Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

[GaryC 7]

IMO the way to go is to build more nuclear power plants and push for plug in electric cars for urban use. This way we can cut carbon, oil use and not need to tax America to death.

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

AP

Sat Apr 25, 6:11 am ET

WASHINGTON – The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.

In the party's weekly radio and Internet address, Sen. Lamar Alexander said the United States should follow the example of France, which promoted nuclear power decades ago. Today, nuclear plants provide 80 percent of France's electricity, and the country has one of the lowest electric rates and carbon emissions in Europe, he said.

In contrast, renewable electricity provides roughly 1.5 percent of the nation's electricity, according to Republicans. Double it or triple it, and "we still don't have much," the Tennessee Republican said.

"There is a potentially a dangerous energy gap between the renewable electricity we want and the reliable electricity we must have," he said.

In contrast to Democrats, Alexander said Republicans:

_Start with conservation and efficiency. "We have so much electricity at night, for example we could electrify half our cars and trucks and plug them in while we sleep without building one new power plant."

_Seek to keep bills down. "Democrats say, put a big new national sales tax on electric bills and gasoline."

_Wish to find more natural gas and oil offshore. "Farmers, homeowners and factories must have the natural gas. And more of the oil we'll still need should be ours, instead of sending billions overseas."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_republicans_energy

Edited April 25, 2009 by GaryC

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only thing the French have done right!

[fozzie 41]

The only thing the French have done right!

Where do they bury their Nuclear waste? Andorra?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only thing the French have done right!

Where do they bury their Nuclear waste? Andorra?

I have to look it up, but they use a vitrification process, if my memory serves me right.

[GaryC 7]

The only thing the French have done right!

Where do they bury their Nuclear waste? Andorra?

I am not sure. We have a very good place to put ours if they would just let it happen.

If we want to get serious about our energy problems this is the only real solution. America has enough debt that we cannot retire anytime soon. To add a huge tax on everyone to attempt to solve the energy problems will sink us for good. It's a matter of choices. I feel this is the best one to take.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ngs/french.html :

Bataille went and spoke to the people who were protesting and soon realized that the engineers and bureaucrats had greatly misunderstood the psychology of the French people. The technocrats had seen the problem in technical terms. To them, the cheapest and safest solution was to permanently bury the waste underground. But for the rural French says Bataille, "the idea of burying the waste awoke the most profound human myths. In France we bury the dead, we don't bury nuclear waste...there was an idea of profanation of the soil, desecration of the Earth."

Bataille discovered that the rural populations had an idea of "Parisians, the consumers of electricity, coming to the countryside, going to the bottom of your garden with a spade, digging a hole and burying nuclear waste, permanently." Using the word permanently was especially clumsy says Bataille because it left the impression that the authorities were abandoning the waste forever and would never come back to take care of it.

Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a "stocking center" than a "nuclear graveyard". Was this just a semantic difference? No, says Bataille. Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible. And, says Bataille, it offers some possibility of future advances. "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

Bataille began working on a new law that he presented to parliament in 1991. It laid plans to build 3-4 research laboratories at various sites. These laboratories would be charged with investigating various options, including deep geological storage, above ground stocking and transmutation and detoxification of waste. The law calls for the labs to be built in the next few years and then, based on the research they yield, parliament will decide its final decision. Bataille's law specifies 2006 as the year in which parliament must decide which laboratory will become the national stocking center

Bataille's plan seems to be working. Several regions have applied to host underground laboratories hoping the labs will bring in money and high prestige scientific jobs. But ultimate success is by no means certain. One of these laboratories will, in effect, become the stocking center for the nation and the local people may find that unacceptable. If protesters organize, they can block shipments on the roads and rail. The situation could quickly get out of hand.

Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."

[Texanadian 10]

A national sales tax? Ahh that will magically make it so that nobody will heat their home when it's -20° or cool their home when it's 100°.

NIMBY is rampant everywhere. Even Massachusetts and San Francisco are against wind mills and tidal power respectively.

[Niels Bohr 72]

When electrical consumption increased in the 60-70, there were tons of nuclear power facilities running. A number of them shutdown because of cost. And, the time to get a nuclear energy permit to build one takes between 10-20 years.

Not only that, there are countless nuclear energy facility that were running below the maximum output capacity that caused the government owned facility to be closed down due to large operation cost.

The rate of consumption growth increases about 2.5% per year compared to the 60-70s with about 8-13%. It's nice to run on Nuclear Energy than coal, but it will be difficult to sustain a nuclear energy generation plant in terms of operation cost. Not only that the reserves for Uranium is small as well.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[GaryC 7]

When electrical consumption increased in the 60-70, there were tons of nuclear power facilities running. A number of them shutdown because of cost. And, the time to get a nuclear energy permit to build one takes between 10-20 years.

Not only that, there are countless nuclear energy facility that were running below the maximum output capacity that caused the government owned facility to be closed down due to large operation cost.

The rate of consumption growth increases about 2.5% per year compared to the 60-70s with about 8-13%. It's nice to run on Nuclear Energy than coal, but it will be difficult to sustain a nuclear energy generation plant in terms of operation cost. Not only that the reserves for Uranium is small as well.

France seems to be doing rather well with it. What killed nuclear is 3 mile island and later Chernobyl. Fear is what killed nuclear in the USA. If the goal is to get away from fossil fuel to reduce CO2 then nuclear is the only viable option available to us right now. If you don't mind the CO2 then by all means, build coal plants. We can't have it both ways. As much as people tout alternative energy like solar or biofuels it just isn't going to be enough soon enough. We can convert our urban automobiles to electric fairly soon but that will take much more electric capacity than we have right not. The two must be upgraded at the same time. These are the choices we have. We can't tax our way out of the carbon based system of energy unless we want to kill our way of life.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When electrical consumption increased in the 60-70, there were tons of nuclear power facilities running. A number of them shutdown because of cost. And, the time to get a nuclear energy permit to build one takes between 10-20 years.

Not only that, there are countless nuclear energy facility that were running below the maximum output capacity that caused the government owned facility to be closed down due to large operation cost.

The rate of consumption growth increases about 2.5% per year compared to the 60-70s with about 8-13%. It's nice to run on Nuclear Energy than coal, but it will be difficult to sustain a nuclear energy generation plant in terms of operation cost. Not only that the reserves for Uranium is small as well.

The cost of mining Uranium is a very small factor in the cost of running a nuclear power station and so movements in the price have little effect on the price of the power produced.

The substantial increase (almost 50%) from 2003 shows the results of the world-wide renewed exploration effort spurred by the increase in Uranium prices which commenced in 2004. This increase in activity has continued through to 2008. Thus, the provable uranium reserves amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves. Around 24% of the proven reserves are in Australia.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHom...OfUsableUranium

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Niels Bohr 72]

When electrical consumption increased in the 60-70, there were tons of nuclear power facilities running. A number of them shutdown because of cost. And, the time to get a nuclear energy permit to build one takes between 10-20 years.

Not only that, there are countless nuclear energy facility that were running below the maximum output capacity that caused the government owned facility to be closed down due to large operation cost.

The rate of consumption growth increases about 2.5% per year compared to the 60-70s with about 8-13%. It's nice to run on Nuclear Energy than coal, but it will be difficult to sustain a nuclear energy generation plant in terms of operation cost. Not only that the reserves for Uranium is small as well.

France seems to be doing rather well with it. What killed nuclear is 3 mile island and later Chernobyl. Fear is what killed nuclear in the USA. If the goal is to get away from fossil fuel to reduce CO2 then nuclear is the only viable option available to us right now. If you don't mind the CO2 then by all means, build coal plants. We can't have it both ways. As much as people tout alternative energy like solar or biofuels it just isn't going to be enough soon enough. We can convert our urban automobiles to electric fairly soon but that will take much more electric capacity than we have right not. The two must be upgraded at the same time. These are the choices we have. We can't tax our way out of the carbon based system of energy unless we want to kill our way of life.

That's not what killed it. The US Nuclear Facility has far more integrity than the Ukraine plants. I did the reseach on the Feasibility of Nuclear Research, here is my source

<h1 class="parseasinTitle">Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects by David Bodansky</h1>

You can probably pick up this book at your local library. Aside from the technical mumbo jumbo inside the book, it also gives a cost+benefit analysis of the Nuclear Facilities as well.

I used this book because I was researching alternative energy. France had no choice but to adopt Nuclear Energy. They had to do this because coal was more expensive to them since they had to import it.

This book also explains the Ukraine plant the plant disaster. It also tells the reason why the dozens of plants in production or contract to build to be cancel. It was not the reason of fear. It was due to the cost-benefit, not risk-benefit.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nuclear power is the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. Average nuclear production costs have declined more than 30 percent in the past 10 years to 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour. This includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel, and paying for the management of used fuel.

It is projected that prices of nuclear-generated electricity will remain highly stable because uranium fuel accounts for only a small part of production costs. This makes nuclear generation less susceptible to swings in fuel costs, which account for 75 to 90 percent of production costs in other forms of electricity generation. The stable, low cost of nuclear power helps reduce the price of electricity paid by consumers.

Electricity Production Cost by Fuel Type (2007)

Nuclear: 1.76 cents per kWh

Coal: 2.47 cents per kWh

Natural gas: 6.78 cents per kWh

Oil: 10.26 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaf...economicgrowth/

[Niels Bohr 72]

Nuclear power is the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. Average nuclear production costs have declined more than 30 percent in the past 10 years to 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour. This includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel, and paying for the management of used fuel.

It is projected that prices of nuclear-generated electricity will remain highly stable because uranium fuel accounts for only a small part of production costs. This makes nuclear generation less susceptible to swings in fuel costs, which account for 75 to 90 percent of production costs in other forms of electricity generation. The stable, low cost of nuclear power helps reduce the price of electricity paid by consumers.

Electricity Production Cost by Fuel Type (2007)

Nuclear: 1.76 cents per kWh

Coal: 2.47 cents per kWh

Natural gas: 6.78 cents per kWh

Oil: 10.26 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaf...economicgrowth/

They didn't give a reason for the dramatic fuel price decline. I'm curious.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Nuclear fission is a great source of power until fusion technology becomes viable.

We have Yucca mountain for the waste but politics is trumping science.

[GaryC 7]

Nuclear power is the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. Average nuclear production costs have declined more than 30 percent in the past 10 years to 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour. This includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel, and paying for the management of used fuel.

It is projected that prices of nuclear-generated electricity will remain highly stable because uranium fuel accounts for only a small part of production costs. This makes nuclear generation less susceptible to swings in fuel costs, which account for 75 to 90 percent of production costs in other forms of electricity generation. The stable, low cost of nuclear power helps reduce the price of electricity paid by consumers.

Electricity Production Cost by Fuel Type (2007)

Nuclear: 1.76 cents per kWh

Coal: 2.47 cents per kWh

Natural gas: 6.78 cents per kWh

Oil: 10.26 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaf...economicgrowth/

They didn't give a reason for the dramatic fuel price decline. I'm curious.

Quite simple really. We stopped making mass quantities of nuclear bombs. That leaves more for power generation. Another thing to consider is the new generations of breeder reactors. It means that we can recycle fuel that would normally be waste. That would also stretch our supplies and reduce costs.