(Photo Illustration: John Kehe/Staff; Photo (Callaway Nuclear power plant, Stedman, Mo.): Joe Sohm/Newscom)
Photos (1 of 1)
Nuclear power’s new debate: cost
Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.
By Mark Clayton | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ August 13, 2009 edition
Overlooking the shimmering waters of Chesapeake Bay, the massive twin concrete domes of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power station’s two reactors could soon see a third sister rising alongside them.
If construction begins in Lusby, Md., perhaps by 2012, Calvert Cliffs III will be part of the larger promise of a “nuclear renaissance” of reactor construction sweeping the globe, proponents say.
By providing safe, domestic, moderately priced, and greenhouse-gas-free energy, nuclear power will be “a critical component of America’s future,” says George Vanderheyden, president of UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, developer of Calvert Cliffs III.
Yet a new wave of concern is rising – not over traditional anxieties such as radioactive waste or weapons proliferation – but about the mammoth financial cost of nuclear power and who will bear it.
The big hurdle for Calvert Cliffs III and at least 21 other nuclear power reactors now in the US development pipeline is all about money – finding the billions in loans to build them. And the key to getting those loans is winning federal guarantees to back them.
Today, the US has 104 nuclear reactors, providing about 20 percent of the nation’s power. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1978. This is not because of protestors, but because of a lack of investor funding and Wall Street remembering the ghosts of nuclear power’s past – massive construction cost overruns, utility defaults, and bankruptcies. Yet these no longer seem to haunt the nuclear industry or its supporters.
A new nuclear enthusiasm has now emerged quite powerfully in Congress.
House Republicans in June unveiled a plan for 100 new US nuclear reactors. A Senate proposal calls for a 20-year construction schedule, costing $700 billion. Industry will pay the full freight, according to the Senate plan. While there must be federal loan guarantees in order to convince Wall Street to fund the projects, in the end, the system will cost taxpayers “zero dollars,” it says.
Echoing that push, the Democrat-controlled Senate in May put its stamp on energy-climate legislation that has buried in it the potential for hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for “clean energy” – the lion’s share destined for nuclear power, critics say.
“The Senate energy committee has passed legislation that could provide unlimited loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors ,” says Michele Boyd, head of the safe-energy program for Physicians for Social Responsibility.
No nuclear plants in the US are under construction yet because they haven’t secured federal licenses or loan guarantees, many observers say. Such guarantees would become a huge stimulus for the nuclear power industry, enabling utilities to borrow billions from Wall Street or the federal finance bank.
“Despite industry efforts to frame nuclear energy as the cheapest option, the reality is that nuclear power’s very survival has required large and continuous government support,” writes Doug Koplow, president of the Boston energy consulting company Earth Track, in a recent analysis of public subsidies for nuclear power. Mr. Koplow tracks $178 billion in public subsidies for nuclear energy for the period from 1947 to 1999. Others have reached similar figures.
ALTOGETHER, NUCLEAR-INDUSTRY BAILOUTS in the 1970s and ’80s cost taxpayers and ratepayers in excess of $300 billion in 2006 dollars, according to three independent studies cited in a new nuclear-cost study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
New guarantees in coming years could also leave US taxpayers picking up the tab if nuclear utilities defaulted on their loans. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said the average risk of default on Department of Energy guarantees was about 50 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that default rates would be very high – well above 50 percent.”
On that basis, the potential risk exposure to US taxpayers from federally guaranteed nuclear loans would be $360 billion to $1.6 trillion, depending on the number of power reactors built, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ study found.
“You want to talk about bailouts – the next generation of new nuclear power would be Fannie Mae in spades,” says Mark Cooper, senior fellow at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Dr. Cooper is among several economic analysts who contend that – waste and safety issues aside – nuclear energy is too costly.
“Funding nuclear power on anything like the scale of 100 plants over the next 20 years would involve an intolerable level of risk for taxpayers because that level of new nuclear reactors would require just massive federal loan guarantees,” says Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission.
Even if no loans were defaulted on, nuclear would be too expensive, Cooper says. The multitrillion-dollar cost eclipses most energy sources, such as wind power, which also has a sizable up-front capital cost. But wind’s lifetime cost is roughly one-third less than current estimates for nuclear, Cooper’s and others studies show. So who would want to invest in such costly electricity? Not Wall Street – at least not without loan guarantees.
Even during the heady days of 2007, Wall Street’s seven biggest banks were wary. In a letter to the Department of Energy, they advised the federal government that they would require 100 percent federal loan guarantees to help finance nuclear power.
In June, using unusually strong language, a Moody’s Investor Service report called new nuclear power plants a “bet the farm” credit risk for the 14 utilities pursuing them.
“The nuclear power industry may be correct about wanting those guarantees, but at what risk to US taxpayers?” asks Ellen Vancko, Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project coordinator at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The industry assures everyone there is no risk – and some believe them.”
But industry representatives say the loan-guarantee issue is being hyped by critics and that the industry’s own funds – paid out to compensate the government – will cover any defaults.
The government’s two predictions of a 50-percent default rate are “hypothetical” and “an unsupported assertion,” according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade association.
“There’s a misperception about the costs [of nuclear power] going up,” says Leslie Kass, director of business policy and programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “Yes, we did have rising capital costs – along with every other form of [energy] generation. Those costs are starting to tip back down.”
While the mantra of nuclear power was once “power too cheap to meter,” Ms. Kass admits the next generation of nuclear costs will be considerable. Even so, she contends that large nuclear plant costs compare favorably to a giant $10 billion Texas wind project pursued by T. Boone Pickens, which was recently scaled back.
ONLY NUCLEAR POWER, Kass says, can provide the sheer volume of reliable “base load” power the nation will need going forward – and meet the challenge of climate change at the same time by not emitting carbon.
The reason federal loan guaranties are needed, she says, is because Wall Street is still averse to large capital projects of all kinds. “Our challenge, like everyone [else’s] is access to capital during a recession.” she says.
Whether a nuclear project defaults depends on many factors, but often most heavily on where costs of nuclear construction are headed. Cost estimates to build a new nuclear power plant have more than tripled in the past five years, according to industry-funded reports, industry statements, and detailed studies of new nuclear power generation by a half-dozen independent researchers.
Construction delays are a huge cost. In Finland and France, nuclear-power projects are way behind schedule and over budget, suggesting potential delays and other problems for new US plant construction, says Ms. Vancko with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Calvert Cliffs III is being built by UniStar, a joint venture of Constellation Energy Group and Électricité de France, which is 85 percent owned by the French government. With cost estimates approaching $10 billion dollars, Calvert Cliffs III is too big for its backers to fund on their own – although a spokesman says French financing could cover 15 to 20 percent of the cost, lowering the amount of federal loan guarantees that would be required.
In 2008, Moody’s put the cost to build new nuclear reactors at about $7,000 per kilowatt of capacity. That estimate would put the 1,600-megawatt Calvert Cliffs III at around $11.2 billion.
While authorized to grant just $18.5 billion in guarantees for nuclear power, the US Department of Energy last fall had applications for $122 billion in loan guarantees to build 21 proposed reactors.
Most new nuclear projects will live or die based on whether they get those loan guarantees. “We’re poised to commence early site preparation this year for the first new nuclear plant in the US in 30 years, but to be clear, we cannot move forward without federal loan guarantees,” Michael Wallace, vice chairman of Constellation Energy, said last year.
He’s still waiting. However, the goal seems nearer. Last month, the company’s Calvert Cliffs III project was selected by the Department of Energy as one of four projects entering a final phase of due diligence for a share of the federal loan guarantees.
OTHERS HAVE BEEN LESS FORTUNATE. Exelon last month dropped its application to build two reactors at Victoria County Station, Texas. Company chairman John Rowe cited a weak economy and “limited availability of federal loan guarantees.” Deep in the massive energy-climate bill now being debated in the Senate is a plan that could vastly expand loan guarantees for nuclear power.
At the National Press Club last month, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee unveiled his $700 billion plan to almost double the number of reactors nationwide.
“Let’s take another long, hard look at nuclear power,” Senator Alexander says. “It is already far and away our best defense against global warming. So why not build 100 new nuclear power plants in 20 years?”
Plans are moving forward to create a new federal “clean energy bank” – a semiautonomous agency that could ladle out funding and guarantees for new nuclear power and other technologies. Such a bank would not be a bad idea, if done properly, many say. Nuclear, “clean coal,” wind, and solar energy would all benefit from federal backing. To ensure all technologies get a fair shot at loan guarantees, the House version of the bill has a 30-percent cap on the amount that any one technology could receive.
But the Senate “Clean Energy Development Administration” (CEDA) proposal does not have such a cap – which worries Sen. Bernie Sanders, (Ind.) of Vermont. His proposed 20-percent cap on the Senate
version of CEDA was swatted down in an 18-5 vote by members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Nuclear-industry backers are behind CEDA, but not the House version. “We’re not in favor of a cap because our projects tend to be larger,” says Ms. Kass, who says a cap would unduly limit nuclear expansion and tilt the playing field.
Others insist a cap is vital.
“If we want to ensure that no one technology receives the bulk of the available funding and financing, a cap on how much investment can be made in any one technology ensures a more level playing field for competing technologies,” says Senator Sanders. “It would not be good policy to allow any one energy technology to get the lion’s share of government support.”
What worries some even more than lack of a cap is how the Senate’s CEDA plan would operate with little oversight – due to a proposed exemption from the Federal Credit Reform Act that would otherwise subject such loan guarantees to the congressional appropriations process, says Autumn Hanna, senior program director for Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Under Senate provisions, the CEDA will be overseen by a nine-person board that could potentially hand out unlimited billions in federal loan guarantees for nuclear or any other eligible technology, Ms. Hanna says.
“The big story here is that nine unelected people [could get] unlimited authority to hand out these loan guarantees,” Ms. Boyd says. “That’s the big issue here.”
Click here for a sidebar on the bumpy road to nuclear energy.
(Editor’s note: The original version of the article mistakenly referred to the Federal Credit Reform Act as the Fair Credit Reporting Act.)
( More stories )
Comments
2. Glenn Boom | 08.13.09
I believe we need to move forward with a Nuclear plan–wind power is good, but not adequate in volume to fill the need. What seems to be missing is any focus on natural gas which still continues to be underpriced and utilized around the world–flaring continues, development of vast new resources in Louisiana seems to be sitting idle–
Glenn Boom
3. Ed | 08.13.09
In the cost graphic above, no sources are listed for the costs of the technologies other than nuclear. Such projections are widely disputed and must consider the life expectancy, maintenance costs, etc. of individual generating units.
A fact not mentioned in the article is nuclear power’s very low operating costs. Yes, construction costs are the high-hurdle before us at the moment. However, very low operating costs of the 104 reactors in operation combined with life extension approvals out to 60 years for over 50 of those plants, are making America’s existing nuclear fleet appear VERY attractive.
There are other, less tangible costs to consider. These relate to energy quality and reliability, human health and the environment. Credible sustainability analyses - broadly considering all of the above, and quite a bit more - tend to support and increased role for nuclear power within the USA and abroad.
4. Mike David | 08.13.09
The options are few when the greenhouse emissions are considered. Wind Farms are a good choice but if reliance on the wing becomes a large part of the generation mix the electrical grid will have to be protected by rolling blackouts when the day comes that demand is high and winds are low.
Without fusion power, fission power remains the responsible choice AND a choice that helps break the ties to imported oil. The drag on our economy from imported oil rarely becomes a factor but is a real danger to our economic health.
5. Nukes are Necessary | 08.13.09
Nuclear power is our future. Nothing else in the next 50 years is going to get us where we need to be in regards to CO2/Green House gases, and in reducing our reliance on increasingly difficult to procure gas, oil and coal. Other countries have figured this out. France and Japan, among others, already get a large majority of their power from Nukes.
Now, I’m also a strong proponent of wind energy and even have elected to have a part of my home power come from wind (an option for rate payers offered by Austin Energy at a slight premium in rates). But even in West Texas, the wind doesn’t blow all the time — or at the strength necessary for production. Nor does it do so anywhere else in the USA. In fact, there really are not that many areas cost effective for wind energy… at not where people live.
Hydropower has a very low lifetime cost, but has been pretty well tapped out (it would be silly to try to get a new major hydroplant built over environmentalist objections). And many existing Hydropower plants also have water supply issues — especially in areas subject to cyclical periods of drought.
Unfortunately, solar, in it’s various forms, has a high kilowatt cost especially given the fact that, at very best, you only can harvest energy during the daylight hours. Photovoltaic panels also have a relatively short life span (about 25 years here in Texas), and a very high life cycle cost. In fact, I would not have my solar panels today, if I had not had about 60% of their cost paid for by other taxpayers via tax credits/rebates (and if could not sell the power back to at retail rates verses wholesale rates). But Solar still is fine, maybe even necessary, to pursue as a partial contributor to supplying our needs. But like wind, it can not provide for all of our needs.
With fusion still decades away, that leaves Nukes to provide our base power production capability. Either that, or build more coal/oil/gas fired plants, and live with the green house gas issues and escalating fuel cost.
The self proclaimed “union of concerned scientist” have a collective nuclear phobia… and I suspect are heavily supported by the Oil and Coal producers. Regardless of their funding, they need to get over their phobia, and let “real” nuclear scientists develop fourth and fifth generation nukes that are intrinsically safe and far more cost effective that those producing power today. Oh, and we need to streamline the review, approval and ongoing regulatory process to significantly reduce delays that cost many, many billions of wasted dollars.
Finally, we certainly can reduce our power consumption more than we have. But growth in population will more than absorb those savings… and many existing power stations, of various types, are coming to the end of their life, and will need to be replaced just to stay even.
The USA needs an energy policy that fully makes use of Nukes, Wind, Solar, Hydro and even other specialized technology such as Geothermal and Tidal. Sadly, if we aggressively adopt this approach, it will still take 25 years or so to get where we need to be.
I know we all hope we don’t run out of “affordable” Coal, Oil and Gas in the meanwhile… but just in case, I’m keeping my wood stove and bicycle at the ready.
6. Arcs_n_Sparks | 08.13.09
Modular reactors (such as B&Ws latest announcement, 150MW-class)) should help drive costs down using factory production techniques. As noted, commodity price increases for concrete, steel, and copper affect all energy generating approaches, not just nuclear.
We need to move towards Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). Burns the long-lived radioactive components of existing spent fuel, has some better safety features, and is a poor approach for a proliferator. Demonstrated over 40 years ago by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
7. Russell Lowes | 08.13.09
Nuclear reactors cost too much to be viable as an energy source. Both nuclear and the mythical clean coal would pull money away from renewables and energy efficiencies and other more cost-effective solutions. Nuclear is not as low-carbon as the industry would have you believe. The nuclear cycle has twenty steps, and of these steps, eighteen currently require fossil energy, from mining and milling to building the plant, to decommissioning to enrichment to a number of waste steps.
In the 1980s, uranium averaged 3000 parts per million in ore quality. Today it averages 1500 ppm. As ore content goes down, the mining and milling components of the nuclear cycle will go up radically. With an expectation of 400 ppm by 2040, the CO pollution from the mining and milling of fuel for nukes could exceed those of natural gas. See http://www.stormsmith.nl for more information on that (Part G and H).
Nukes are not cost-effective and they are not clean. They do best at sucking money away from the real solutions.
8. Think Again | 08.13.09
Problem with Nuke Power - its more nuke than power.
Every accident contaminates large area for longer than modern society will last. With world filling up with people, we cant afford this.
9. Paxus Calta | 08.14.09
Wally asks why Wall Street is not jumping on these loan guarantees, perhaps it is because the Senate is claiming that these will cost “Zero dollars” meaning the money will have to come from the utilities building these reactors, which will in turn lean on the banks lending for them.
What this otherwise excellent article does not mention is that these 3rd generation reactors are already under construction in Europe and Asia. The New York Times (see tinyurl.com/finnoverrun) reports that of the 45 reactors under construction worldwide, 22 of them have reported construction delays. The French flagship 3rd generation reactor being build in Finland is over 50% cost overrun and years behind schedule. Are we learning from our mistakes ? Well, this same reactor design in France is also overrun and delayed.
Not only are there carbon friendly energy generation solutions which are better choices economically than nuclear, but there are still tremendous energy efficiency technologies which could save or make money which we are not employing yet. See Amory Lovins sharp critique of nuclear economics at tinyurl.com/forgetnuclear
Nuclear power drains money from real climate friendly energy solutions.
10. junior | 08.14.09
Response to the standard argument that mining the Uranium creates CO2…NOt if the mines were sourcing power from nuclear reactors. If you set up three nuke power stations (one in Namibia, one in Saskatchewan and one next door to Olympic dam in Southern Australia) You could eliminate greenhouse emissions from the cycle for about 50% of all U308 being produced!
11. DR. EDWARD SIEGEL/IAEA/WESTIN”KL”OUSE/AB/PSEG-WHISTLEBLOWER/”FLYING-WATER”/LA JOLLA | 08.14.09
CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!/BUYER BEWARE!!!
OF GENERIC ENDEMIC EXTANT PURPOSEFUL MULTI-(6)-DECADES I.A.E.A./WNA/WEA/WESTINGHOUSE/ABB/PSEG//US-NATIONAL AEC/ERDA/NRC/DOE-LABORATORY
P U R P O S E F U L F R A U D!!!,
I. E.
(SO MIS-CALLED) “SUPER”ALLOYS’
M E T A L L U R G I C A L - F R A U D!!!
(AND STEMMING FROM EARLY SOVIET/NKVD/KGB SABATOGUE/ESPIONAGE VERSUS US/NATO 1950s THDEN BURGEONING NUCLEAR-SUBMARINE(SSBN, SSN)/AIRCRAFT-CARRIERS(CVN)/JET/MISILE/ROCKET-ENGINES/REFINERIES/PETROCHEMICAL-PLANTS/…):
(SYNONYMS):
“WIGNER’S-DISEASE”(PHYSICS)/”OSTWALD-RIPENING”(CHEMISTRY)/”SPINODAL-DECOMPOSITION(PHYSICS)/”OVERAGEING-E M B R I T T L E M E N T”(METALLURGY)/”THERMAL - LEADING-TO -MECHAMNICAL (TLTM) - I N - STABILITY//IN-STABILITIES!!!
—————————————————————
PLEASE EXCUSE ALL-CAPS TYPING DUE TO PARTIAL-(VISUAL & MANUAL-DEXTERITY)-DISABITITIES
——————————————————————————————————————————–
IN N O WAY W H A T S O E V E R IS THE NUC”EL’AR-POWER OPTION GREN/
(ONLINE REFERENCES:
(1) GOOGLE: , FIND ANA MAYO, THE VILLAGE VOICE, (PAGE 38, AUGUST 21,(1978);
(2) THEN GOOGLE: “EDWARD SIEGEL” (then skip one space and try variously) :SUPERALLOYS or WHISTLEBLOWER or SABOTAGE or ESPIONAGE or NUCLEAR or NUCELAR or FRAUD or FLYING-WATER or HINDENBERG-EFFECT or HYDROGEN or TERRAFORMING orLUFT-AGUA or CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-A-TUBE or CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-TUBES or CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-PIPES or CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-PIPELINES ;
(3) THEN GOOGLE “SIDNEY SIEGEL” (skip one space< then try variously) PHYSICS or ORNL or OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY ;
(4) THEN GOOGLE: "ALVIN WEINBERG" AND READ ANY/ALL GOOGLE WEBPAGES LINKS VERY VERY VERY CAREFULY!!!) ;
(5) SEE: LAWRENCE PRINGLE, "NUCLEAR-POWER: FROM PHYSICS TO P O L I T I C S", MACMILLAN(1979)!!!
THE (SO-MIS-CALLED) "ENERGY"(DOES N O USEFUL/EXTRACTABLE WORK", MARK ZEMANSKY, "THERMODYNAMICS", ADDISON-WESLEY(1943, 1945, 1960,...) "CRISIS"/"SHORTAGE"
WAS/IS/WILL BE C O M P L E T E - N O N S E N S E!!!
AS FOR N U C "E L" AR-REACTORS/"ENERGY"/POWER(!!!)/ANYTHING/EVERYTHING:
NUC"EL'AR-REACTOR/JET/ROCKET/MISSILE-ENGINE/PETROCHEMICAL(REFINERIES: TEXAS CITY, TX., INGOLHEIM, GERMANY, BHOPAL,..)-INDUSTRY'S G E N E R I C
E N D E M I C EXTANT P U R P O S E U L F R A U D, PROBABLY FROM LONG-AGO(~1940s-~1950s) SOVIET ESPIONAGE/SABOTAGE(MESSRS.: LENIN, KRUSCHEV AND STALIN WERE...METALLURGISTS!!!) VERSUS/AGAINST THEN BURGEONING U.S./NATO/ASIAN NUC"CE"AR-NAVIES(SSNS; SSBNS; CVNS;..), AIR-FORCES(JET/MISSILE/ROCKET-ENGINES), NASA(SPACE-SHUTTLES: ALL GROUNDED SEVERAL SUMMERS AGO, AND NOW!!!), AND NUC"EL"AR-"DEVICES"(THAT MIGHT EITHER NOT GO BOOM WHEN TRIGGERED/DESIRED, OR MIGHT GO BOOM WHEN NOT DESIRED/WITHIN U.S./NATO/ASIA
RENDERS EVEN "NEW" NUC"EL"AR-REACTORS (MONKEY)"BUSINESS-AS-USUAL", NUC"EL"AR-"ACCIDENTS' (WAITING TO HAPPEN!!!)DANGEROUS AND VERY EXPENSIVE IN BOTH HUGE MAINTAINANCE AND EVEN MORE HUGE DECOMISSIONING COSTS!!!:
(SYNONYMS: "WIGNER'S-DISEASE", "OSTWALD-RIPENING", "SPINODAL-DECOMPOSITION", "OVERAGEING-EMBRITTLEMENT", THERMAL-LEADING-TO-MECHANICAL ("TLTM")-IN-STABILITY!!!(NO RADIATION-DAMAGE; WHICH CAN NASTILY ADD IN MURPHY'S-LAW NASTY WAYS!!
(REFERENCES:
(1) GoOGLE: ANA MAYO, , THE VILLAGE VOICE(NYC), PAGE 38, (AUGUST 21, 1978)
(2) E. SIEGEL, JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS, VOL. 7, P. 312-316(1978)-DELETED ROM WORLD WIDE WEB/INTERNET(JUST TRY TO FIND IT!!! YOU'LL SEE!!!-BUT PHYSICALLY FINDABLE IN ANY DECENT SCIENCE/ENGINEERING LIBRARY!!!
(3) LAWRENCE PRINGLE, "NUC'EL'AR-POWER: ROM PHYSICS TO POLITICS", MACMILLAN(1979)
(4) ROBERT POLLARD, LAST REPORT, UNION O CONCERNED SCIENTISTS(SEPTEMBER,1995)
(5) GO TO http://WWW.JAPANTIMES.COM AND SEARCH ON: “MONJU”(PREDICTED BY ME IN REFERENCE (2) ABSTRACT!!!~12/12/95; “KEPCO”(~2003); “TEPCO”(~2003); “FUGUN”, “TSURUGA” “OBAMA”
(NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!)
(6) GOOGLE ME:
(7) GO TO http://WWW.ANIMATEDSOTWARE.COM, LOCATE ANTI-NUC”EL’AR-SECTOR, AND THEREIN SEARCH ON ME “EDWARD SIEGEL”
(8) E-MAIL c/o CHAVAH36@SAN.RR.COM
(9) GO TO http://WWW.NRC.GOV AND SEARCH ON “BUT-WELDS” OR SEEK PRESS-RELEASE(~12/26/07)ORDERING MANDATORY INSPECTIONS O A L L PRESSURIZED-WATER NUC”EL”AR-REACTOR “BUTT-WELDS”(EXACTLY AS I/SIEGEL WARNED IN (2) SO VERY LONG AGO!!!
BUT IT IS N O T “STRESS-CORROSION” CRACKING, BUT (SYNONYMS): “WIGNER’S-DISEASE,…ABOVEMENTIONED!!
(10) G. LAI, METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE AIME, VOLUME 9A, PAGE 827(1978)- MAGNIFY SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE FIGURE-2 / y-AXIS!!!
(11) SEARCH ON “DANIEL HORNER”(ONLINE NUC”EL’AR EDITOR) IN: http://WWW.PLATTS.COM AND/OR http://WWW.LEXISNEXUS.COM (SITES REQUIRE LICENSE OR PAYMENT TO USE!!! WHEN FOUND SEARCH ON: “ALLOY-600″, “ALLOY-182″, “ALLOY-82″, “HASTALLOY-X”, “STAINLESS-STEELS”, “ALLOY-304″, “ALLOY-304L”, ETC.!!!
(12) FAMOUS SCIENCE-WRITER BILL BROAD’S NYTIMES ARTICLE: “WHAT SANK THE TITANIC”(~2000)
(13) TWO DENIED BY-ROTE PRO-FORMA FORMAL-ALLEGATIONS TO N.R.C.(~1996; ~1997)-AVAILABLE ON NRC.GOV WEBSITE!!!
(14) CANADA’S CHALK-RIVER NUC”EL”AR-REACTOR IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY/ALL NUC”EL”AR-REACTOR/SPENT-FUEL CASKS!!!
VERY WORLD-FAMOUS (LOOK IN ANY SCIENCE/ENGINEERING LIBRARY FOR THE MULTIVOLUME “PEARSON ENCYCLOPEDIA OF METALLURGY”, UPDATED BY SWISS E.T.H.(THEIR MIT) EVERY DECADE) CANADIAN (SO MIS-CALLED) “SUPER”ALLOYS’ METALLURGIST , COUSIN OF FORMER PRIME MINISTER LESTER PEARSON, AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO DR. WILLIAM B. PEARSON(RIP!!!) AS A PAID FAMOUS NUC”EL”AR- METALLURGY CONSULTANT TO THE CANADIAN A.E.C./CHALK-RIVER, CONTINUALLY BUT ALAS IN VAIN OVER AT LEAST SIX-DECADES(!!!) WARNED THE CANADIAN NUC”EL”AR-INDUSTRY(AS DID U.S. MIT PROFESSOR NICHOLAS GRANT(RIP) TO DOE/NRC/ALLOY-SUPPLIERS CEOS) ABOUT WHAT IS DETAILED ABOVE
PSYCHOLOGICALLY THESE NUC”EL”AR-TYPES(NEI.ORG; WNA.ORG; EPRI.ORG; DOE.GOV; NRC.GOV; AREVA; EdF, G.E.-HITACHI; A.B.B./COMBUSTION-ENGINEERING(BOTH SUFFERING FROM “TEDMONISM”!!!), ALSTOM, MITSUBISHI-, TOSHIBA-WESTIN”KL”OUSE!!!… AD INFINITUM!!!, AD NAUSEUM!!!) ARE VERY BRAVE FORMER GUNG-HO MILITARY-TYPES ALL TRUE-BELIEVERS SUFFERING FROM GUNG-HO TRUE-BELIEVER(BUT NEVER BUILDERS, ONLY AT MOST MERE MAINTAINERS!!!) , NOT HAVING TO PAY WITH THEIR HUGE CUSTOMER-BASE OF SUCKERS READY/WILLING TO PAY, THEIR HUGE GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIES, AND MINIMAL TO NO REAL “ACCIDENT”(WAITING TO HAPPEN!!!) “INSURANCE” AND “GROUPTHINK”!!!
“QUESTION: WHAT IS “GROUPTHINK”???
THE ANSWER IN SIMPLY ONE WORD: BUSH’S/CHENEY’S “IRAQ!!!”!!!
I.E. IRAQ’S INVISIBLE OR SOME EIGHT-YEARS NOW, AND COUNTING!!!, WEAPONS OF MASS-”DESTRUCTION”/ DECEPTION!!!
ANY QUESTIONS???
SO, AS THE OLD ADAGE GOES, “WHEN IN ROME/BROOKLYN, DO AS THE ROMANS/BROOKLYNESE DO: “CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!” (A.K.A. “WATCH YOUR WALLET(S)!!!”(AND SAFETY!!)
CASES IN POINT: INDIAN-POINT, SALEM 1 & 2, HOPE-CREEK, OYSTER-CREEK,..(GASP!!!)…T.M.I….ANY/ALL!!!
DR. EDWARD SIEGEL/WHISTLEBLOWER/NUC”EL”AR-: METALLURGIST/PHYSICIST
LA JOLLA,
Ph.D.-NUC”EL”AR-METALLURGY-M.S.U.(1970)
M.S.-NUC”EL”AR-PHYSICS-U. OF MICHIGAN(1969)
B.S.-PHYSICS-CCNY/CUNY(1965)
(ATTENDED: COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, HARVARD, U. OF PENNSYLVANIA, N.Y.U., QUEEN MARY COLLEGE/U. OF LONDON)
WESTIN”KL”OUSE/BETTIS/FOREST HILLS/WALZ MILLS/MONROEVILLE/R&D.-BEULAH RD.(1973-1974)-SENIOR-METALLURGIST & ACOUSTIC-EMISSION NDT/NDE MANAGER
P.S.E.&G.(BIG N.J. UTILITY: SALEM 1 & 2, HOPE CREEK, OYSTER CREEK)-CHIEF METALLURGIST & MANAGER/NDT/NDE(1975-1976)
I.A.E.A.-INDONESIA/PAKISTAN/IRAN/VIENNA, AUSTRIA-NUC”EL”AR-FUELS/CERAMICS AND NUC’EL’AR-METALLURGY
&
(T H I S IS T R U E L Y RENEWABLE!!!):
ONLINE REFERENCES:
(1) GOOGLE: ,
FIND ARTICLE BY ANA MAYO, THE VILAGE VOICE, PAGE 38 (AUGUST 21, 1978) ;
(2) THEN GOOGLE: ;
(3) THEN GOOGLE < "SIDNEY SIEGEL" (skip one space ;
(4) THEN GOOGLE: AND READ ANY/ALL GOOGLE WEBPAGES LINKS VERY VERY VERY CAREFULY!!!)
(5) SEE: LAWRENCE PRINGLE, "NUCLEAR-POWER: FROM PHYSICS TO P O L I T I C S", MACMILLAN(1979)!!!
THE (SO-MIS-CALLED) "ENERGY"(DOES N O USEFUL/EXTRACTABLE WORK", MARK ZEMANSKY, "THERMODYNAMICS", ADDISON-WESLEY(1943, 1945, 1960,...) "CRISIS"/"SHORTAGE"
WAS/IS/WILL BE C O M P L E T E - N O N S E N S E!!!
BUT THERE IS A GLOBAL-WARMING/CLIMATE-CHANGE DRIVEN/EXACERBATED
"DIHYDROGEN-MONOXIDE", A.K.A. H2O, A.K.A. W A T E R WORLDWIDE-CRISIS!!!
(P R E-SCIENT REFERENCES:
(1) "TAPPED-OUT: THE COMING GLOBAL WATER CRISIS", BY SENATOR PAUL SIMON(RIP!!!)! AND SHIMON PERES(~1998)
(2) NIGHTLINE, TED KOPPEL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN GANNON, CIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND HIS NEW-DISEASES AND WATER EXPERTS!!!(~1998(?))
GLOBAL-WARMING EXACERBATED/DRIVEN TAPPED-OUT GLOBAL-DROUGHT(S) HAVE/ARE/WILL DOMINATE ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT AN "ENERGY"(DOES N O USEFUL/EXTRACTABLE WORK"!!!
EUPHEMISTICALLY (IN ANALOGY TO EINSTEIN'S FAMOUS (1905) E = mc^2)::
(INTEGRAL=S) ((P=dE/dt) dt = "E" = (WORLD-POPULATION) x (H20)^2
PORTABLE POTABLE ANY/ALL/BOTTLED WATER BANS NECESSITATE ENHANCED WATER RESOURCES BY WATER MANUFACTURING, I.E. MAKING NEW WATER IN NEW (INCREASINGLY GLOBAL-WARMING DRIVEN/EXACERBATED ARRID) PLACES.
VIA "HYDROGEN IS 'FLYING-WATER'/'LUFT-AGUA'", A.K.A. THE HINDENBERG-EFFECT(ARCHIMEDES' BUOYANCY): HYDROGEN-UP; WATER-DOWN: "TERRA-FORMING", A.K.A. "CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-PIPES/TUBES/PIPELINES".
THIS NOT ONLY JUST FULFILLS, BUT IS THE ROOT-CAUSE ULTIMATE-ORIGIN(1956-1960) THE "CICERONE"(NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES PRESIDENT; FAMED ATMOSPHERIC-CHEMIST)-"HOLDREN"(WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE ADVISOR) "GEO-ENGINEERING, HERE A.K.A. "TERRA-FORMING"!!!
SIEGEL (REFERENCES: 1957: WESTIN"KL'OUSE SCIENCE COMPETITION PROJECT, ERASMUS HALL HIGH-SCHOOL, FLATBUSH, KENSINGTON, BROOKLYN(1957) & 1979; "THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES", BAL HARBOR, FLORIDA(1979); T. NIHAT VEZIROGLU EDITOR, WORLD/SPRINGER(1980)-HARD TO FIND!!!-
VOLUME-5/PAGE-457!!!
(LAST PAPER IN THAT VOLUME!!!;
OR GOOGLE ) AT AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MARCH MEETING, NEW ORLEANS(2007); ALSO LONG-AGO POSTED ON ANDREW REVKIN'S "DOT.EARTH' COLUMNS IN NEW YORK TIMES SCIENCE-SECTION!!!), "FLYING-WATER", A.K.A. "LUFT-AGUA", A.K.A. "THE HINDENBERG-EFFECT",(HYDROGEN-UP; WATER-DOWN) A.K.A. "CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-TUBES/PIPES/PIPELINES", DEPENDING UPON SIEGEL "GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE"(1973-197; 1978!!!VERSUS, "FERT"(THALES GROUP; FRANCE)-"GRUENBERG"(KFZ;/NUC"EL"AR RESEARCH CENTER-JUELICH; GERMANY ) 2007 PHYSICS: NOBEL, WOLF/ISRAEL), AND JAPAN PRIZES!!!),
IN TURN DEPENDING UPON (...-HERRING-ALEFELD-ERTL-YOUDELIS-RADD-SIEGEL-....) "DIFFUSIVE-MAGNETORESISTANCE" OF HYDROGEN IN PIPELINES'/ TUBES'/ PIPES' ("FERRITIC"/BCC) ORDINARY-STEELS( REFERENCE:: JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS("JMMM"), VOLUME 7, PAGES 312-316(1978)-PURPOSELY(ELSEVIER; THALES GROUP; KFZ-JUELICH ) DELETED(ONLY VOLUMES 7 AND 10(ITS INDEX VOLUME), OUT OF SEVERAL HUNDRED SCANNED, BEGINING ~ 1972) FROM WORLD WIDE WEB/INTERNET(JUST TRY TO FIND IT ONLINE AT THAT JOURNAL'S WEBSITE!!! YOU'LL SEE!!!: "UNAVAILABLE"; "NOT 'YET' SCANNED"(SINCE 1978!!!???)-BUT PHYSICALLY FINDABLE IN ANY DECENT SCIENCE/ENGINEERING LIBRARY!!!), CAN AND DOES PROVIDE ANY/ALL FOREST-FIRE CONTROL/MITIGATION!!!
WATER TANKERS HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY, EVEN 707s FULLY LOADED!!!.
"FLYING-WATER"( IS HYDROGEN!!!) ENVISIONS A DOUBLE MILES-SQUARE MYLAR-PLASTIC BALLOONS: BOTTOMMOST F ILLED WITH INERT GAS (CO2 OR ENVIRONMENTALLY BETTER N2, PURE-NITROGEN) VERSUS TOPMOST FILLED WITH FLAMMABLE HYDROGEN, TO PROVIDE CLASSIC ARCHIMEDES' ("EUREKA, I'VE FOUND IT!!!") BUOYANCY TO BINARY-BALLOON. TO PROVIDE THE LIFT/'LUFT"!!!
TOWED HIGH-UP OVER FOREST-FIRE, FLARES ARE FIRED INTO TOPMOST-BALLOON PROVIDING BINARY-BALLOON BUOYANCY. ITS HYDROGEN IGNITES AND BURNS("THE HINDENBERG-EFECT"), RELEASING BOTTOMMOST BALLOON TO CRASH DOWN ONTO FOREST FIRE, EITHER CRACKING OPEN OR MELTING OPEN, SPEWING FIRE EXTINGUISHING (CO2 OR ENVIRONMENTALLY-BETTER N2) TO SMOTHER FOREST FIRE, THEN RAINED ON ("THE HINDENBERG-EFECT"-HYDROGEN-UP; WATER-DOWN: "TERRA-FORMING"!!!) BY WATER FROM BURNING HYDROGEN FROM TOPMOST-BALLOON: "THE HINDENBERG-EFECT": HYDROGEN-UP(CARRYING (CO2 OR ENVIRONMENTALLY BETTER N2)..
SEE: NOW'S/PBS' "ON THIN ICE" AND DEUTSCHE-WELLE'S "TWILIGHT OF THE GLACIERS" WERE SPOT-ON AND ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT!!!
BUT WHILE REVERSING WORLDWIDE GLOBAL-WARMING DRIVEN GLACIER-MELTING IS MOST PROBABLY A VERY-LONG-TERM MANY-CENTURIES EFFORT, VERSUS THIS, SHORT-TERM NEEDS TO REPLENISH GLACIER-MELTING WATERS AT HIGH ALTITUDES/UPHILLS ARE ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY NOW!!!
LUCKILY FOR MANKIND, TWO THIRDS OF THE WATER/H2O MOLECULE, HYDROGEN/H2, BEING THE LIGHTEST ELEMENT [ATOMIC/MOLECULAR-WEIGHTS RATIO: [O]/[H20] = 16/18 = ~ 88%,TOO HEAVY/TOO MUCH WORK/POWER/"ENERGY" TO PUMP OXYGEN TO HIGHER-ALTITUDES/UPHILLS VERSUS [H2]/[H2O] = 2/18 ~ 12%], IS DISPLACEABLE VIA ARCHIMEDES' BUOYANCY TO HIGHER ALTITUDES/UPHILLS, USING "LIVING OF THE 'LAY OF THE LANDS' " GEOMORPHOLOGY, BY VIRTUALLY ANYTHING/EVERYTHING ELSE: AIR, NITROGEN, ETC....!!! UPON COMBUSTION WITH (ALREADY-THERE!!!; THUS NO NEED TO PUMP TO HIGHER-ALTITUDES/UPHILLS/NO NEED TO DO HUGE WORK/USE HUGE POWER/"ENERGY"!!![I.E. WATER IS TO HEAVY TO PUMP TO HIGHER-ALTITUDES/ UPHILLS BECAUSE OXYGEN IS TOO HEAVY TO PUMP TO HIGHER-ALTITUDES/UPHILLS!!!]) OXYGEN AT ALTITUDES/ UPHILLS, GLACIER-MELTING WATER-REPLENISHMENT BECOMES POSSIBLE!!!(EVEN IF THERE IS NO WAY TO REFREEZE THIS WATER INTO ICE TO RECONSTITUTE THE MELTING/MELTED-GLACIERS).
ORIGINAL SIEGEL [~1957-~1979-1980: "INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ALTERNATIVE-ENERGY", BAL HARBOR, FLORIDA; T. NIHAT VEZIROGLU EDITOR; PUBLISHED BY SPRINGER/WORLD (1980)-VOLUME 5/PAGE 469!!!]
"FLYING-WATER", A.K.A. "HINDENBERG-EFFECT" [HYDROGEN-UP; WATER-DOWN: "TERRAFORMING"], A.K.A. "CHEMICAL-RAIN-IN-TUBES/PIPES/PIPELINES, BRINGING NEW WATER TO NEW PLACES UPHILL AS HYDROGEN: "TERRAFORMING"; RENEWABLES-HYDROGEN-WATER SCALEABLE CUSTOMIZABLE RETROFITABLE INTEGRATED OPERATING-SYSTEM, WHICH DEPENDS ON SIEGEL PROPRIETARY "MAGNETIC-HYDROGEN-VALVE"(FOR SALE)INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY. IT'S PRETTY DRY ALMOST EVERYWHERE AND
W A T E R, NOT ENERGY, IS T H E PROBLEM, NOT FOR JUST "SUSTAINABILITY", BUT FOR MANKIND'S VERY
S U R V I V A B I L I T Y !!! INFO? CALIFORNIA-TIMES: BEST:(858) 270-5111 [MOST WEEKDAYS AND SATURDAYS: ~ 9:00 AM - ~ 3:00 PM/13:30; SUNDAYS: ~ 1:00 AM - ~ 5:00 PM/17:00];(858) 490-1340-VOICEMAILS;(CANNOT RETURN INTERNATIONAL CALLS EXCEPT TO CANADA);
FLYING-WATER@SAN.RR.COM AND DUPLICATE TO CHAVAH36@SAN.RR.COM. MOST SINCERELY, DR. EDWARD SIEGEL,”FLYING-WATER”/LA JOLLA
PORTABLE POTABLE BOTTLED WATER BANS NECESSITATE ENHANCED WATER RESOURCES BY WATER MANUFACTURING, I.E. MAKING NEW WATER IN NEW (INCREASINGLY GLOBAL-WARMING DRIVEN/EXACERBATED ARRID) PLACES.
DR. EDWARD SIEGEL
PRINCIPAL/CHAIRMAN/INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY OWNER/FIRST INVENTOR OF “FLYING-WATER”, A.K.A. “TERRA-FORMING”, THE VERY FIRST PRACTICAL”CICERONE”(NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES PRESIDENT)-”HOLDREN”(WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE-ADVISOR “GEO-ENGINERING”
(OF THE SCIENCE-FICTION IMMORTALS/GREATS, AFTER: H. G. WELS(RIP)-OLAF STAPLETON(RIP)-ISAAC ASIMOV(RIP)-THEODORE STURGEON(RIP)-ROBERT HEINLEIN(RIP)-ARTHUR C. CLARKE-HAL CLEMENT-BEN BOVA-…-DAVID BRIN-GREGORY BENFORD!!!)
MINERALOGIST/PETROLOGIST/SOLID-STATE /CATALYSIS-CHEMIST/METALLURGIST/PHYSICIST/MATHEMATICIAN/…PHYSICAL-MATHETHECIST”/”MATHSICIST”
LA JOLLA
12. What Solutions? | 08.14.09
Why is it the anti-nuke guys are always talking about sucking money away from other forms of energy, but they never seem to talk about what those solutions might be? At least, beyond hype about solar power and wind power which have really difficult availability problems.
I know that there is great hope that if we keep throwing money at things, we’ll somehow discover shiny new and wonderful energy solutions. Sadly, to my knowledge, nothing reasonably feasible is on the horizon. And our problem of developing affordable and lower polluting power is here and now.
As for Ore quality, (down to 1500 ppm from 3000 ppm) that is solely based existing mines. Given the relatively limited demand, there has been little reason to develop new mines. In the USA alone, there are huge untapped ore deposits (projected at 250 plus years with present technology) just ready to be developed.
As for the point made about the needed energy to mine and mill the ore being polluting, give me a break. Many modern mines already use electrically operated machines, and that power can come from any number of non-polluting sources - including wind, solar or especially nuclear.
I also think it’s reasonable to expect that true plug-in electric cars will become commonplace in the next 10 years. If so, we’ll soon need additional sources of electrical power, and much of it necessary during the overnight hours, to power them. Solar is not going to work, and wind output, at least on average, drops off at night. But I guess we can always burn cheap “clean” coal verses nuclear power. Yeah, that will work.
As for the point made about current 3rd generation nuclear project’s budget over runs, why highlight a few troubled projects? Especially since the over runs are largely due to unreasonable regulator burdens, specification changes and and other issues of the sort. There are good examples of projects that have finished on time, and on budget. Moreover, why even discuss 3rd generation plants? We need to focus on the 4th gen stuff such as pebble bed reactors and the like.
The anti-nuclear groups used unreasonable lawsuits and hazy FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to drive unreasonable regulation and many year delays in the USA’s nuclear industry during the 70’s and early 80’s. And they were very effective too. They generally made nuclear power too costly and risky to fund, due to uncertain regulatory burdens.
It’s too bad they were so successful. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are today with Coal, Oil and Gas fired power plants pumping out massive C02 and triggering global warming.
13. Solar Waste | 08.14.09
For every solar or wind power plant, you must have standby power (rolling reserves). In other words, you build two plants for the use of one. Solar and wind only survive a business model because they are mandated by governments and heavily subsidized by tax payers. I think solar is the least desireble. The new solar / thermal plant in California consumes 20 acres of land for a 5 MWe yield. To replace a 2,000 MWe nuclear station would require over 8,000 acres of land. And this land use would only provide power for less than half a day. This would be a waste of natural resources and quite an environmental impact in some localities.
14. Brown Bess | 08.14.09
“The anti-nuclear groups used unreasonable lawsuits and hazy FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to drive unreasonable regulation and many year delays in the USA’s nuclear industry during the 70’s and early 80’s. And they were very effective too. They generally made nuclear power too costly and risky to fund, due to uncertain regulatory burdens.”
No the industry did this to itself, Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl were not caused by nuclear opponents. Neither were the huge cost overruns and rate hike after rate hike to pay for them.
15. William Brand | 08.14.09
The biggest cost involved in nuclear power is legal. A few lawyers can tie down a project forever. This means cost after cost to comply with various regulations implemented to get past lawsuits. The real fear of a meltdown incident also pushes the cost civilian nuclear power out of site. The safest way to build nuclear power is to locate the reactor a half mile underground well below the water table. When the plant closes down you just plug the mine shaft. another way would be to build plants in shipyards register them under a flag of convenience and tow them to locations in international waters where legal opposition is moot. Another way would be to explode an underground H bomb and build a geothermal plant on top of the resulting hot spot.
16. Rmoen | 08.14.09
If instead of cap and trade the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
17. Jim | 08.14.09
What I don’t hear people discussing in this debate is what happens to the nuclear waste when a reactor’s fuel is spent. I will spend more money to build nuclear plants of they really help reduce carbon emmissions (though I haven’t seen a full carbon accounting of the process of mining, extracting, processing, construction, fueling, and disposing of nuclear fuel and reactors), because the World is worth protecting. However, I won’t spend money on reactors that will just create mroe waste that will need to be disposed of.
France and other nations reprocess their spent nuclear fuel to reduce its environmental dangers and to obtain new fuel that can be used again. Why isn’t Congress pushing the DOE’s plan to create a “spent nuclear fuel recycling and transmutation facility” that would meet the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership(GNEP) goals of reprocessed fuel that protects against nuclear proliferation? If we can remove plutonium and other transuranic elements from spent fuel we can make it much safer to dispose of, and have more fuel to “burn” without mining more uranium, which has its own environmental issues.
Nuclear reactors without dangerous nuclear waste, or at least with limited amounts of waste, are woth paying extra for. Nuclear energy that generates large amounts of waste that cannot be disposed of safely is not worth the trouble.
18. MartyB | 08.14.09
Hey, there was more sanity than I expected in this collection of comments. A rational set of regulations will drive costs down substantially without compromising safety. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) will minimize waste and prevent proliferation. Yucca Mountain and other potential sites can provide safe disposal for eternity, and here at Hanford, we are building a vitrification plant for tank waste, an unnecessary function since in situ disposal would be more than adequate, that could be perfect in a GNEP role for waste left after reprocessing and possible extraction of medical isotopes. For the guy who is afraid of contaminating large areas in accidents, we should promise not to use Chernobyl designs and to use containment structures like we always have and always will.
19. Brett Stone | 08.14.09
I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed with the Monitor’s coverage on this issue- it felt like there was a large part of the conversation that was left out. The nuclear industry has its challenges- that’s legitimate. But I worry that not enough of the other side’s evidence was mentioned, like the series of EPRI studies that show that, in light of CO2 limiting legislation, if nuclear is not included in a “cocktail” style energy production mix, alongside greatly increased renewables and other technologies, that by 2050 electricity prices for the average American home would more than double, compared to a much more modest increase if nuclear power is included. Other studies by the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory show that just our current fleet of reactors prevent up to 900,000,000 tons of CO2 from being emitted each year while providing safe (no U.S. civilian has ever been killed in a nuclear accident on U.S. soil, and citizens, on average are exposed to more radiation from Coal ash than from living next to a nuclear plant) and reliable base-load electricity. Monitor, I’ve always been impressed with your balanced reporting, but this time I was a little disappointed.
20. howard_t | 08.14.09
The points have been made in comments prior to this one that nuclear power is the best option in the next 50 or so years. Spent fuel reprocessing, better design, containment structures, and the like, have enhanced the safety of nuclear power. One thing that was alluded to in another comment was the environmental cost of solar power. So far the only practical locations for reliable solar energy generation are on the deserts of the US. These deserts are the home to many rare and vulnerable species of plants and animals. Ripping up 8,000 acres of desert for one array would cause catastrophic harm to the environment. Have the “greens” considered this? Wind generation too has its environmental difficulties. Even disregarding the furor generated by the ugliness of a landscape dotted with the turbines (think back to the last time someone proposed a cell ‘phone tower in a scenic area), the threat to bird and insect populations is real. Migrating species even now face endangerment due to deforestation in their southern hemisphere habitat. Placing a physical obstacle in their path could be a tipping point toward the eradication of a species.
I’ve not heard anyone mention the costs of transmitting solar or wind generated power from the few economically viable regions to the rest of us, particularly in the northeast. It is not a simple matter of building transmission lines. Line losses due to electrical resistance can be staggering. The upgrades to the power grid in order to make remote solar and wind farms deliver practical amounts of power over a distance will possibly raise the cost of such power to the levels of new construction nuclear plants. Someone needs to carefully look at all of the numbers before saying that one source is economically better than another.
21. Frank | 08.14.09
Reading the above comments I am reminded that the anti-nukes have irrational fears of the technology and the pro-nukes think their beloved industry is long stalled because of the anti-nukes’ irrational fears. The truth is, as the article correctly points out, ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY!! The people who get to decide whether to build a nuclear plant (or most anything else) do not care about anyone’s fears, the environment, technologies, waste streams, fuel cycles, what other nations do, American competitiveness or even the next generation of anyone or anything. All they care about is money. Presently, nuclear power requires those people to place too much of their capital at too great a risk for too long a time with an uncertain payback. Finally, an article on the nuclear industry that cuts through all the pro and anti-nuke static that clouds the issue for the rest of us, great job!
22. Rod Adams | 08.15.09
I am glad that the Monitor has published an article focusing on the cost portion of the energy debate, but I am disappointed with the lack of attention given to the cost issues that affect all of the other competitors to nuclear energy.
For example, the graph with a projection of costs for nuclear has an arrow at the top, indicating that the costs will somehow continue to rise. However, the bars for coal and natural gas have no uncertainty areas, and do not reflect any cost for capturing and storing the carbon dioxide or other pollutants that they emit as a result of using fossil fuel combustion. If the cost of those systems would have been included, the bars would also need an arrow at the top since no one knows how much it will cost to sequester carbon dioxide. We have not yet invented a reasonable way to do it and there is not a single coal fired plant in the world that is capturing and storing its carbon dioxide emissions.
Wind and solar energy sources are also very expensive capital investments per unit of power capacity, they produce unpredictable amounts of power, and they are often located in areas that are far from concentrations of customers for the power. Anyone who produces an estimate of what those sources will cost in terms of cents per kilowatt-hour without factoring in the direct government subsidies, the cost to deliver the power and the cost to provide system reliability while introducing uncontrollable power sources to the grid is simply obscuring facts. In many cases, the projections are based on highly optimistic system longevity - anyone who has visited wind farms built in the 1980s will recognize that they are often abandoned in place. An environmental organization near my home has solar panels that they had installed on their building when it was new in 2000. At least 10% of the panels no longer function and have visible cracks and fractures.
The article did not mention the steps that are being taken to reduce the cost and initial capital investment challenges that the nuclear energy industry faces. Babcock and Wilcox, for example, took a hard look at the market, listened to a lot of customers, and dug deeply into its 50 year base of nuclear experience (and more than 100 year base of steam and pressure vessel manufacturing experience) to develop a reactor power system that can be built in its already operating American factories and shipped almost complete to a prepared site.
That nuclear energy system, designated as the mPower (TM) will produce approximately 1/10th as much power per module as the very large sized reactors that have been most commonly understood to be best for “commercial” use. B&W is not offering any specific cost estimates yet, but has said that the reactor will be priced to be competitive on a per kilowatt capacity basis with reactors like Westinghouse’s AP-1000 or Areva’s EPR.
That means that a utility will be able to add low operating cost, zero-emission nuclear production to its grid with an investment of perhaps $500 million to $800 million rather than the $5 billion to $8 billion that is bandied about. That lower number is far easier to finance and may even be possible to finance out of cash flow for some of the larger utilities. If the company likes their unit, and needs more output, they can simply add modules on the same site as the first one. B&W plans to avoid any questions about air based attacks (a challenge that no other energy source seems to have to worry about) by simply putting mPower modules below ground. TVA is studying the mPower for installation at its Clinch River site that was supposed to host a fast breeder reactor until that project got cancelled when President Carter’s administration made a conscious decision to emphasize coal instead of nuclear.
There are other companies like Hyperion, NuScale, PBMR, and Toshiba that have developed solutions that can address the cost and capital investment questions. It is fine to worry about making very large investments in difficult economic times, but it is more useful to develop solutions that allow forward progress instead of giving up.
Finally, the article did not mention the very significant negative effect on fossil fuel prices that a large development of nuclear energy had when its annual output grew rapidly in the past (1985-2000) and will have in the future. When energy supplies increase faster than the market demand, prices naturally fall. By pushing nuclear energy down and trying to keep it out of the market, anti-nuclear activists are putting large amounts of dollars into the hands of fossil fuel companies. Those companies get to keep selling their product in a market where energy appears to be scarce. Fossil fuel companies are run by people who are very good with numbers and who live and breathe the laws of supply and demand. I am pretty sure that they recognize the long term profit impact of anti-nuclear activity and do everything they can to quietly encourage the groups to continue their work.
That is the Tonya Harding method of winning - trying to keep the competition out of the event.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
23. Conrad Miller MD | 08.16.09
This is a very bizarre article. I guess for very bizarre times. The biggest problem with nuclear power isn’t loan guarantees, it’s the physical, medical and environmental danger of radioactive waste and accidents like Chernobyl and TMI in Harrisburg, Pa. People know this, but the media is twisted by nuclear industry money overwhelming the dialogue to lead to an article like this one. And what about this dunderhead concept: “Plans are moving forward to create a new federal “clean energy bank” – a semiautonomous agency that could ladle out funding and guarantees for new nuclear power and other technologies. Such a bank would not be a bad idea, if done properly, many say. Nuclear, “clean coal,” wind, and solar energy would all benefit from federal backing. To ensure all technologies get a fair shot at loan guarantees, the House version of the bill has a 30-percent cap on the amount that any one technology could receive.” That’s from this article. C’mon this is an oxymoron: nuclear power is not ‘clean energy’. It’s the dirtiest most dangerous form of energy generation on Earth. Over 500 radioactive radionuclides are produced every day in our 104 nuclear plants, all of which can produce mutations and cancer, all of which must be 100% contained as not to contaminate our cities and towns and countryside and air and water. As one example, plutonium-239 is so toxic, just one microgram or one MILLIONTH of one gram is the cancer causing dose. Lung cancer may take 20-30 years to develop and no one will know where it came from. Dog studies were done in Hanford, Washington to discover the cancer threat of this ultimately toxic radionuclide. 454 grams are in one pound. That means, from just one pound of plutonium, 454 MILLION lung cancers can be produced if the plutonium is vaporized in an accident. 20 pounds of plutonium then would be enough to kill every single human being on Earth. Each nuclear plant produces between 400 and 1000 POUNDS of plutonium per year. Studies are showing increased incidences of cancer surrounding nuclear plants in the U.K. and Germany, where such studies are being done. Germany is phasing out nuclear power. Knowledge is power. Ignorance breeds articles like this, basing theoretical solutions on money, when really most people are aware of the danger of nuclear power. They don’t want their children exposed to it. Wall Street won’t finance it because of the dangers and the liability (the Price-Anderson act limits industry liability to $10 Billion, but Chernobyl cost the Ukraine close to $500 billion so far, and climbing, not to mention over 300,000 premature deaths of humans and that count is rising, and what if the next Chernobyl happens at say Indian Point in Westchester, which is already leaking, its radioactive plume now only 300 yards from entering the Hudson River?). No, loan guarantees will not solve the ignorance and danger surrounding the attempts by nuclear industry fans and lobbyists to butterball up nuclear power construction to threaten our country and the world. Wind and solar and hydropower can produce all the electricity America needs. See my nuclear chapter, shared for you all via my website http://www.crestofthewave.com The whole chapter is there with the sources for the information, free to peruse and download. Get with it. There is another way, and it (’they’, actually, are) is available NOW.
Conrad Miller MD
24. Ian | 08.16.09
I am concerned that you either don’t know what the data you are reporting on says or you do but are manipulating it to support your own position. Those costs per kilowatt numbers are bases on peak power, not actual power delivered. A 1000 MW nuclear power plant runs, on average, 90% of the time. Therefore, the actual power delivered is only 900 MW on average. In comparison, a 1000 MW wind farm produces power about 10-20% of the time. So in comparison, the nulear plant costs 15 cents per 0.9 kwh while the wind costs 7 cents for 0.2 kWh. That makes wind 35 cents per kWh versus nuclear at 16.5 cents per kWh, more than double the cost. Please try to do some research before you just throw numbers out there.
25. andrew | 08.19.09
arcs_n_sparks is right, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior nuclear technology for making electricity that was passed over because it wasn’t a promising breeder tech.
Pitted against about 12 other technologies hosted by the guardian, LFTR won the most votes for replacing Great Britain source of energy.
Here is link to Kirk Sorensen’s Manchester presentation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jul/09/manchester-report-kirk-sorensen-thorium
Jim Hansen, the scientist noted fighting the Bush Admin about global warming, wrote an open letter to Obama recommending LFTR as a solution.
Here is a good overview for LFTR
http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
26. djshiva | 08.20.09
“While there must be federal loan guarantees in order to convince Wall Street to fund the projects, in the end, the system will cost taxpayers ‘zero dollars,’ it says.”
One thing the utilities love to tell you is that there is no cost to TAXPAYERS. What they don’t want to tell you is that they want to get around the whole mess of funding by using CWIP (Construction Work In Progress) laws to have their ratepayers fund the plants up front, before they ever actually benefit from the plants.
This means there is no incentive to keep costs low, and if the plant is never completed or functional, ratepayers will eat the costs.
Taxpayers and ratepayers are the same people. Repeat ad infinitum.
27. djshiva | 08.20.09
Also, the costs that no one wants to think about are the external costs: uranium mining, which is incredibly energy intensive and inefficient, and power plant decommissioning.
When you do the math, there is just NO justification for nuclear power. None. It’s the most expensive way we have found to boil water, and it has its own set of environmental consequences.
One frying pan to another isn’t a solution.
28. Carol | 08.21.09
For those with comments about the graph provided with the article, CSMonitor does site the source. The graph represents a scaled down version of a graph in the article, “The Nuclear Illusion” by AMORY B. LOVINS AND IMRAN SHEIKH, that is due to be updated and published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
To see a reprint of the 2008 article go to http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php.
The graph in the original article by Lovins and Sheikh breaks out each bar into sectins designated for capital, operation and maintenance, firming and integration, transmission and distribution, and fuel minus heat credit. Furthermore, in Lovins and Sheikh’s article, they indicate that all monetary values in the article are “in 2007 U.S. dollars”, “all values are approximate and representative of the respective U.S. technologies in 2007″, and that the “capital and operating costs are levelized over the lifespan of the capital investment”.
While Mr. Adams states in his comment - “For example, the graph with a projection of costs for nuclear has an arrow at the top, indicating that the costs will somehow continue to rise” - in fact, the arrow is not indicating rising costs for nuclear, rather it shows MIT’s 2003 cost assessment, the Keystone Center’s 2007 update (Keystone Center 2007 Report - http://208.72.156.157/~keystone/files/file/about/publications/FinalReport_NuclearFactFinding6_2007.pdf), and finally the more recent and even higher industry estimates, some of which are higher than the 15 cents per kWh at which the graph tops out - hence the arrow.
Moody’s, which ranks the credit-worthiness of borrowers using a standardized ratings scale and has a 40% share in the world credit rating market, recently recently released a report that says it’s considering taking a “more negative view” of debt obligations issued by companies seeking to build new nuclear plants. The report warned of potential “future rate shock” for electricity customers, said the proposed federal loan guarantees for nuclear plant construction would “only modestly mitigate increasing risks”, and characterizes new nuclear plants as “bet-the-farm” endeavors, making it more likely that the projects will lead to ratings downgrades. Below are the current ratings for the 17 proposed reactor projects on Moody’s list
Company - Proposed New Reactor - Moody’s Senior Unsecured ratings June 2009
Ameren - Callaway - Baa3
Constellation - Calvert Cliffs - Baa3
Constellation - Nine Mile Point - Baa3
Dominion - North Anna - Baa2
DTE Energy - Fermi - Baa1
Duke Energy - William S Lee - Baa2
Energy Future Holdings - Comanche Peak - B3 CFR
Entergy - Grand Gulf - Baa3
Entergy - River Bend - Baa3
Exelon - Victoria County - Baa1
NRG Energy - South Texas Project - Ba3 CFR
PPL - Bell Bend - Baa2
Progress - Levy County - Baa2
Progress - Shearon Harris - Baa2
SCANA - V.C. Summer - Baa1
Southern - Vogtle - A3
TVA - Bellefonte - Aaa
If we are indeed in a new era of a market driven by risk-aversion, I would be hesitant to “bet the farm” on this enterprise - promised government bailouts notwithstanding.
29. David | 08.21.09
San Antonio, Texas’ municipally owned utility, CPS Energy, is recommending that the company and community participate in the expansion of the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear power plan. The total estimated cost to build Units 3 and 4 is $13 billion (this was the current estimate announced by CPS Energy to the public on June 29th of this year). Currently, CPS Energy owns 40 percent of STP 1 and 2, with NRG Energy Inc., of Princeton, N. J. (40 percent) and Austin Energy (16 percent). CPS Energy and NRG are 50-50 partners in STP 3 and 4. However, CPS Energy is exploring ownership options that would reduce the financial impact on customers and get CPS Energy’s share with financing to $5.2 billion. According to CPS’s most recent annual report the utility has $6.4 billion in capital assets, about 5 billion of that is the current plant. This would seem a pretty risky investment given the issues raised in this article.
31. envirogy | 09.24.09
It’s to bad that environmentalists muttle the debate with ‘Chernobyl’ scare tactics and doomsday scenarios. It is the best option right now for replacing coal and natural gas as a base-load power source.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Wally | 08.13.09
You wrote: “Even during the heady days of 2007, Wall Street’s seven biggest banks were wary. In a letter to the Department of Energy, they advised the federal government that they would require 100 percent federal loan guarantees to help finance nuclear power.”
Think about this one a minute. The government was planning on guarantying part of the loan packages - why wouldn’t the banks shoot for the moon? Get the government to guaranty the loans 100% then collect all the interest and bongo bucks fees while the taxpayer accepts all the risk - sweet deal.