[Global Change: 783] Re: Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

[Don Libby]

From: Alastair McDonald [am] I suspect that if you take the cost of refining the fuel, and building the reactor and turbines then the cost of nuclear power is much higher than fossil fuel generation, but obviously that does not mean that there is no net power output.     Obviously.  However, it is not true that "the cost of nuclear power is much higher than fossil fuel generation".   [am] However, if you add in the cost of decommissioning the power station when its life is over, then the cost of generation escalates enormously.    Adding the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal does raise the cost higher than the cost of construction and fuel alone, but even with those costs included, nuclear power costs about the same as coal generation.   [am] If this cost is high enough then there has been no net gain generating power using uranium. Of course this extra cost is borne mainly by our descendents, not us.    No net economic gain, or no net power gain?  The costs of generating power using uranium are borne by the user - decommissioning and disposal costs are factored into the rate paid for electricity.   [am] I have also heard it claimed that the reason that the decommissioning costs are so high is because the original power stations were producing nuclear armaments, and the cost of decommission those is being added to the costs of nuclear generation.   Obviously wrong accounting.  Who has ever added the cost of building and decommissioning factories for conventional explosives into electricity costs for fossil fuel generation?   [am] But it is conceivable that the energy needed to dispose of the nuclear stations is greater than that which they generated.    Conceivable by whom? Not conceivable by fiscally disciplined engineers.   [am] One would like to think that they could be buried cheaply in concrete and forgotten about, but what if they later exploded?   What as-yet-undiscovered laws of physics and chemistry would make them explode?  Or are you talking about mad bombers?  Mad bombers are problematic. [am] You could argue that the damage done to the environment by AGW is a cost that should be added to the conventional power stations in the same way as the disposal of nuclear waste is added to nuclear power stations, but two wrongs do not make a right.  Do you believe there is no benefit from electric power generation by fossil fuel or fission that justifies the environmental costs?  The benefits are what makes it "right".  Of the two alternatives mentioned for producing those benefits, the least costly is to be preferred by rational people. [am] However, as I see it, the real problem is that the public won't accept new nuclear power stations.    The majority of the public favors nuclear power in scientific polls.  An unscientific poll on the msnbc web site shows 70% of 6900 responders are "ready to ramp up now"  http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7921287/  .  The public in countries that are already building new nuclear power stations certainly seem willing to accept them (this is a *global* change discussion, remember?)   [am] You and James Lovelock may be willing to have a waste dump in your back yard, but I doubt your neighbours will agree.  Moreover we need more than two people willing to have nuclear waste dumps if we are going to replace all fossil fuel generation with nuclear. We need about 40 people and their neighbors willing to have them in their back yard, world wide, to accommodate a scenario A1T sized nuclear fleet with Yucca Mountain sized HLW repositories.  OTOH we will only need about 24 under the least-nuclear-intensive scenario B1, but that is not a stabilization scenario.  Even under the most wishful "Helen Caldicott" scenario, we'll need more than a few, but that is not a stabilization scenario either.    Meanwhile, about 150 new coal-fired base-load electric power generating plants are being built each year now.  Shed a tear for the cryosphere.    -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to globalchange@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---