Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

[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/

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.

You can also add reactor efficiency to the mix. From Captain Rickover in 1950, to the present day, there is a steady progression in the development of nuclear propulsion and power generation.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Niels Bohr 72]

You can also add reactor efficiency to the mix. From Captain Rickover in 1950, to the present day, there is a steady progression in the development of nuclear propulsion and power generation.

The government took control of the nuclear power plants after the private sector failed to provide sufficient operational budget or unable to sustain it. The government ordered new plants to be built as well. After a few years of operation, dozens of plants ordered were canceled and current plant were closed down, and destroyed. They should've kept it.

Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You can also add reactor efficiency to the mix. From Captain Rickover in 1950, to the present day, there is a steady progression in the development of nuclear propulsion and power generation.

The government took control of the nuclear power plants after the private sector failed to provide sufficient operational budget or unable to sustain it. The government ordered new plants to be built as well. After a few years of operation, dozens of plants ordered were canceled and current plant were closed down, and destroyed. They should've kept it.

Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself.

It can take up to twenty years to license a nuclear plant in the current political enviroment. Unless Congress streamlines the process, this will be a dead issue. It not that industry doesn't want to do it, it's just that even licensing a natural gas plant (worst possible solution and much easier to accomplish) takes five years.