Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
Nuclear power in Canada
Perry_3
Member Posts: 498
There are a lot of good comments above; and I will try to answer the questions and issues in one post instead of creating a lot more.
Yes, nuclear power would make sense for the oil sands. It is that or burn the most premium products refined from the oil sands for production.
Reactors going out of control: Yes it could happen again if people do enough stupid things at once. The industry has several examples (and not all of them as well known as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl). I do note that the industry world wide has learned a lot of lessons - and the likelyhood of those sequence of issues creating an accident is very very low. But as safe as both the current generation plants, the current ones being built, and the proposed plant are (and the newer the design the safer they are) - the fact remains that in the end if enough people do enough stupid things you could again have a reactor go out of control.
However, that is not actually a safety problem. That is precisely the reason that the containment buildings were built arround the US power reactors from day one. Chernobyl did not have a containment building - and look at the mess it created. 3 Mile Island did have, and the containment building has already been cleaned up without any major enviornmental damage. The others have been cleaned up as well.
All new reactors - including new Russian reactors have containment buildings to cover us in case of the worst case situation.
I note that Candu reactors are no more safe than the other designs. They also have a unique problem with irradiation induced growth of the fuel tubes. Solvable - but expensive to solve.
The waste issue: Nuclear plants produce a small amount of highly radioactive waste. I will concede that disposal is an issue because the anti-nukes and polititions have made it one. If you look at what they argue over for disposal standards - you could not even toss out your household garbage if similar standards were applied to your daily trash.
In the end there are several possible solutions - or possible combination of solutions. Do you reprocess the fuel to recover the 98% of usable product to help fuel the next reactors? Do you take the worst radionuclides and stuff them back into a reactor to burn them up to safer items. Do you then bury the rest which will safely decay out in well under 50,000 years. That is what the French are doing.
Do you bury it as is deep underground in areas where the geology is stable enough that it would not be expected to be disturbed for millions of years.
Oh that is right. No one can really predict that. Also no one can predict how bad this waste will actually be in a 100,000 years. Not really. Nature has provided us with some great examples. Want to see the waste disposal from a natural nuclear reactor... go to africa and study it. Not nearly as radioactive as people project for power plant waste. Why?
Did you ever consider that the projections on power plant fuel waste is based on the worst possible radionuclide mix assuming the worst possible fuel cycle burnup situation.
Is everything worst case? No. How do I know.... That worst case spent fuel mix is supposed to generate "x" anount of decay heat by a specific composite decay curve. Got news for all you folks. It's wrong by a factor of 2 - in just 5 to 10 years. How do I know.... I tried running a thermal performance test of our Spent Fuel Pool Coolers - and there was only 1/2 the projected heat load (and not even enough for me to run the test). I can only run the test during full core offloads when we have a really "hot" core in the spent fuel pool. I did some asking around to other plants... Same results. So the spent fuel is only about 1/2 as bad as the projections - after as soon as 5 years. It can only go downhill faster from there.
In the end - no one knows to what extent 100,000 year old spent fuel - or older will be; but we know that it will keep decaying. We also know that certain metals in certain soil types do not decay. We find raw nuggest of those metals in those soils that date millions of years old. That is how the Norther Europeans are planning to bury their waste: Encase the waste in a series of metals - each thick enough to do the job by itself - each metal known not to degrade in the ground type - and bury the fuel far enough apart so the the decay heat will be redily absorbed by the earth.
We could do that as well in the US and Canada.
We live in a radioactive world. We each soak up 300 to 500 mrem per year based just on where we live (on average). Some people soak up a couple of rem based on where they live. Our drinking water for the last 100+ years in many areas has contained a lot of radiation - and we all drink it with no problem. Only now is the radiation level of drinking water being limited in the US (and a lot of cities are having to change drinking water sources). Yet no one is claiming that our normal drinking water is a problem.
You do not want to know how radioactive many of our common food items are.
Nuclear power plants must treat virtually any detectable level of radiation as waste. The result is that we dispose of normal lake mud as radioactive waste.
And, what about all the chemical waste that we generate. What about all the groundwater polution from pesticides. Predictions are that those pesticides and other chemicals in the groundwater will not decay - ever. I guess it is OK to poisen our decendents with chemicals - but not with a potential for a trace amount of radiation that is far below the natural background radiation of the area.
Who will pay for waste disposal: Every utility customer who ever used a KW of electricity has already paid. In the US aproximately twice what Yuka - or a similar disposal site would cost to open and fill has alraedy been paid to the US government to handle long term waste disposal (the US government is making millions per year off of this - above any expected cost to dispose of the waste).
Now I am not going to claim that Yuka Mountain should be the depository. The government has so mucked up the process that I will conceed there are questions. If this was a private site the NRC would never have allowed things to get this mucked up in the research and preparation.
However, I am convinced that the US can find a good geoligical storage place somewhere. Look to the examples in Europe.
Cost of the plants:
You need to understand the the US has never actually had a problem with understanding the cost of construction of a nuclear power plant. That is not why their cost spun out of control.
The problem - and why WallStreat is currently suspect had nothing to do with construction cost. It had everything to do with 1) how the plants were financed and how that affected interest rates for the plants. 2) regulatory and design changes imposed on the plants while they were under construction. 3) that the operating permit was not issued until well after the plant is completed. 4) how the Public Utility Commisions acted.
Immagin that you are part of a group of companies bidding to build small house with a hydronic heating system (you will handle the heating system, and other partners will build the other parts of the house).
Now this is a special house for the governemnt. Thus, you are required to borrow all the money needed to pay all your cost to do the project planning, estimating and site preperation at elevated interest rates, then after the government agrees that your plan is prudent - they allow you to borrow the cost of materials and construction at again an inflated interest rate. Even though the government agreed with your plans up front - after you get started on the house you are told that the foundation that was poored and buried weeks ago must be insulated, but you can borrow the money to do that. After you have the PEX laid you are told that you can only use that type of PEX if it is covered with a special glypcrete that does not yet exist except in the laboratory. Meanwhile your group is going to have to pay penalties for delay in the house until it is complete. The nice Bulderous boiler you purchased from the job then gets decertified by another branch of the governemnt because it is painted blue and you have to buy a Viessmann because only they have spec approved paint color. You are approved to borrow more money. The Viessmann boiler arrives and you are told that your 20+ year installation crew is not appropriatly trained to install boilers. You must attend more training. During the training it is discovered that they are also not appropriately certified to install the PEX on the house now. They have just created a rule that you cannot put the new PEX into service on a new house unless it has been installed by certified personell. You must tear out the glypcrete and the origninal PEX and reinstall the exact same materials with certified installers. After the wallboard is up on the house you are told that the wiring must be wrapped with a fire coating in any wiring withing 10 feet of the kitchen or boiler room. Of course you can keep borrowing at high interest rates. Did I mention that the way you are making the payments on your loans is by borrowing money at a higher yet interest rate. The house is finished 3 years after its original. Now you must get an occupancy permit. A complete review of everyone who ever worked on the jobsite is done. Were all installers appropriately certified. Opps - the plumber was training his son on plumbing - and all the waste pipe must now be ripped out and reinstalled with all certified plumbers. Oh my gosh... The firewrap that the state told you that you had to install on the wiring... turns out to be flamible. The state is not at fault (even though you can point to state documents that told you to install that specific brand of firewrap). You must now either replace all of the firewrap or install a sprinkler system or take other actions to ensure that the "flamible" firewrap cannot cause a cable failure in the event of a fire. The house is going to be occupied by state legislators. You just learn that cannot get an occupancy permit untill you can demonstrat that they legislators are adequately trained in how to operate the light switches, faucets, and the flush toilet; along with common cleaing chores like vacuum the floor, and numerous other normal things. You must now run a 6 month training course to ensure that the legislators, with a minimun passing grade, do understand how to use the household fixtures and do normal cleaning. This training must be in a specially configured training building that cannot be met by just an existing training facility anywhere in the county.
You now have an occupancy permit (4 years after the projected finish). The state agency reviewes your cost and declars that a lot of the money you borrowed for things was not a prudent expense for a normal house - and you cannot collect any payment for it. But, you can now collect your money to pay off your loans. Another group builing a similar house - that is even more behind schedule gets told that in retrospec that there entire project was not prudent, and they cannot collect a penny (remember the state approved these as prudent projects before they authorized you to start construction).
Overall, Nuclear Power plants that were expected to cost 1/2 billion to build - endid up costing 2 Billion once the states and NRC started playing that game, and in many cases the utilities took it in the shorts on recovering money (and in a few utilities were purposely bankrupted by there Public Service Commissions who refused to allow cost recovery for projects that they themselves approved). In many cases, the end plants were technically and from a safety standpoint no better than the original blueprints for the plant - which could have been built in 1/3 the time.
We know about what these plants cost to build. There are about 30 of them in various stages of construction in the world. Nuclear power is the cheapest power out there. Proven worldwide. Yes the plants are expensive to build, and expensive to staff - but the fuel is cheap. Other plants are cheap to build and staff - but the fuel is expensive.
The problem is that no other country in the world has ever imposed the strange financing methods of the US utilities nor the constant changing, review, and even the aboragation of preapprovals. The firewrap requirment has imposed millions of extra dollars of continuing cost on the plants in the US - and is responsible for the loss of an entire new plant.
As a banker - would you agree to finance another nuclear unit in the US given the strange and constantly changing rules, and denial of recovery events, from the past...?
Now the US has recongized the errors of its ways and has been working with the industry for the last decade to try to develope a streamlined process. We are almost there. Reactor designs are preapproved (and there are 3 600 MW designs approved, and 1 1000+ MW design approved, with several more 1000+ MW designs in the approval process). Anyone can construct a preapproved design on any approved site (and their actually is still a couple cases of approved sites left over from the 80's). You can also file and get an "early site permit" which would allow you to do site preparation work for a nuclear plant (and at least one of those has been issued - and several more will be issued in the next year). But, the plan is to also have a preapproved operating permit for the plant before construction begins. That is in the works; and the industry is working with the NRC to develope a standard application and a process for that (technically most people will apply for a "combined construction and operating permit").
In reality - it is expected to take about 5 years from site selection to recieving an "combined construction and operating permit") We think. Those with approved "early site permits" will be able to shorten that by a few years - but it takes a few years to get those early site permits.
The first Combined Operating and Construction Permits applications are expected to be filed this year.
The actual plant construction is expected to take about 5 years. Staff selection and trainig will occur at the same time as the construction process.
On the financing side - some states are now approving the recovery of the money to submit and process the permits when it is spent - not 10 years of interest payments on interest payments later.
The reason there are US governemnt "subsidies" for the first several US nuclear plants is to help companies offset the risk of regulatory delays. Until a few plants get through the regulatory process.... No one will know what a plant in the US is actually going to cost (and we have not approved a new plant in over 20 years). Because this is a burden imposed by the US governement (and no other nation in the world); the US governemnt will subsidize the first few plants through the process.
Fusion reactors: What France is working on is 50 years away from commercial developement - if it works.
There is better and potentially faster methods being developed in the states. Univeristy of Wisconsin Madison has a very interesting fusion reactor based on different principals than the big one in France. I have an in on it becasue I helped build the vacuum containment ring for it. I also helped build an interesting plasma physics/prototype fusion cooling experiment vessel.
Anyway, if this design works out we could have actual labority scale fusion power plants with real generators in 15-20 years. ITER in France will just be finishing construction.
No two US nukes alike: OK, the US experiemented with over 70 designs for 100+ reactors. Only now are the real benifits of that comming about. We learned what works - and what did not work, and the best way to do things. France has had signifant problems with its first generation reactors becasue they all had the same significant problem; and lessor problems with its second generation plants because they too all have the same problems.
I would not bank much on the Japanease reactors. They have had collectively more problems than the US reactors. The Japanease have recently been building US designed plants.
Standardized designs are only great if the design is great and proven. The new US reactor designs (the preapproved ones) are based on the best of what worked for each issue in all of those differently designed plants. They are going to be a dream in many ways from the older plants (I am at a plant that was built under the Atomic Energy Commission's "Atoms for Peace" program before the NRC ever existed).
Nuke plant working conditions: Hmmm.... its a strange world - not like many jobs. It does pay well.
I personally think that we will see a half dozen new nuclear units ordered in the US in the next 3 years, and then after that - the floodgates will open. 10 -15 reactors a year for decades (working up to perhaps 30 reactors a year if people really want to end most of the oil dependance - 1/2 of the nuclear units would then be used to generate hydrogen for vehicle fuel).
I would also opinion that Pressurized Water Reactors are really the way to go. A bit more expensive to build. But, simpler to operate and the majority of the plant is not radioactive. Very clean (from radiation standpoint) plants are possible. Besides I like the controls just falling in by gravity for shutdown versus haveing to be hydralically inserted from the bottom in a boiling water reactor.
Long term, thorium reactors are on the horizon. There is a lot more thoriuum available than there is uranium.
Hope this helps answer the questions.
Perry
Yes, nuclear power would make sense for the oil sands. It is that or burn the most premium products refined from the oil sands for production.
Reactors going out of control: Yes it could happen again if people do enough stupid things at once. The industry has several examples (and not all of them as well known as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl). I do note that the industry world wide has learned a lot of lessons - and the likelyhood of those sequence of issues creating an accident is very very low. But as safe as both the current generation plants, the current ones being built, and the proposed plant are (and the newer the design the safer they are) - the fact remains that in the end if enough people do enough stupid things you could again have a reactor go out of control.
However, that is not actually a safety problem. That is precisely the reason that the containment buildings were built arround the US power reactors from day one. Chernobyl did not have a containment building - and look at the mess it created. 3 Mile Island did have, and the containment building has already been cleaned up without any major enviornmental damage. The others have been cleaned up as well.
All new reactors - including new Russian reactors have containment buildings to cover us in case of the worst case situation.
I note that Candu reactors are no more safe than the other designs. They also have a unique problem with irradiation induced growth of the fuel tubes. Solvable - but expensive to solve.
The waste issue: Nuclear plants produce a small amount of highly radioactive waste. I will concede that disposal is an issue because the anti-nukes and polititions have made it one. If you look at what they argue over for disposal standards - you could not even toss out your household garbage if similar standards were applied to your daily trash.
In the end there are several possible solutions - or possible combination of solutions. Do you reprocess the fuel to recover the 98% of usable product to help fuel the next reactors? Do you take the worst radionuclides and stuff them back into a reactor to burn them up to safer items. Do you then bury the rest which will safely decay out in well under 50,000 years. That is what the French are doing.
Do you bury it as is deep underground in areas where the geology is stable enough that it would not be expected to be disturbed for millions of years.
Oh that is right. No one can really predict that. Also no one can predict how bad this waste will actually be in a 100,000 years. Not really. Nature has provided us with some great examples. Want to see the waste disposal from a natural nuclear reactor... go to africa and study it. Not nearly as radioactive as people project for power plant waste. Why?
Did you ever consider that the projections on power plant fuel waste is based on the worst possible radionuclide mix assuming the worst possible fuel cycle burnup situation.
Is everything worst case? No. How do I know.... That worst case spent fuel mix is supposed to generate "x" anount of decay heat by a specific composite decay curve. Got news for all you folks. It's wrong by a factor of 2 - in just 5 to 10 years. How do I know.... I tried running a thermal performance test of our Spent Fuel Pool Coolers - and there was only 1/2 the projected heat load (and not even enough for me to run the test). I can only run the test during full core offloads when we have a really "hot" core in the spent fuel pool. I did some asking around to other plants... Same results. So the spent fuel is only about 1/2 as bad as the projections - after as soon as 5 years. It can only go downhill faster from there.
In the end - no one knows to what extent 100,000 year old spent fuel - or older will be; but we know that it will keep decaying. We also know that certain metals in certain soil types do not decay. We find raw nuggest of those metals in those soils that date millions of years old. That is how the Norther Europeans are planning to bury their waste: Encase the waste in a series of metals - each thick enough to do the job by itself - each metal known not to degrade in the ground type - and bury the fuel far enough apart so the the decay heat will be redily absorbed by the earth.
We could do that as well in the US and Canada.
We live in a radioactive world. We each soak up 300 to 500 mrem per year based just on where we live (on average). Some people soak up a couple of rem based on where they live. Our drinking water for the last 100+ years in many areas has contained a lot of radiation - and we all drink it with no problem. Only now is the radiation level of drinking water being limited in the US (and a lot of cities are having to change drinking water sources). Yet no one is claiming that our normal drinking water is a problem.
You do not want to know how radioactive many of our common food items are.
Nuclear power plants must treat virtually any detectable level of radiation as waste. The result is that we dispose of normal lake mud as radioactive waste.
And, what about all the chemical waste that we generate. What about all the groundwater polution from pesticides. Predictions are that those pesticides and other chemicals in the groundwater will not decay - ever. I guess it is OK to poisen our decendents with chemicals - but not with a potential for a trace amount of radiation that is far below the natural background radiation of the area.
Who will pay for waste disposal: Every utility customer who ever used a KW of electricity has already paid. In the US aproximately twice what Yuka - or a similar disposal site would cost to open and fill has alraedy been paid to the US government to handle long term waste disposal (the US government is making millions per year off of this - above any expected cost to dispose of the waste).
Now I am not going to claim that Yuka Mountain should be the depository. The government has so mucked up the process that I will conceed there are questions. If this was a private site the NRC would never have allowed things to get this mucked up in the research and preparation.
However, I am convinced that the US can find a good geoligical storage place somewhere. Look to the examples in Europe.
Cost of the plants:
You need to understand the the US has never actually had a problem with understanding the cost of construction of a nuclear power plant. That is not why their cost spun out of control.
The problem - and why WallStreat is currently suspect had nothing to do with construction cost. It had everything to do with 1) how the plants were financed and how that affected interest rates for the plants. 2) regulatory and design changes imposed on the plants while they were under construction. 3) that the operating permit was not issued until well after the plant is completed. 4) how the Public Utility Commisions acted.
Immagin that you are part of a group of companies bidding to build small house with a hydronic heating system (you will handle the heating system, and other partners will build the other parts of the house).
Now this is a special house for the governemnt. Thus, you are required to borrow all the money needed to pay all your cost to do the project planning, estimating and site preperation at elevated interest rates, then after the government agrees that your plan is prudent - they allow you to borrow the cost of materials and construction at again an inflated interest rate. Even though the government agreed with your plans up front - after you get started on the house you are told that the foundation that was poored and buried weeks ago must be insulated, but you can borrow the money to do that. After you have the PEX laid you are told that you can only use that type of PEX if it is covered with a special glypcrete that does not yet exist except in the laboratory. Meanwhile your group is going to have to pay penalties for delay in the house until it is complete. The nice Bulderous boiler you purchased from the job then gets decertified by another branch of the governemnt because it is painted blue and you have to buy a Viessmann because only they have spec approved paint color. You are approved to borrow more money. The Viessmann boiler arrives and you are told that your 20+ year installation crew is not appropriatly trained to install boilers. You must attend more training. During the training it is discovered that they are also not appropriately certified to install the PEX on the house now. They have just created a rule that you cannot put the new PEX into service on a new house unless it has been installed by certified personell. You must tear out the glypcrete and the origninal PEX and reinstall the exact same materials with certified installers. After the wallboard is up on the house you are told that the wiring must be wrapped with a fire coating in any wiring withing 10 feet of the kitchen or boiler room. Of course you can keep borrowing at high interest rates. Did I mention that the way you are making the payments on your loans is by borrowing money at a higher yet interest rate. The house is finished 3 years after its original. Now you must get an occupancy permit. A complete review of everyone who ever worked on the jobsite is done. Were all installers appropriately certified. Opps - the plumber was training his son on plumbing - and all the waste pipe must now be ripped out and reinstalled with all certified plumbers. Oh my gosh... The firewrap that the state told you that you had to install on the wiring... turns out to be flamible. The state is not at fault (even though you can point to state documents that told you to install that specific brand of firewrap). You must now either replace all of the firewrap or install a sprinkler system or take other actions to ensure that the "flamible" firewrap cannot cause a cable failure in the event of a fire. The house is going to be occupied by state legislators. You just learn that cannot get an occupancy permit untill you can demonstrat that they legislators are adequately trained in how to operate the light switches, faucets, and the flush toilet; along with common cleaing chores like vacuum the floor, and numerous other normal things. You must now run a 6 month training course to ensure that the legislators, with a minimun passing grade, do understand how to use the household fixtures and do normal cleaning. This training must be in a specially configured training building that cannot be met by just an existing training facility anywhere in the county.
You now have an occupancy permit (4 years after the projected finish). The state agency reviewes your cost and declars that a lot of the money you borrowed for things was not a prudent expense for a normal house - and you cannot collect any payment for it. But, you can now collect your money to pay off your loans. Another group builing a similar house - that is even more behind schedule gets told that in retrospec that there entire project was not prudent, and they cannot collect a penny (remember the state approved these as prudent projects before they authorized you to start construction).
Overall, Nuclear Power plants that were expected to cost 1/2 billion to build - endid up costing 2 Billion once the states and NRC started playing that game, and in many cases the utilities took it in the shorts on recovering money (and in a few utilities were purposely bankrupted by there Public Service Commissions who refused to allow cost recovery for projects that they themselves approved). In many cases, the end plants were technically and from a safety standpoint no better than the original blueprints for the plant - which could have been built in 1/3 the time.
We know about what these plants cost to build. There are about 30 of them in various stages of construction in the world. Nuclear power is the cheapest power out there. Proven worldwide. Yes the plants are expensive to build, and expensive to staff - but the fuel is cheap. Other plants are cheap to build and staff - but the fuel is expensive.
The problem is that no other country in the world has ever imposed the strange financing methods of the US utilities nor the constant changing, review, and even the aboragation of preapprovals. The firewrap requirment has imposed millions of extra dollars of continuing cost on the plants in the US - and is responsible for the loss of an entire new plant.
As a banker - would you agree to finance another nuclear unit in the US given the strange and constantly changing rules, and denial of recovery events, from the past...?
Now the US has recongized the errors of its ways and has been working with the industry for the last decade to try to develope a streamlined process. We are almost there. Reactor designs are preapproved (and there are 3 600 MW designs approved, and 1 1000+ MW design approved, with several more 1000+ MW designs in the approval process). Anyone can construct a preapproved design on any approved site (and their actually is still a couple cases of approved sites left over from the 80's). You can also file and get an "early site permit" which would allow you to do site preparation work for a nuclear plant (and at least one of those has been issued - and several more will be issued in the next year). But, the plan is to also have a preapproved operating permit for the plant before construction begins. That is in the works; and the industry is working with the NRC to develope a standard application and a process for that (technically most people will apply for a "combined construction and operating permit").
In reality - it is expected to take about 5 years from site selection to recieving an "combined construction and operating permit") We think. Those with approved "early site permits" will be able to shorten that by a few years - but it takes a few years to get those early site permits.
The first Combined Operating and Construction Permits applications are expected to be filed this year.
The actual plant construction is expected to take about 5 years. Staff selection and trainig will occur at the same time as the construction process.
On the financing side - some states are now approving the recovery of the money to submit and process the permits when it is spent - not 10 years of interest payments on interest payments later.
The reason there are US governemnt "subsidies" for the first several US nuclear plants is to help companies offset the risk of regulatory delays. Until a few plants get through the regulatory process.... No one will know what a plant in the US is actually going to cost (and we have not approved a new plant in over 20 years). Because this is a burden imposed by the US governement (and no other nation in the world); the US governemnt will subsidize the first few plants through the process.
Fusion reactors: What France is working on is 50 years away from commercial developement - if it works.
There is better and potentially faster methods being developed in the states. Univeristy of Wisconsin Madison has a very interesting fusion reactor based on different principals than the big one in France. I have an in on it becasue I helped build the vacuum containment ring for it. I also helped build an interesting plasma physics/prototype fusion cooling experiment vessel.
Anyway, if this design works out we could have actual labority scale fusion power plants with real generators in 15-20 years. ITER in France will just be finishing construction.
No two US nukes alike: OK, the US experiemented with over 70 designs for 100+ reactors. Only now are the real benifits of that comming about. We learned what works - and what did not work, and the best way to do things. France has had signifant problems with its first generation reactors becasue they all had the same significant problem; and lessor problems with its second generation plants because they too all have the same problems.
I would not bank much on the Japanease reactors. They have had collectively more problems than the US reactors. The Japanease have recently been building US designed plants.
Standardized designs are only great if the design is great and proven. The new US reactor designs (the preapproved ones) are based on the best of what worked for each issue in all of those differently designed plants. They are going to be a dream in many ways from the older plants (I am at a plant that was built under the Atomic Energy Commission's "Atoms for Peace" program before the NRC ever existed).
Nuke plant working conditions: Hmmm.... its a strange world - not like many jobs. It does pay well.
I personally think that we will see a half dozen new nuclear units ordered in the US in the next 3 years, and then after that - the floodgates will open. 10 -15 reactors a year for decades (working up to perhaps 30 reactors a year if people really want to end most of the oil dependance - 1/2 of the nuclear units would then be used to generate hydrogen for vehicle fuel).
I would also opinion that Pressurized Water Reactors are really the way to go. A bit more expensive to build. But, simpler to operate and the majority of the plant is not radioactive. Very clean (from radiation standpoint) plants are possible. Besides I like the controls just falling in by gravity for shutdown versus haveing to be hydralically inserted from the bottom in a boiling water reactor.
Long term, thorium reactors are on the horizon. There is a lot more thoriuum available than there is uranium.
Hope this helps answer the questions.
Perry
0
Comments
-
Finally a bit of sense from the gov.
Canada's energy minister, has said that Canada has to look at ways of cleaning up our CO2 production. One of the items he mentioned was that it would make very good sense to have nuclear power for the Alberta tar sands! This project is one of the, if not the, biggest producer of CO2 in Canada (and a complete waste of natural gas resources!).
My God, could there actually be a politician with some common sense in a position of power? Will probably read next that he has been demoted back to the benches!
Leo G0 -
If it could be done in such a way
that if the reactor went out of control, it would not result in another Windscale, Fermi One, Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, it might make sense.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Take U-235, eh? Draw out the rods, eh?
Lookie dere! Yup. Fire up Diefenbacker One, Okay. In de beg. We got power now back at the hoose."If you do not know the answer, say, "I do not know the answer", and you will be correct!"
-Ernie White, my Dad0 -
But wait...
I think I'm a pretty green/sustainable kind of engineer, and I think there are some good arguements to do that- use a nice little Candu Nuke Plant - tried and true, pretty safe design, but our new Liberal Leader- Stephane Dion- doesn't like the idea because of the nuclear waste stream and what to do with it. Good point, but I think the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste may be a smaller problem, that can be solved, than using a non-renewable resource to extract more non-renewable resources, and create the amount of known harmful pollution that process creates. Considering that Uranium City, Saskatchewan, is only a short distance away from Ft. McMurray, it does make a lotta sense.0 -
Call Bechtel...
www.waste2glass.com
They have significant experience in these areas...;-)
ME0 -
Nukes make a lot of sense for that operation...
... not sure the market can bear the cost yet of constructing one, but Nukes are really good at producing steam, which is what these tar sands need to be extracted. Run the thing 24/7 and you have a viable way to get at the more "valuable" fuel stuck in the sand. On the downside, there is the small risk that something really bad may happen and that building a nuke just for steam generation may not be any cheaper than building one for electrical power... i.e. too expensive to make most private enterprises even begin to dream of it.
I wish a bit more energy + money would go into fusion instead of fission power, but the ITER reactor in France may be our best hope in that regard. Another 30 years...0 -
A good part of our problem
with nukes in the US is that there are no two alike. If you go to France or Japan they tend to settle on a design and build several exactly alike. They then have a better idea of how to run and control that particular design. Efficiencies of scale. More trained operators of that particular design, etc. They do not change unless they have discovered something thatt will make them run better and then they change all of them. There was an excellent article on this in Atlantic back in about '87. US plants, on the other hand are all nukes, but very different. Raises costs and doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. Then again we don't seem to care about that. As a fitter/welder I've worked on several nukes, including two shutdowns, and yes, I do have a half-life of my own. Just a little cobalt in my thyroid from that plutonium plant (100N). The build quality on those plants is outstanding. Work rules on a nuke make them the biggest pita I have experienced. The rule of thumb was that if you wanted to ruin a good man, put him on a nuke. Hell, look what happended to me!
I believe there are better cleaner ways to go and you have to deal with the waste issue, but nuclear will make a comeback in my opinion because the big money will make more from it.0 -
where's Perry on this?
Is he still nuking them twinkies?0 -
Waste Issues
All energy sources and power generation has waste issues. Mining coal generates waste and has death rates. Burning coal generates local waste and the rest of the waste is simply thrown into the atmosphere. Burning oil throws waste into the atmosphere. The bulk of high and low level nuclear waste is from weapons research and production and the most contaminated sites are government owned or from companies like
>>>I believe there are better cleaner ways to go and you have to deal with the waste issue, but nuclear will make a comeback in my opinion because the big money will make more from it. <<<
0 -
Deep Frying the twinkies...
Actually I have not been frying, nuking, or even eating twinkies.
Due to a variety of food allergies I don't eat twinkies, mars bars, cheese curds, and a lot of other things - even if they are deep fried...
Perry0 -
Ra, Ra, Go Nukes!
> There are a lot of good comments above; and I
> will try to answer the questions and issues in
> one post instead of creating a lot more.
>
> Yes,
> nuclear power would make sense for the oil sands.
> It is that or burn the most premium products
> refined from the oil sands for
> production.
>
> Reactors going out of control:
> Yes it could happen again if people do enough
> stupid things at once. The industry has several
> examples (and not all of them as well known as
> Three Mile Island or Chernobyl). I do note that
> the industry world wide has learned a lot of
> lessons - and the likelyhood of those sequence of
> issues creating an accident is very very low.
> But as safe as both the current generation
> plants, the current ones being built, and the
> proposed plant are (and the newer the design the
> safer they are) - the fact remains that in the
> end if enough people do enough stupid things you
> could again have a reactor go out of
> control.
>
> However, that is not actually a
> safety problem. That is precisely the reason
> that the containment buildings were built arround
> the US power reactors from day one. Chernobyl
> did not have a containment building - and look at
> the mess it created. 3 Mile Island did have, and
> the containment building has already been cleaned
> up without any major enviornmental damage. The
> others have been cleaned up as well.
>
> All new
> reactors - including new Russian reactors have
> containment buildings to cover us in case of the
> worst case situation.
>
> I note that Candu
> reactors are no more safe than the other designs.
> They also have a unique problem with irradiation
> induced growth of the fuel tubes. Solvable - but
> expensive to solve.
>
> The waste issue: Nuclear
> plants produce a small amount of highly
> radioactive waste. I will concede that disposal
> is an issue because the anti-nukes and
> polititions have made it one. If you look at
> what they argue over for disposal standards - you
> could not even toss out your household garbage if
> similar standards were applied to your daily
> trash.
>
> In the end there are several possible
> solutions - or possible combination of solutions.
> Do you reprocess the fuel to recover the 98% of
> usable product to help fuel the next reactors?
> Do you take the worst radionuclides and stuff
> them back into a reactor to burn them up to safer
> items. Do you then bury the rest which will
> safely decay out in well under 50,000 years.
> That is what the French are doing.
>
> Do you
> bury it as is deep underground in areas where the
> geology is stable enough that it would not be
> expected to be disturbed for millions of
> years.
>
> Oh that is right. No one can really
> predict that. Also no one can predict how bad
> this waste will actually be in a 100,000 years.
> Not really. Nature has provided us with some
> great examples. Want to see the waste disposal
> from a natural nuclear reactor... go to africa
> and study it. Not nearly as radioactive as
> people project for power plant waste.
> Why?
>
> Did you ever consider that the
> projections on power plant fuel waste is based on
> the worst possible radionuclide mix assuming the
> worst possible fuel cycle burnup situation.
>
> Is
> everything worst case? No. How do I know....
> That worst case spent fuel mix is supposed to
> generate "x" anount of decay heat by a specific
> composite decay curve. Got news for all you
> folks. It's wrong by a factor of 2 - in just 5
> to 10 years. How do I know.... I tried running
> a thermal performance test of our Spent Fuel Pool
> Coolers - and there was only 1/2 the projected
> heat load (and not even enough for me to run the
> test). I can only run the test during full core
> offloads when we have a really "hot" core in the
> spent fuel pool. I did some asking around to
> other plants... Same results. So the spent fuel
> is only about 1/2 as bad as the projections -
> after as soon as 5 years. It can only go
> downhill faster from there.
>
> In the end - no
> one knows to what extent 100,000 year old spent
> fuel - or older will be; but we know that it will
> keep decaying. We also know that certain metals
> in certain soil types do not decay. We find raw
> nuggest of those metals in those soils that date
> millions of years old. That is how the Norther
> Europeans are planning to bury their waste:
> Encase the waste in a series of metals - each
> thick enough to do the job by itself - each metal
> known not to degrade in the ground type - and
> bury the fuel far enough apart so the the decay
> heat will be redily absorbed by the earth.
>
> We
> could do that as well in the US and Canada.
> We live in a radioactive world. We each soak up
> 300 to 500 mrem per year based just on where we
> live (on average). Some people soak up a couple
> of rem based on where they live. Our drinking
> water for the last 100+ years in many areas has
> contained a lot of radiation - and we all drink
> it with no problem. Only now is the radiation
> level of drinking water being limited in the US
> (and a lot of cities are having to change
> drinking water sources). Yet no one is claiming
> that our normal drinking water is a
> problem.
>
> You do not want to know how
> radioactive many of our common food items
> are.
>
> Nuclear power plants must treat virtually
> any detectable level of radiation as waste. The
> result is that we dispose of normal lake mud as
> radioactive waste.
>
> And, what about all the
> chemical waste that we generate. What about all
> the groundwater polution from pesticides.
> Predictions are that those pesticides and other
> chemicals in the groundwater will not decay -
> ever. I guess it is OK to poisen our decendents
> with chemicals - but not with a potential for a
> trace amount of radiation that is far below the
> natural background radiation of the
> area.
>
> Who will pay for waste disposal:
> Every utility customer who ever used a KW of
> electricity has already paid. In the US
> aproximately twice what Yuka - or a similar
> disposal site would cost to open and fill has
> alraedy been paid to the US government to handle
> long term waste disposal (the US government is
> making millions per year off of this - above any
> expected cost to dispose of the waste).
>
> Now I
> am not going to claim that Yuka Mountain should
> be the depository. The government has so mucked
> up the process that I will conceed there are
> questions. If this was a private site the NRC
> would never have allowed things to get this
> mucked up in the research and
> preparation.
>
> However, I am convinced that the
> US can find a good geoligical storage place
> somewhere. Look to the examples in Europe.
> Cost of the plants:
>
> You need to understand the
> the US has never actually had a problem with
> understanding the cost of construction of a
> nuclear power plant. That is not why their cost
> spun out of control.
>
> The problem - and why
> WallStreat is currently suspect had nothing to do
> with construction cost. It had everything to do
> with 1) how the plants were financed and how that
> affected interest rates for the plants. 2)
> regulatory and design changes imposed on the
> plants while they were under construction. 3)
> that the operating permit was not issued until
> well after the plant is completed. 4) how the
> Public Utility Commisions acted.
>
> Immagin that
> you are part of a group of companies bidding to
> build small house with a hydronic heating system
> (you will handle the heating system, and other
> partners will build the other parts of the
> house).
>
> Now this is a special house for the
> governemnt. Thus, you are required to borrow all
> the money needed to pay all your cost to do the
> project planning, estimating and site preperation
> at elevated interest rates, then after the
> government agrees that your plan is prudent -
> they allow you to borrow the cost of materials
> and construction at again an inflated interest
> rate. Even though the government agreed with
> your plans up front - after you get started on
> the house you are told that the foundation that
> was poored and buried weeks ago must be
> insulated, but you can borrow the money to do
> that. After you have the PEX laid you are told
> that you can only use that type of PEX if it is
> covered with a special glypcrete that does not
> yet exist except in the laboratory. Meanwhile
> your group is going to have to pay penalties for
> delay in the house until it is complete. The
> nice Bulderous boiler you purchased from the job
> then gets decertified by another branch of the
> governemnt because it is painted blue and you
> have to buy a Viessmann because only they have
> spec approved paint color. You are approved to
> borrow more money. The Viessmann boiler arrives
> and you are told that your 20+ year installation
> crew is not appropriatly trained to install
> boilers. You must attend more training. During
> the training it is discovered that they are also
> not appropriately certified to install the PEX on
> the house now. They have just created a rule
> that you cannot put the new PEX into service on a
> new house unless it has been installed by
> certified personell. You must tear out the
> glypcrete and the origninal PEX and reinstall the
> exact same materials with certified installers.
> After the wallboard is up on the house you are
> told that the wiring must be wrapped with a fire
> coating in any wiring withing 10 feet of the
> kitchen or boiler room. Of course you can keep
> borrowing at high interest rates. Did I mention
> that the way you are making the payments on your
> loans is by borrowing money at a higher yet
> interest rate. The house is finished 3 years
> after its original. Now you must get an
> occupancy permit. A complete review of everyone
> who ever worked on the jobsite is done. Were all
> installers appropriately certified. Opps - the
> plumber was training his son on plumbing - and
> all the waste pipe must now be ripped out and
> reinstalled with all certified plumbers. Oh my
> gosh... The firewrap that the state told you that
> you had to install on the wiring... turns out to
> be flamible. The state is not at fault (even
> though you can point to state documents that told
> you to install that specific brand of firewrap).
> You must now either replace all of the firewrap
> or install a sprinkler system or take other
> actions to ensure that the "flamible" firewrap
> cannot cause a cable failure in the event of a
> fire. The house is going to be occupied by state
> legislators. You just learn that cannot get an
> occupancy permit untill you can demonstrat that
> they legislators are adequately trained in how to
> operate the light switches, faucets, and the
> flush toilet; along with common cleaing chores
> like vacuum the floor, and numerous other normal
> things. You must now run a 6 month training
> course to ensure that the legislators, with a
> minimun passing grade, do understand how to use
> the household fixtures and do normal cleaning.
> This training must be in a specially configured
> training building that cannot be met by just an
> existing training facility anywhere in the
> county.
>
> You now have an occupancy permit (4
> years after the projected finish). The state
> agency reviewes your cost and declars that a lot
> of the money you borrowed for things was not a
> prudent expense for a normal house - and you
> cannot collect any payment for it. But, you can
> now collect your money to pay off your loans.
> Another group builing a similar house - that is
> even more behind schedule gets told that in
> retrospec that there entire project was not
> prudent, and they cannot collect a penny
> (remember the state approved these as prudent
> projects before they authorized you to start
> construction).
>
> Overall, Nuclear Power plants
> that were expected to cost 1/2 billion to build -
> endid up costing 2 Billion once the states and
> NRC started playing that game, and in many cases
> the utilities took it in the shorts on recovering
> money (and in a few utilities were purposely
> bankrupted by there Public Service Commissions
> who refused to allow cost recovery for projects
> that they themselves approved). In many cases,
> the end plants were technically and from a safety
> standpoint no better than the original blueprints
> for the plant - which could have been built in
> 1/3 the time.
>
> We know about what these
> plants cost to build. There are about 30 of them
> in various stages of construction in the world.
> Nuclear power is the cheapest power out there.
> Proven worldwide. Yes the plants are expensive
> to build, and expensive to staff - but the fuel
> is cheap. Other plants are cheap to build and
> staff - but the fuel is expensive.
>
> The
> problem is that no other country in the world has
> ever imposed the strange financing methods of the
> US utilities nor the constant changing, review,
> and even the aboragation of preapprovals. The
> firewrap requirment has imposed millions of extra
> dollars of continuing cost on the plants in the
> US - and is responsible for the loss of an entire
> new plant.
>
> As a banker - would you agree to
> finance another nuclear unit in the US given the
> strange and constantly changing rules, and denial
> of recovery events, from the past...?
>
> Now the
> US has recongized the errors of its ways and has
> been working with the industry for the last
> decade to try to develope a streamlined process.
> We are almost there. Reactor designs are
> preapproved (and there are 3 600 MW designs
> approved, and 1 1000+ MW design approved, with
> several more 1000+ MW designs in the approval
> process). Anyone can construct a preapproved
> design on any approved site (and their actually
> is still a couple cases of approved sites left
> over from the 80's). You can also file and get
> an "early site permit" which would allow you to
> do site preparation work for a nuclear plant (and
> at least one of those has been issued - and
> several more will be issued in the next year).
> But, the plan is to also have a preapproved
> operating permit for the plant before
> construction begins. That is in the works; and
> the industry is working with the NRC to develope
> a standard application and a process for that
> (technically most people will apply for a
> "combined construction and operating
> permit").
>
> In reality - it is expected to take
> about 5 years from site selection to recieving an
> "combined construction and operating permit") We
> think. Those with approved "early site permits"
> will be able to shorten that by a few years - but
> it takes a few years to get those early site
> permits.
>
> The first Combined Operating and
> Construction Permits applications are expected to
> be filed this year.
>
> The actual plant
> construction is expected to take about 5 years.
> Staff selection and trainig will occur at the
> same time as the construction process.
>
> On the
> financing side - some states are now approving
> the recovery of the money to submit and process
> the permits when it is spent - not 10 years of
> interest payments on interest payments
> later.
>
> The reason there are US governemnt
> "subsidies" for the first several US nuclear
> plants is to help companies offset the risk of
> regulatory delays. Until a few plants get
> through the regulatory process.... No one will
> know what a plant in the US is actually going to
> cost (and we have not approved a new plant in
> over 20 years). Because this is a burden imposed
> by the US governement (and no other nation in the
> world); the US governemnt will subsidize the
> first few plants through the process.
>
> Fusion
> reactors: What France is working on is 50 years
> away from commercial developement - if it
> works.
>
> There is better and potentially faster
> methods being developed in the states.
> Univeristy of Wisconsin Madison has a very
> interesting fusion reactor based on different
> principals than the big one in France. I have an
> in on it becasue I helped build the vacuum
> containment ring for it. I also helped build an
> interesting plasma physics/prototype fusion
> cooling experiment vessel.
>
> Anyway, if this
> design works out we could have actual labority
> scale fusion power plants with real generators in
> 15-20 years. ITER in France will just be
> finishing construction.
>
> No two US nukes alike:
> OK, the US experiemented with over 70 designs for
> 100+ reactors. Only now are the real benifits of
> that comming about. We learned what works - and
> what did not work, and the best way to do things.
> France has had signifant problems with its first
> generation reactors becasue they all had the same
> significant problem; and lessor problems with its
> second generation plants because they too all
> have the same problems.
>
> I would not bank
> much on the Japanease reactors. They have had
> collectively more problems than the US reactors.
> The Japanease have recently been building US
> designed plants.
>
> Standardized designs are only
> great if the design is great and proven. The new
> US reactor designs (the preapproved ones) are
> based on the best of what worked for each issue
> in all of those differently designed plants.
> They are going to be a dream in many ways from
> the older plants (I am at a plant that was built
> under the Atomic Energy Commission's "Atoms for
> Peace" program before the NRC ever
> existed).
>
> Nuke plant working conditions:
> Hmmm.... its a strange world - not like many
> jobs. It does pay well.
>
> I personally think
> that we will see a half dozen new nuclear units
> ordered in the US in the next 3 years, and then
> after that - the floodgates will open. 10 -15
> reactors a year for decades (working up to
> perhaps 30 reactors a year if people really want
> to end most of the oil dependance - 1/2 of the
> nuclear units would then be used to generate
> hydrogen for vehicle fuel).
>
> I would also
> opinion that Pressurized Water Reactors are
> really the way to go. A bit more expensive to
> build. But, simpler to operate and the majority
> of the plant is not radioactive. Very clean
> (from radiation standpoint) plants are possible.
> Besides I like the controls just falling in by
> gravity for shutdown versus haveing to be
> hydralically inserted from the bottom in a
> boiling water reactor.
>
> Long term, thorium
> reactors are on the horizon. There is a lot more
> thoriuum available than there is uranium.
>
> Hope
> this helps answer the questions.
>
> Perry
0 -
Ra, Ra, Go Nukes!
umm.... now, *who's* back yard are we going to put the waste in, including the whole frickin' plant when it's
decommisioned?
Considering how safe it all is, I'm confident some wealthy
nuke backer will accept the spent fuel in his swimming
pool.
Here in Minnesota we're taking concrete steps to get 25%
of our energy from renewables by 2025.
JImH0 -
One proposal that seemed to make a lot of sense...
... is using the vast granite "shield" in the Canadian arctic. Allegedly, hundreds or thousands of square miles of granite that goes down a long way. Far away from people, easy to guard, but hard to mine the shafts required.
Naturally, the folk who live up there might have an issue with nuke waste being dumped in their back yard... and all the disruptions an operation up there would have on their lives. But it's one way to dispose of the waste in an area with minimal poplation for the foreseeable future, very stable geologic features, and plenty of space.
Or so I'm told. I've never been up there myself. With any hope, fusion will supplant fission sooner than later and reduce the stream of radioactive things to dispose of to almost nothing while supplying plentiful power.0 -
I'm pretty sure it's being done already...
I seem to recall that spent fuel is carried by truck through Sault Saint Marie to the great white north. The Soo just may be our only two border towns that share the same name.0 -
Perry
That was an EXCELLENT post. Eye opening to say the least. Maybe one day all the people with electric heat in their houses built in the 70's can actually turn it on without burning the meter off the side of the house. I am bookmarking this thread!
TSGT Darin Cook
Air Expeditionary Forces
Iraq0 -
Actually, waste is not a technical lssue. 25% renewables..???
First you need to understand that the entire quantity of spent fuel is very small. If you brought it all together and stacked it on a Footbal field - it would only stack up 4 or 5 feet deep. That is from almost 40 years worth of nuclear power generation - where the nuclear plants generated aproximately 20% of the US electrical load for the last 25 years.
Now if we were to reproccess it - we'd only have less than 10% of that to get rid of.
What you do is bury it - deep. Many parts of the US could be used for that. Almost every state has areas that could be used - in reality.
Dig a shaft 1/2 mile down (or deeper). Sink a series of holes that can contain a multi-layered cask, and backfill with concrete so no one can get there again.
The technology to do this is well undersood. The problem is that some people figure that somehow this stuff 1/2 mile below groud is going to jump up and stragle us on the surface. They object to calculated possible radiation releases in 5,000 or 10,000 years that should the cask designed of materials that are known not to degrade in the soil types they would be burried - that they would somehow degrade now... Releasing a radiaton exposure level to people on the order of eating a single bananna in a year (or a single potato in a year). Not to mention other food items.
So, people - and you seem to be one of them - focus on the fact that theroetically someday that the repository could leak (or will leak) radiation - and any level of leakage is not acceptable. I hope you are enjoying your food today because you are getting more radiation exposure from eating today then what the repositories are expected in a worst case scenerio to release in the future. It is totally unaceptable for such leakage to occur. It does not matter that you get more radiation exposure in your food today.
Please tell me what the danger is? Not what you think the danger is.
Oh, and please tell me how we are safely disposing of coal ash from the coal fired plants. Or how we are safely disposing of chemical and pesticides. Many people do not seem to worry about that.
As far as Minessota getting to 25% renewable... Extreemly unlikely in my or your lifetime - unless we reduce energy consumption by a lot.
You may not know this - but too much wind power and it cycling up and down based on the winds makes the electrical grid unstable. Canada and Germany has had major area outages from this; and are now starting to restrict how much wind energy can be connected to the electrical grid (and it will be a whole lot less than 25%. In fact it will almost certainly be less than 10%). The rest of the US and world will follow because if we do not have grid stability - we will suffer routing massive area blackouts.
The other problem with wind energy is that you need to back it up with conventional generation. During the hot summer days and high electrical load of the California Energy crises. The California wind farms droped to 4% of their generation capacity due to a lack of wind. Other examples exist.
The end result of what we know about Wind Power is that it is so unstable that it disrupts the electrical grid if too much is connected; and it cannot be trusted to be there when you need it such that backup power plants must be built to handle most of its capacity.
Many people theroize on achieveing great degrees of renewable resource use. I've never seen anyone propose practical solutions for it that would work on a large scale.
Perry0 -
Ditto
what TSGT Cook just said.
Excellent post.
Jack
Continued appreciation for your and all our military men and women's service, Darin.0 -
too cheap to meter
"Electricity too cheap to meter" was the rallying cry of
the "atoms for peace" roadshow that travelled the US in the
50's and 60's, attempting to convince Americans to accept
these miraculous devices into their communities.
I accept what you've said about waste reductions which can
be achieved by reprocessing spent fuel, but this requires
moving this very dangerous cargo hundreds or thousands of
miles to reprocessing facilities.
And as long as the federal government is willing to gener-
ously be the insurer of last resort, nuclear power will be
quite cheap. If that risk had to assessed and monetized by
private insurers, nukes would be the most expensive by far,
if insurance could be found at all.
In regard to grid stability, yes there have been some grow-
ing pains, but products such as those provided by American
Superconductor are dramatically increasing the reliability
of power networks which incorporate large amounts of wind
generated electricity.
One of the most intrigueing aspects of plug-in hybrid cars
is their potential for energy storage and grid stabilization. I tend to agree that plug-ins are a far
better bang for the buck than hydrogen.
Solar and wind complement each other nicely- in the hot summer months when the wind dies down, solar is at it's
peak.
Until those of us who have vivid memories of Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl die off, the future of nuclear fission
in the US is pretty limited.
JimH0 -
Insurance
I agree that the "to cheap to meter" was a rediculous statement. I can say that nuclear power is currently the cheapest way to generate power.... and that includes the cost of disposal, the cost of transporting the waste, and the cost of insurance.
You are incorrect that the US government is the insurer for the nuclear plant. There is a private nuclear plant insurance fund. Funded by all the ratepayers who use electricty. This fund is very very large (I don't know how many multibillions of dollars currently - but I did know years ago).
What the US Governement has done - that some object to - is pass special legislation to allow for this nuclear power plant insurance fund to exist and to dictact how it will be used.
So lets assume that susposed worst case that I have not yet figured out how it will happen. A combination of a meltdown (which I agree could happen again under certain situations) and the failure of the containment building such that the portion of land downwind from the plant is indeed contaminated (I have not yet figured out how contaiment could fail to that level).
The process is simple. Teams of indepenent appraisers will value the property and the people will be paid directly from the fund. I am fairly certain that there is even payment for upsetting the peoples lives - but that it is capped (similar to how an airline's exposure is capped for people who are killed or seriously injured in airline accidents). I also believe there is money for potential relocation cost in the fund. The cost of the plant cleanup will also be paid from the fund.
What there won't be - and it seems what many people object to is that there wont be lawyers filing lawsuits on all kinds of things. The fund will automatically pay all damages directly based on independent appraisers and other outside experts on damages and cost. There are no limits to the damages and actual cost. There are limits on non-economic cost (pain and suffereing). Payment is set up to be a faily rapid process.
The fund is large enough now to handle I believe at least 2 such events (and maybe more) based on current worst case cost estimates on what a worst case accident would be.
Fact is, the fund is allowed to return any extra earnings that place the fund larger than it is designed to handle back to the utilities - and is currently a source of income to the nuclear power plant utilities.
Should an event occur and the fund be tapped the nuclear plant electric cost would automatically increment up a small amount to rebuild the fund.
So the Nuclear Plant industry is self insured for major accidents, and insured better than any other industry out there.
Perry0 -
Copying and pasting for my archives
Fabulous set of posts Perry- not being that knowledgable on the North American Nuke Plant process, your posts are the best summary of material I've seen so far. Thanks for sharing with the Wall.0 -
Other insurance details
The fund is at about 10 Billion dollars.
3 Mile Island cost about 70 Million dollars to clean up. However, the fund paid out about 151 Million for 3 Mile Island due to a series of legal cost at the federal level - which the fund was set up to cover.
It is true that the federal goverment is required to take actions should the need for substaintially more than 10 billion be needed in a short period of time. I note that the US state and federal governemnt would similarily have to pick up the results for say a huge chemical plant disaster that kills thousands of people, injurs thousands more, and makes an area uninhabitable by US standards (remeber Bophal India...) Why aren't people requiring the chemical industry to have similar insurance funds? No one complains about that. Chemical spills are far more hazardous and damaging than a radiation spill.... It has been proven time after time.
Perry0 -
Connie,
When we realize the largest single cost of nuke power is the never ending litigation costs defending the site location, engineering challenges from tree-huggers, evacuation plans and related non-fundamental "expenses" of actually building the plant, nuclear is the most financially convincing form of energy on the planet; both now, and for the next 20 years.
I agree with your comment completely! If the French can and do, do it, anyone can (;-o)
Does anyone remember the demise of PSNH? They were frivolously sued into bancruptcy over the Seabrook reactor. Even the NH governor, John Sinunno (himself a nuke engineer/wizard) could not shut off the lawsuits. Many lost their savings and retirement incomes. NE bought them out of bancruptcy and saved the project, but not before the lawyers took all the money off the NHPS balance sheet.0 -
Irrational Fears
> umm.... now, *who's* back yard are we going to
> put the waste in, including the whole frickin'
> plant when it's decommisioned?
>
> Considering
> how safe it all is, I'm confident some
> wealthy nuke backer will accept the spent fuel
> in his swimming pool.
>
> Here in Minnesota
> we're taking concrete steps to get 25% of our
> energy from renewables by 2025.
>
> JImH
Loring Air Force Base
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Brunswick Naval Air Station
McKin Co.
Callahan Mine
O'Connor Co.
Winthrop Landfill
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Eastland Woolen Mill
West Site/Hows Corners
Eastern Surplus
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard0 -
Nuclear anecdote
In '84 while working a shutdown at the James A Fitzpatrick plant in Oswego, I was out in the tool crib trailer (outside the building)when rad protection made one of their frequent passes thru the area doing a random search of the area. They came in with counters doing a slow "click, click" and passed into the back of the area. We didn't pay much attention. A minute later the gieger counter went off big time. On a nuke, these things get your attention. Anyway, the guy came out holding one of the foremans ceramic coffee cup. He asked whose it was and we told him. He said, "You should tell him what he is drinking out of!"
Perry is right. Check those household items. You all have a radiation counter...don't you? Aren't they part of the new combustion analyzers0 -
Granite countertops and flooring is great too...
Ever hear of Radon.... The nuke industry discovered that it could be a problem in residenses when one of their workers was alarming the exit monitors at the end of the day - even when he had not gone into any radiation areas.
Most radon has been traced to the decay of items that are in Granite. Of course granit makes really great countertops and flooring too....
But, since it is not used to generate electrical power - however much you are being irradiated by it - and exposed to radon by it - is OK.
Granite is another item that we would have to consider a low level nuclear waste if it were taken into a nuke plant.
Common guys... Lets all run "who body counts" on you and find out how radiative you all are....
A lot of nicely colored ceramic pots were made with uranium oxide based glazes... Great colors...
Perry0 -
> In '84 while working a shutdown at the James A
> Fitzpatrick plant in Oswego, I was out in the
> tool crib trailer (outside the building)when rad
> protection made one of their frequent passes thru
> the area doing a random search of the area. They
> came in with counters doing a slow "click, click"
> and passed into the back of the area. We didn't
> pay much attention. A minute later the gieger
> counter went off big time. On a nuke, these
> things get your attention. Anyway, the guy came
> out holding one of the foremans ceramic coffee
> cup. He asked whose it was and we told him. He
> said, "You should tell him what he is drinking
> out of!"
I would think the next logical question would be "where has
that cup been, and how did it get so hot?"
-JimH0 -
Thank you, Perry!!
For providing all of this information. There are far too many ignorant people in the USA and people are afraid of things they don't undertand. I hope we are able to get some more plants built here in Wisconsin, but I'm not optimistic.It seems the idiots that live around here all want to build plants that burn Natural gas. Remember when Oak Creek was being debated? pulverized coal-vs- coal gasification-vs- natural gas. I was upset they didn't even mention nuclear. What a shame. Even if the site wasn't suitable, could they not have added capacity at Point Beach or Kewaunee? It all serves the same grid. Down in the southern states they welcome these plants. Maybe they have a better understanding of the truth than the people arund here with their heads buried in the fly ash, or sand, or whatever.0 -
A great report from the nuke side
Thanks Perry, I too will save it to see how your predictions fare.
This link shows the obstacle is $$$. If the market does not see nuclear as do-able how will it come to pass?
America's nuclear technology has seen a trillion federal dollars invested yet delivers less energy than wood, according to the opponents.
The waste issue is far from handled as our country is littered with tempoary holding facilities.
Could the waste could be handled and stored safely, could the plants be built and staffed?
I'm from the Show Me state. Currently the numbers don't pencil out well for the revival of nuclear power.
Not to mention the cost of the war based on (nuclear)weapons of mass destruction in a rouge nation
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1151.php
hot rod
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Hot Rod
There are many ways to cook the books so to speak.
I glanced at your rmi site and laughed. Many of those arguments have been debunked many times - by many sources. They just don't want to admit it. Repeating the same old partial information to support your own arguments is as popular as always.
Lets face it, there are a lot of people who are aginst nuclear power just to be against it - and they don't care what the facts are - and ignore many other facts.
For example it is easy to argue that more "wood" capacity has been added in any year than nuclear recently (they use 2004 as an example). The last nuclear unit that came on line in the US was about a dozen years ago. However, I suspect that the sum total of all wood fired power plants built in the last 30 years in the US do not equal the output of a single major nuclear unit. The same can be said for almost all the other technologies listed with the exception of wind. More wind capacity has been built - of course it only runs at an average of 1/3 of its nameplate capacity - and thus the real amount of wind generation is substaintially less. All nuclear capacity additions in the period are from the "power uprate" of existing units which is just squeezing more power from existing plants - usually with some modifications (similar to what is done to "hot rod" automobile engines).
However, that is not what you asked for: Here is the summary of my personal data:
Before I got a job in nuclear power - about 6 years ago; I too was skeptical (especially knowing the history of how poorly the nuke plants ran in the 70's and 80's). I researched the industry extensively prior to my job interview - and found that plant reliablity had increased dramatically and that the cost of generation had gone lower as a result.
This site has a lot of information:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=5
I personally challanged a lot of this information over the years - I dug for the details behind it. I have never been able to find fault with the NEI data that I looked at. Please note that does not mean that I agree with all of their political policy statements. Just that their data has checked out as being very solid.
I remember writing for another forum in late 2005 a very large series of post on the cost of energy and our options for the future. To do it I researched the % of energy generation by source from the DOE (and a lot of other things). I independently cost estimated how much electrical generation from the various technologies cost (it took about a month to research this).
When I was done... I assembled a listing of the cost of new generation for all technolgies being proposed. 3 months later I found a very similar summary on NEI. We agreed on the order and but were somewhat different on the cost per KWH of electricity of new construction; but our conclusions did not change.
Here is the chart I put toghether at the time:
Estimated cost of new generation (first 20 years):
---Pulverized Coal:---------------3.20 cents per KW-Hr.
---Nuclear Power plant:-----------3.20 cents per KW-Hr.
---Coal Gasification:-------------3.70 cents per KW-Hr.
---Wind Power:--------------------6 - 7 cents per KW-Hr.
---Combined Cycle (gas):----------8.50 cents per KW-Hr.
---Combustion Turbine (gas/oil):--12.50 cents per KW-Hr.
---Solar:---------------------- > 20.00 cents per KW-Hr
---Hydro power: N/A (all major hydro sites developed).
Now here is the neat thing about this table: It only covers the first 20 year cost; which is the period that a new plant is paid for(which is all that the NEI chart covered). The next 20 years sees some interesting changes.
For 20 - 40+ years:
Nuclear becomes much cheaper because the plant is now paid for - and the fuel is cheap.
Coal becomes a little cheaper because the plant is now paid for - and the fuel is not that cheap.
Wind power and combusition turbine based units are expected to be wore out and will have to be replaced. No cost reduction as you will be starting with essentially a new plant.
Solar Panels are expected to have degraded significantly in 20 years and may have to be replaced.
End conclusion: Nuclear is the cheapest way to go.
Here is another section from the series of articles (which related to how electrical generation relates to global warming). The note section after the chart indicates the percentage of the electricity generated in the US from wind, solar, and boimass (biomass includes wood burning). So when people tell you how fast these segments are growing - it has no real relevence to how much it participates in the US electrical generation mix.
------- Start of 2005 section of article ----
Lets now look at the breakdown in Electrical Generation and its affects on global warming (2003 Data):
Fuel ---------Installed--- Power
--------------capacity---Generated
Coal ------------33%--------51%
Oil/Nat Gas------44%--------20%
Nuclear----------10%--------20%
Hydro------------10%---------7%
Renewable---------2%---------2%
Other-------------1%---------0%
From a CO2 perspective: Coal dominates, followed by natural gas, then oil (there is very little oil burned to generate electricity). Most of the renewable is the burning of renewable biomass waste products which also generates CO2 (Solar and Wind generation account for 0.3% of electrical generation). Thus about 73% of electrical generation (KW Hr) account for 39.4% of the US CO2 production (see Fuel Usage chart in Part 1).
The biggest CO2 reduction effect can be accomplished by replacing the coal fired generation.
------ End of section of 2005 writup -----
Please note that nuclear with 10% of installed generation capacity is producing 20% of US electricty. The reason for that is because it is the cheapest power other than hydro. Coal is the next cheapest and again generates more power than its installed capacity. Hydro is limited due to seasonal fluxuations.
Moving on:
Wall street is starting to come arround - and the reason private investors shun nuclear power plants is described above by the practices of the Federal Government, State Governments, and Public Service commision in the 80's and 90's. There was no way to even predict how much a plant would cost, when it would come on line, or if the public utility commission would allow the utility and investors to even recover their investments. Things are starting to change and even Wall Streat is starting to notice:
This from last week:
"Standard and Poors just came out with a report titled "Why U.S. Utilities Are Seeing Nuclear Power In A New Light" (subscription required for actual report). The report read more like "Why S&P is Seeing Nuclear Power In A New Light.
After looking at the report, it appeared S&P had an epiphany in which they are finally understanding how much the industry has changed over the years. They recognized the new licensing framework for new plants, who the nuclear players are, what technologies we are looking at building, the costs associated and the credit implications. What's great about the report is that S&P used almost of their information from NEI's 2006 Status Report (pdf).
S&P still has much of their same reservations about the costs to build a new plant but it's great to finally see them keeping up with what's going on in the nuclear industry."
This was from the following link:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/
The fact is that there are some privately funded utilities that are getting ready to take the plunge. The big holdup in the last decade was getting the rules streamlined so that they can start construction with a pre-approved design and an operating license so that they can just build the plant and run. We are very close to getting there.
Once the regulatory process is proven (whatever it cost) then there are about a dozen projects waiting to move forward in the wings.
I will stand by my statement - nuclear power plants are the cheapest form of major generation out there - by far. The numbers do pencil out once the regulatory hurdles and cost are understood (as the NRC has changed its process for contruction and licensing of new plants to protect against the issues that occured in the 80's and early 90's) - there will be a flood of new plants in the US, regardless of the "greenhouse" issues. Greenhouse issues will only make it more pronounced.
I cannot now find the link - but I have a paper copy of a early 2000's report related to private construction of nuclear plants: In the early 2000's a group consisting largly of oil companies studied the feasability to building a nuclear power plant to generate hydrogen gas via electrolisis. Cracking of heavy crude requires hydrogen to make the lighter hydrocarbons. The refiners currently makes their hydrogen from natural gas. Long prior to the natural gas price increase in 2004-2005 they calculated that a nuclear plant would be the cheapest source of hydrogen - assuming that the regulatory hurdles were solved and the problems of the mid 80's onward did not occur again in changing plant design mid stream. Now electrolysis does not care where the electricity comes from - but nuclear electricity was far cheaper than other sources; and thus economical.
Right now - the oil companies are waiting in the wings to ensure that the regulatory process works as it should - and are interested in building about 3000+ MW of nuclearplants to make hydrogen with to support their refineries. This thread started because the oil companies see nuclear as the way to help with the alberta oil sands.
That is private money my freind - really searous private money. The problem in the US has been the regulatory hurdles; and the oil companies are not interested in tying up their money into a process that no one knows yet how it will actually work.
Of course, the transition to a hydrogen economy for fuel - is most economical using current hydrogen techniques - and not using hatural gas - based on nuclear power. We will need 3 times the number of nuclear plants to produce hydrogen if we are going to convert most of our transportation to hydrogen based than we will need for electrical generation.
The waste problem is political - and I agree it has to be handled - and their is no technical reason to not handle it. At worst, why doesn't the goverment centrialize its storage (or have regional storage areas). They have certainly been paid enough to do that.
The trillion dollars in subsides... I'm curious where that number came from. It is certainly not true as it relates to nuclear power. At this point - and in the last 25 years the US is being paid far more money for waste disposal than it will ever cost (estimated at twice the cost of building deep disposal repositories). So - the nuclear power industry has actually been subsidizing the US government. Please note that the NRC is self funded by user fees. The fee structure is such that Nuclear Power Plants subsidize the medical and education use of nuclear material.
Could the trillion dollars be the cost of the weapons program - that would make more sense.
Finally, Of course the plants can be built and staffed. Other countries - building US designs even - have had no problems with that. Why should we have a problem with that?
Perry0 -
Geez Perry, you're killing me..
More great material. I am going to circulate the granite countertop thing around here - it's the latest fad with all the condos going up in our town, perhaps I should see if I can borrow a geiger counter from UBC and do some looking around......0 -
The Wisconsin Way....
Jason:
Wisconsin is one of a few states that passed a law in the 80's that effectively bans the costruction of new nuclear units for the forseen future. Essentially it says that any company that wishes to build a nuclear unit cannot do so unless the national waste repository is up and running - and the PSC determines that a nuclear plant would be cost effective for the ratepayers.
Of course, a well healed individual - operating a personal business (not incorporated) could build such a plant.
Several legislators are running arround with a bill this year to reverse that legislation. I suspect that it will pass in the next several years and the effective moritorium will be lifted.
I note that one of the reasons other companies were so interested in buying Point Beach was that the site was initially planned for 4 Power Units - and a fish farm. Since there are only two Units insalled - there is room for 2 more within the original site design (unfortunately, WEPCO closed the site construction license years ago or I think we could argue that the construction had started prior to the 1980's law and continue to build the now percertified designs as a completion of the original plans).
Two AP 1000's will fit nicely.
www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/
Perry
0 -
Just natural materials...
This is not that an uncommon of an experience.
We live in a radioactive world. A lot of things have a noticable amount of radioactivity, and almost everything is radioactive on a very small scale (including all of you). Nuke plants are forced to measure radiation to what I consider rediculously low levels.
It is quite common for certain clays used in ceramics and certain glazes commonly used to be sufficiently high in natural radioactivity that they would warrent instant confiscation and disposal as a low level radioactive waste in a nuclear facility.
I am quite sure that the cup was made that radioactive (actually a bit more as it should have been decaying since it was made).
Perry0 -
> When we realize the largest single cost of nuke
> power is the never ending litigation costs
> defending the site location, engineering
> challenges from tree-huggers, evacuation plans
> and related non-fundamental "expenses" of
> actually building the plant, nuclear is the most
> financially convincing form of energy on the
> planet; both now, and for the next 20 years.
>
> I
> agree with your comment completely! If the
> French can and do, do it, anyone can
> (;-o)
>
> Does anyone remember the demise of PSNH?
> They were frivolously sued into bancruptcy over
> the Seabrook reactor. Even the NH governor, John
> Sinunno (himself a nuke engineer/wizard) could
> not shut off the lawsuits. Many lost their
> savings and retirement incomes. NE bought them
> out of bancruptcy and saved the project, but not
> before the lawyers took all the money off the
> NHPS balance sheet.
0 -
Unbelievable!!
Perry - I just learned more from the 5 minutes I took to read your two post than any discovery channel special they could come up with, and you made sense!! Thanks for the enlightening post
C0 -
Nukes
Why not make single site operating plants modular in order to minimize down time and have the advantage of taking some out while others are still operating.
The US Navy has an incredible track record for safety and much has been learned since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island blew new plants out of the water.
Next a real conservation program that lists essential uses of energy versus wasteful practices such as all night lighting of offices, churches,etc. Burns me up that our servicemen and women are willing to sacrifice so much to protect our vital interests in the Middle East (and elsewhere) while the bulk of us back home sacrifice nothing!!!!
(my sons serve and have served, one for four years in the Marines and now as an Army Drill Instructor and one served in the National Guard) Trust me when you have loved ones,friends,neighbors and even one American in harm's way you think long and hard about our wasteful use of not only energy but many other resources.
This is why I support safe nuclear systems (the sooner the better!)
This is also why I sign off with: "Make Peace Your Passion"
Rich K.0 -
Current Cost of Generating Electricity -by fuel type & Fuel Cost
Here is a chart that indicates the current cost of generation of electricty by fuel type for all major generation.
Wind energy is much higher than this (and not represented because it provides less than 1% of generation in the US - and I think currently less than 1/2 of 1%).
The nuclear energy cost includes funding for disaster insurane, waste fuel disposal (at twice the estimated cost of disposal), and decomisioning and returning the sites to greenfield status of the plants.
Hope it helps clear things up.
Edited to add Fuel Cost
Perry0 -
Downtime...
Most nuclear units run for either 17 months or 23 months, and then are down for about 1 month for refueling and repairs.
In essance we already have the plants coordinated so that only some of them are down at once.
Of course, certain major overhaul projects take longer than a 1 month outage - and problems at the plant will, of course, cause other shutdowns.
Overall, the capacity factor of all nuclear plants combined is on the order of 90% - and is the highest of all types of generation (capacity factor is actual plant output devided by the maximum possible if the plant ran at full power 24 hours a day for the entire year). For a comparision wind power is at 28% capacity factor (you would need 3 times the capacity in wind generation to about eqaul the same capacity in nuclear).
Please keep in mind that 2/3 of the nuke plants in the US are essentially a dirivitive of the US navy units (the Westinghouse PWR's).
Perry0 -
Leave the lights on or turn them off? Peak, no peak?
A question about the production usage and the production cost.
It seems nuclear plants operate at full power all day long, except for the yearly month or so of shutdown.
Why is that? Is it because it is the only way to achieve immoderately cheap rates or is it because it is impossibly complicated to modulate a reactor?
It's obvious a Hoover type hydroelectric power plant is ideal for wildest modulation and peak power production. Plants around the Niagara Falls do the same, plus there is all the backwards water pumping during the non-peak demand periods.
Next, the gas turbines are primarily peak operating. All this forgives the more expensive per kWh rate, and it would make no sense to run these full power full time.
Coal power plants, in spite of the same operating benefit to them as for nuclear production, are not run so steady. They modulate quite a lot quite easily (within predictable demand) I do suppose there are more fuel cost savings from tapering a coal fire than from tapering a reactor, so, so far everything makes sense.
It seems nuclear power has to coexist with other more modulating power units. And it seems coal is the more flexible medium. Is that true? Would nuclear be just as cost effectively flexible?
All this seems very important in view of the adaptation of the grid to wind and sun power - where for every wind mill, you need a coal boiler fired up to pressure and ready for the steam demand as soon as the wind unpredictably goes out. (Dan had posted an article about this problem in Denmark where coal plants burning but not producing were not helping at all in the initial wish for no-smoke wind power)
France (the size of Texas but concentrated with as much as half of all the US nuclear plants) produces about 75% of its power with uranium, but it exports masses of it to the rest of Europe (read anti-nuclear Germany) and it relies heavily on hydroelectric power from the Alps for peak production. Water is pumped back up the mountains so many times, I wonder if the fish ever get bored by the scenery.
I don't know if coal is not available in Europe but it seems to me, we're quite lucky here with our power plants.
Here in Southwest Ohio, the sulfur compounds extracted from the coal plant smokestacks get captured into a calcium-sulfur goo that then goes into drywall production. The goo is nothing else but calcium slufate, plain plaster. How cool is that? The fly ash that gets captured in the electrostatic filters is mainly oxides of silicon, aluminum and iron in the ideal proportions to make it a useful ingredient in Portland cement. Does it get any better than that? Well, there is still the ashes left after the fire, the clinker. That too gets reused, some very durable bricks can be made with the stuff. There are so many homes built of this very recognizable material. Now, if only we knew what to do with all the byproduct power production....
Even Mr. Burns himself would be impressed by such productive schemes. Doh.
Thanks Perry for your posts, they glow all on their own. I hope we're not abusing your spokesmanship.0 -
Load Following nuke plants
Actually, most nuclear units were built in the 70's and 80's as load following units. They have the excact same grid and unit control board as most of the coal fired units have (I know because I used to work in coal fired plants).
Some of the units were found to load follow better than others (remember the 70+ differernt designs). Currently most units are operated steady at 100% (or near 100%) power due to the economics. Some systems (the old Com-Ed system in Illinois) will still operate some of the units as load following units during low peak load periods (spring and fall, cool summer days - or warm winter days).
So load following can be done. France obviously does it. However, with nuclear at only 20% of the overall generation in the US and how economical it is... It doesn't make sense. Obviously - when nuclear gets above 50% of the overall generation supplied, load following will have to be implemented on at least some of the units.
Concerning your local coal plant's ash disposal. Great. But 2 or 3 large coal fired power plants with the kind of sulfer capture system you have can supply enough "plaster" to supply the entire US wallboard market. So only a few plants do it. The rest just landfill it. Flyash as a concrete additive is very common and over 80% of flyash can be used that way. Bottom ash is another problem - and usually landfilled or used as roadbed.
Have a great day.
Perry0 -
US Government Subsidies of Energy.... OIL Wins Big...
Below is a chart of the total subsidies for most of the energy subsidies granted by the Federal Government from 1950 to 2003 (and in 2003 dollars).
Nuclear has recieved 63.4 Million - and that includes all Fusion Power Research. This works out to recieving about 10% of all subsidies from 1950 - 2003.
This chart does not inculde the subsidies directly paid to wind generation as they are based on a totally different method and no one can predict how much the governement has spent (wind generators are guranteed x amount per HWH they generate over 20 years. The x has varied between years - but is a lot more by itself than the total cost of nuclear generation on a per KWH basis). I also note - that no one has built any commercial wind generation in the US without those subsidies. I also note that even with such subsidies - you have to pay extra to "buy" wind power to support "green" generation from your local utility.
This chart does not include any of the subsidies authorized in the 2005 energy legislation.
Now from a previous chart in this post - Nuclear provides about 20% of all electrical generation, and has gotten (including fusion research) 10% of the subsidies.
Solar energy has gotten 5% of the subsidies over the years and provides 0.1% electical generation (and a very tiny amount of heating).
You'll like this: Oil provides 3% of electrical generation and our transportation fuel - and has gotten 47% of the energy subsidies....
However, A key point here... Those that claim that nuclear gets huge amounts of subsides - and could not exist without them.... are flat out wrong. 63.4 Billion from 1950 - 2003 - including fusion research money.
For more information, see (and all the listed links):
.
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-about-government-subsidies-for.html
Perry0
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a286b777013a82fb0a96d64122122145/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F5385664c61e6a76e78b466751687bd8c_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 52 Biomass
- 420 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 80 Chimneys & Flues
- 1.9K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.3K Gas Heating
- 95 Geothermal
- 154 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.3K Oil Heating
- 60 Pipe Deterioration
- 888 Plumbing
- 5.9K Radiant Heating
- 378 Solar
- 14.7K Strictly Steam
- 3.2K Thermostats and Controls
- 52 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements