2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe (overnight cost) to a Moody’s Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe (final or “all-in” cost).[11]

However, commodity prices shot up in 2008, and so all types of plants will be more expensive than previously calculated[12] In June 2008 Moody’s estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $7,000/kWe in final cost.[13]

The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[14]

* February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW.

* March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW – total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner’s costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion.

* May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners’ costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing).

* November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs.

* November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion).

* On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle,[15] at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades.[16]

These are just construction costs. They do not include fuel costs, environmental impact, maintenance, operating costs, insurance, decommissioning and waste removal and storage for the 1,000,000 years of monitoring by the EPA.

Solar costs on the Retail lvl of around 6500-8500 per kW national Average not including incentives. Compare the manufacturer rate for each kW produced at around $1000 dollars per kWhr. This is

Not to mention renewable energy will equalize energy markets we should she a plateau in energy costs once renewable energy has a large enough hold on the infrastructure. Making Nuclear a risky investment with little or no return. Now to understand the energy output of Uranium VS. CIGS.

1kg CIGS = 5kg Uranium By Martin Roscheisen, CEO – December 16, 2008The notion of a kilogram of enriched Uranium conjures up an image of a powerful amout of energy. Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb — that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts.

In our new solar cell technology, we use an active material called CIGS, a Copper based semiconductor. How does this stack up against enriched Uranium?

Here’s a noteworthy fact, pointed out to me by one of our engineers: It turns out that 1kg of CIGS, embedded in a solar cell, produces 5 times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched Uranium, embedded in a nuclear power plant.

Or said differently, 1kg of CIGS is equivalent to 5kg of enriched Uranium in terms of the energy the materials deliver in solar and nuclear respectively.

The Uranium is burned and then stored in a nuclear waste facility; the CIGS material produces power for at least the warranty period of the solar cell product after which it can then be recycled and reused an indefinite number of times.

All this being said do you still believe in Nuclear? The facts are rather clear……

I did not really want to get into this because I assume people realize that the active ingredients for solar is Silicon the third most prevalent element in the earths crust. Mining costs for Uranium far exceed the cost for picking up dirt and removing silicon that for solar and are indeed limited. Cost of Uranium is $100 per pound and cost of Silicon $50 if you look back at my Uranium vs. Cigs section of my last email you will see the potential energy of these two items. And this is not a mute point because the cost of recycling uranium increases the cost of plant production. However as evidence by Canadian Solar we know that we can recycle silicon and make it cost effective. I can not find numbers on recycling uranium but I assure you I will. Plants that are built only have a shelf life of 40-60 years.
Also transmission losses which = 40% by the time it gets to your house. A solar panel over 25 years still produces 80% + and at 50 years 60%+ and so on and so on. It far exceeds the life of nuclear. So by doing this math 1 kW of Solar PV on a roof top is 40% more efficeint that nuke given transmission loss. So for arguments sake we will give solar a value of 140 and Nuke a value of 100. We know that solar will loose about 1% a year so in 20 years solar = 120 in 40 years 100 and 60 years or when a nuke plant is decommisioned 80. The solar will keep doing this and Nukes will keep failing.

The US recognizes that Nuclear can not be a cost effective electric supply but it won’t stop them from making us pay to subsidize expensive transmission of Nuclear Power. To encourage development of nuclear power, under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France’s model for licensing and to subsidize 25% to 50% of the construction cost overruns due to delays for the first six new plants. Several applications have been made, two sites have been chosen to receive new plants, and other projects are pending (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).

So “We The People” are going to subsidize 50% up front and pay for it again on the backside. Now that is a failed policy.

The government is making moves to pull out of the waste storage business making new plants and owners responsible for storing this material indefinitely. Which puts the crimps on future of Nuclear here in the US.

The Cost of Construction for a CSP (concentrated Solar electricity) which are being designed to create power 24 hrs a day through stored energy is $1 per kW compared to nuclear @ $3000-7000

Andasol 1 a parabolic CSP was constructed at the cost of around €300 million (US$380 million) to build. This is continuous power output 24 hrs a day of 50 mW and annual production of 180 gigawatt hours.

If you need more info I will gladly supply it. But if I fail to educate you than it is my own shortcoming as a representative to my industry. And I might just go back to surfing = )

They can tax America more with Cap and Tax.

They can also borrow more from the Saudis, who are looking for oil welfare. (They’ve been lying about their reserves.)

Let’s whip them all, and learn how to split water with energy out of the vacuum, and have hydrogen on demand, and just eliminate the following problems: energy supply, global warming circus, Middle East oil dependency, Saudi and Iranian funding of terrorism and corruption, Russian military buildup.