Comments on: New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic

By: Bryan Kelly

Bryan Kelly — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:24:45 +0000

Read another view of CAP's cost and schedule conclusions, along with a few related ideas here: Surety Bonds for Nuclear Energy Facility Construction Cost-Savings

By: Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward » Blog Archive » Tennesse Senator Proposes 100 New Reactors

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:30:40 +0000

[...] of the costs associated with Nuclear–a study that many have questioned recently including the Heritage Foundation and NEI. A link to the article on Sen. Alexander’s proposal can be found here. Check out [...]

By: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Nuclear cost study 3: Responding to Heritage’s staggeringly confused ‘rebuttal’

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:11:22 +0000

[...] ideologically promiscuous folks at the Heritage Foundation have replied with “New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic.” Craig’s point by point response follows a few of my [...]

By: Nicole Murphy, Michi

Nicole Murphy, Michi — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:42:00 +0000

Anyone going to the "Managing Outage and New build Risk" conference in Orlando next week (http://www.ds-energy2009.com/)?

By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:49:18 +0000

[...] Those ideologically promiscuous folks at the Heritage Foundation have replied with “New Study on… [...]

By: Thomas Gray South Ca

Thomas Gray South Ca — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:11:03 +0000

I think a point to make here is, the oil suppliers want nothing to do with electric cars, the cap and trade folks want nothing to do with clean energy.

By: Simon, Perth

Simon, Perth — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:19:33 +0000

Due to the fallibility of humans, strict regulation is essential - otherwise we end up following the cheaper European model where waste is allowed to be dumped illegally in the ocean (see BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm ) or utilities are allowed to neglect their safety responsibilities (see another BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/781354... ).

By: James Miller, TN

James Miller, TN — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:03:40 +0000

I would like to see the same analysis re-performed using Crystal Ball or @Risk. Each variable could have its own distribution and sampling done via Monte Carlo simulation. In the end, a probability of each outcome could be determined. We could them spend our time debating input variable distributions. I would also like to see a sensitivity study done. I don't necessarily like the answer that new nuclear is that expensive (as I am a nuke) and appreciate the criticisms above but I also think CAP did a decent job with the report (even though I would have made some different assumptions). The report has certainly generated some great discussion.

By: Kent beuchert Tampa

Kent beuchert Tampa — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:58:35 +0000

One of the silliest asumptions always assumed in these "nuclear is too expensive" articles is that

the costs can be determined by those who know nothing about such things. The utilities are the consumers and are the ones qualified and motivated to determine relative costs of various technologies. There are also issues of quality and practicality – alternative energies such as wind, solar, etc. are uncontrollable, unreliable, unpredictable and unable to meet peak demand, which means their capacity must be duplicated.

Even if some of the costs turn out to be what these anti-nukes consider extreme, they are usually far less than alternative technologies, when such things as actual power production (not "rated capacity"), lifespan, actual land

costs, financing, subsidies, are taken into account. A nuclear plant will last 60 years, a windmill and solar panels about 20 years. A nuclear plant can exceed its rated capacity for years, while alternative technologies rarely average over 25% of their rated capacity. A nuclear plant can produce power at all times required, while alternative technologies have zero ability to guarantee power when needed every day. The cost of nuclear includes the land, whereas alternatives pay rent over their lifespan, something not included. Nor is the loan interest included in alternative power sources.

If one wishes to estimate current nuclear costs, there are plenty of examples from around the world to examine – some in Japan, etc. A nuclear plant there recently went online and cost $2,000 per kilowatt, compared to the estimates of CAP of $8,500 per kilowatt for a plant in Florida. But even at $8500, the Florida plant won't come anywhere close to producing 25 cents per hour power. Actually, look for less than a third of that figure. http://nuclearinfo.net is an Australian website with recent figures for nuclear power. India and China are going fullbore building nuclear plants, and I'd say that if they

find them far cheaper than wind and solar, so should we. And as for those "20 year build times,"

I believe that Hitachi-Westinghous recently quoted satted that they can deliver electricity

within 3 years of the first concrete pour.