I'm cautiously a proponent of pebble-bed and thorium designs for nuclear power as I've mentioned here before. But saying that his analysis doesn't take into account future designs is disingenous to say that least. Solar looks to have very inexpensive and much more efficient technology out in 5 to 10 years, depending on how much money is put into proof of concept development from current R&D. But we are talking about putting money into energy systems today, so we deal with what we have today.
I'm still cautiously optimistic about nuclear power but I think that the big thing the article showed, to me, is how far from reality nuclear proponents have been with their cost claims. I agree that similar analysis of other energy systems might show higher than proposed costs as well. But its true that we don't know until we do the analysis. The numbers I've seen for wind are quite good. There is a big push here in the Northwest to do wind installs and I know people that are doing siting, planning, etc. for commercial production installs and its impressive. Before I go plopping down a bunch of money on new generations of nuclear plants, however, I want to see real solid analysis. Nuclear power has a huge capital outlay compared with many other technologies and a larger downside. Therefore we owe it to ourselves to investigate more thoroughly before we start sinking a bunch of money into the industry. Judah On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > Bah, the comments after the article tell the real story. The author > responded in the comments at least twice, which was novel and good of him. > The biggest problem with his cost approach, whether you buy into his > methodology or not, is the lack of comparable analysis for competing > technologies. The author can talk all he wants about the high capital costs > for nuclear, but until he (or someone else) presents a side-by-side > comparison with competing technologies, his data is useless for decision > support. > > In his response, the author acknowledges the lack of comparable analysis and > seems to be suggesting that someone could pay him to do those studies as > well. Nice gig if you can get it! > > The other big limitation of his study is the lack of analysis for reactor > designs that are currently in R & D. There is a tremendous amount of promise > in pebble-bed and thorium designs, as another poster suggests. > > One thing I think is safe to say is that we will be paying significantly > more per KwH for electricity twenty years from now than we pay today. That's > just inflation. If we were paying the same rates as today, in twenty years > our inflation-adjusted costs would be roughly half compared to today > (assuming 3% inflation over that period). > > There is no question that nuclear is capital intensive - partly for > technical reasons, partly for political reasons, and partly because of the > size and duration of the projects. > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I found a really interesting analysis of costs associated with new >> nuclear power plants that indicate that they will be costing 15 to 30 >> cents per kWh which is triple current market rates. I like the idea of >> nuclear power, potentially, in the mix as low-emission power >> production but cost analysis seems to indicate that that might not be >> feasible. >> >> >> http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/ >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:284017 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
