes building upwards of forty nuclear power plants. When we're done, does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what we'll be paying for electricity? Can anyone suggest why forty nukes plants is a reasonable number? Why is it that Republicans get such a kick out of promoting things that you can't put numbers on? Is that a genetic or a learned trait?

duc -

This thought occurred to me because for the past 20 years, I've lived in areas that get TVA electricity (outside Huntsville AL and Nashville TN.)

Find out the percent contribution of nukes to power in a given TVA domain; then find out the average rate for that domain. Then find a "simialr" domain that gets no nuke power and find its average rate.

Problem: how do you tell if a "non-nuke" domain is actually in the habit of buying power over the grid that is partially supplied by nukes?

there are still a lot of variables. The biggest one is the difference in construction costs then and now. Some seem to think that construction costs have risen dramatically.

Nuclear is also a balancing act. We have one plant in Arizona, but it has three reactors. We don't always use all three, but then sometimes they shut one down for maintenance in the summer right when we need it the most. That's when we pay through the nose.

ComEd built too many in Illinois some thirty years ago, over-estimating demand growth. That hurt, too. Operation and fuel costs are small compared to construction. Building too many too soon is probably the worst thing.

I get a sense from the folks I've heard that have no particular flesh in the game, is that the start up cost and return on investment is the bone to pick over.

Nuclear plants are notorious for cost overruns. Between regulation compliance and the years of impact study, and the fact that there's no contractors left who build such things...it's been 30 years....the risk is huge.

A lot more fun to speculate on oil futures.

For private investors, there are better investments in this world. The wackos on the right have allways blamed the wackos on the left for stopping nuclear power.

I doubt the left has had much influence in the real world.

there's no contractors left who build such things...it's been 30 years

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, June 24, 2008:

Westinghouse Electric Co. in April landed the first contract for a nuclear power plant in the United States in 30 years. The Monroeville company, which employs 4,000 workers in the region and about 10,000 worldwide, will supply Georgia Power with two nuclear power plants for a site near Waynesboro, Ga.

In 2007, Westinghouse signed a $5.3 billion contract to build four nuclear reactors in China.

Yeah - I think TVA has at least two if not three just sitting there.

BTW - I'm a nuke fan because my Dad did the original wind studies on Con Ed Indian Point (Hudson River) back in the 50's - it was scary as a six year old watching him climb a 300 foot tower to adjust/replenish his monitoring equipment on top of it. (He believed in doing everything himself - trust no one!) You could see the tower sway at least three feet off center either way - fpl will know what I mean here.

He also did the wind studies at 3MileIsland that debunked a lot of the lawsuits claiming downstream wind-blown damage - I guess that makes him a good guy or a bad guy, depending on your point of view.

What's also ironic is that in the 50's pre-nuke, he travelled throughout coal country telling power plants how high their stacks had to be to get their stuff into the windstream.

I guess this means that he's one of the father's of "acid rain", though he loved nature and certainly didn't intend to be one.

'Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic. According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread. "For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers and our scientists and we are confident in them." '

<link>

Surely they have some interesting figures if you can read French.

Well, it seems to me you answered your own question. I had thought coal prices could fluctuate too, for example, but I assume not so wildly. Aren't we really talking about two things:

1. World supply of energy vs. domestic supply. Yes, there are different uses for different energy sources, but high oil prices will mean a push for more than alternative sources (i.e. mass transit may start looking more attractive to cities that don't have it).

2. Ending our "dependence upon foreign oil" for reasons that go beyond just the price we pay at the pump.

Should we build many new nuke facilities and then the price of oil were to drop dramatically, we might in hindsight attack the decision on nukes as a "waste of money." Should the price of oil stay high and continue to climb then I think it's reasonable to assume we'd be grateful for the alternate source.

But, given the concerns implied by the second point above, I think we should be willing to "eat the cost" of possibly bringing on "too many" nuke plants too soon. My understanding is that they are quite resistant to obsolescence. Given that it would inevitably be a big business/big government operation it can only be wished that some smart people would be exploring the possibilities of whether modern technology and design could help us develop "turn key" nuke facilities. Perhaps that is a pipe dream, but it would be nice if we could over-build during the construction phase, but save big on ongoing costs by not bringing certain portions of facilities online until they were needed.

Anyway, don't mean to be ducking your question. I don't know the answer as to specific costs of nuclear energy and wonder how much of it can be variable based upon the costs of essential materials used in the process. I do know that I can look around the world and see that many nations made the decision decades ago to go with nuclear, so I can only assume it is a rational energy supply.

I also seem to remember reading several times now that the founder of green peace has become a vocal advocate of nuclear power. I think I started reading some responses to him that were of the personal attack kind (in the pocket of "big nukes"), but his words come across to me as if they were written by a fellow who had done the research, had the resume to substantiate his devotion to the planet, and came to heartfelt conclusions.

There's also this e=mc2 thing. I mean from a layman's perspective I thought we were talking a somewhat high rate of efficiency. ;-)

Construction costs are the builk of nuclear power generation costs - the fuel is still relatively cheap for the amount of energy we get out of it.

Coal has been pretty consistent at 4-6 cents/kW (but would increase if we decide to do carbon sequestration). Wind is about the same in certain parts of the country - although it is intermittent. Thermal Solar is now about 12 cents/kW, but will likey get down to 10 in some parts of the country. Some solar photovotaics - even your own rooftop collectors - will likely get down to or below that range in the next ten years - and that would be when many of these plants are built.

Now let's suppose that we build 40 nuke plants, but they come in at around 10-18 cents/kW. With net-metering in many states, it means that you could put energy into the grid with wind or solar cheaper than the power companies could supply it to you with nuclear - which would result in you buying less from them and raising their cost even further. Utilities could become expensive back-up systems if they overinvest in nuclear.

I am certain we will need nuclear energy, I just think it unwise to base a national strategy on putting all of our eggs in one basket without knowing what it will cost.

There are currently fourteen plants in the dream/design phase. That's what the industry is tentatively thinking now. That's probably a good start. Arbitrarily calling for forty near-term seems to me to be very unwise.

I personally think we will in great part transition to electric vehicles, but we may well be able to absorb a lot of this increased demand simply with 'smart-metering' - i.e., batteries will charge when they sense off-peak-load costs - usually at night. Nuclear power plants are most efficient when running at near capacity and aren't subject to varying demand. They are considered 'baseload'.

Before we take a whack at them again, we should have a much better understanding of what our baseload requirements will be. I get conflicting signals from Republicans, which is that they are reticent to transition, but want to build more capacity anyway.

I'm sure you know where I got watts bar bob from..

haa..

<link>

What the hell does :"watts bar bob" mean?

Also, didntcha notice the bit about my Dad on top of that 300 foot tower adjusting his sensors?

Yes,that is why I replied..

My lips are sealed about watts bar bob..and yesireebob too..

If the electric car wins after all the other options have been studied or even tried, Nuclear and Coal will both probably be needed to supply the tens of millions of vehicles on our roads every day. While the costs of sequestraion of coal and radioactive waste are serious enviromental concerns one other consideration must be taken.

Millions and millions and millions of used batteries will have to be contended with. Even the cleanest of batteries today contain pollutants that can destroy over a square acre of water and thats just one current sized battery. Even if we allow for a battery than can be used for ten years, fifty years from now we will have mounatins of old caustic batteries across the globe and another generation wondering how we could be so short sighted.

Not saying electric cars are not part of the answer, they probably are. I just hope we look at as many angles as we can before deciding upon a course of action for the next 150 years.

(Given the fact that this current generation of energy planners cannot see beyond next weeks PE ratio it mght be prudent to muddle through till the neXt generation steps up to the plate. They will have to pay the lions share for everything anyhow.)

Hybrid cars, like my own, now use NiMH batteries, but the entire industry is switching to Lithium.

NiMH does contain toxic chemicals, but the batteries are recyclable and by law in most states must be recycled. Lithium batteries are not particularly toxic, but the Lithium is flammable - particularly when exposed to water. Lithium batteries are totally recyclable.

Since most electric cars would be recharged at night, it is estimated that we could put as many a 63 million electric vehicles on the road without adding a single power plant - just run the ones we have at capacity. I think that's optimistic, but the point is that one of the problems with renewable energy is its intermittence which requires storage systems, but 63 million batteries is a lot of storage - don't you think?

We will use more coal, there is no doubt in my mind, but I do think we should seriously consider the impact of the additional pollutants and act accordingly. The coal industry has an opportunity here to maximize plant capacity, but it should not be at the expense of air quality standards. And I personally think that cycling the CO2 into algae production for biofuel would be a good first step until we figure out cost effective sequestration techniques.

I don't expect all our vehicles to be electric. Fuel cells seem to work best for larger vehicles that get a lot of use - buses and utility trucks and they will probably start to play a role in about five years or so. The capital investment in the fuel cell will eventually pay itself off over the life of the vehicle. Hasn't quite happened yet. A lot of people are pretty confident that it will.

It bugs me that one of those people is the CEO of Honda. He's all gung-ho on fuel cells and I think it will be at the expense of Honda's Integrated Motor Assist technology which I think is one of the best concepts for pluggable hybrids going forward.

As for myself, I am actually looking at some strap-on pluggable technology; hybrid engine in the front and DIY (kinda-sorta) electric motors on the rear wheels as add ons. People have done this already on the Prius, but I don't know of anyone who has tried it on an Insight yet.